<First, is the global climate getting warmer? Contrary to what some seem to believe, there is legitimate scientific debate on this point.

Second, if the climate is getting warmer, is it because of human activity? Once again, there is legitimate scientific debate on the subject.

Sadly, this important topic has been politicized to the point where it's hard to accept statements from either side without questioning their motivation. Personally, I'd prefer more scientific analysis before committing one way or the other to things like Kyoto. I prefer the doctor's dictim: "First, do no harm."



Well put, Larry.

Personally, I prefer the Boy Scout motto: "Be Prepared".

The amount of 'polarization' of opinion on the issue is sad, and I believe a large part of it results from lowest-common-denominator explanations in the popular press, which in turn perpetuate the common notion that What Scientists Say is Fact. Those unaccustomed to the evolution of understanding, as expressed in scientific theory, often conclude that there are adversarial "sides" - accompanied by agendas to motivate conflict - whenever a new data set appears which seems to contradict a previous one. That is: "one of these guys is lying, so he must have a reason for it."

I believe the first question above needs to be restated, and the problem approached as a matter of contingency planning: stipulate that warming is real, and model the effects at various rates of change, and make plans to compensate. The ultimate effect of any large-scale climatic change will be the relocation of human populations, and that is where our thinking should be directed.

If it turns out that we're misinterpreting noise as signal, we can breathe a collective sigh that all of our planning wasn't needed. To apply an analogy from my former profession: you hope the sprinkler system is never needed, but you put it in anyway.

Fox