Taking that one person's statement by itself would indeed cast dispersion on scientific methods being used to determine global warming's causes. However, it sounds like just another one of your talking points Tom. You once again paint with this wide brush making the assumption that if one scientist is pushy to prove a single theory and push aside all debate, they all are.

I've been just a casual observer in all this ruckus but I can tell you, from the sidelines, I'm hearing pretty balanced debate within the community. Individual scientists have throughout time, given one-sided arguments to support their hypothesis but there are always opposing views. Discovery Channel shows I've seen on the subject have always given alternative viewpoints as to the causes such as solar cycles and other factors in the universe. Sure seemed like the people they were quoting on those alternative theories were scientists.

I think what bothers you the most is not that people are pushing their theories about man-caused warming but that they're proposing putting the burden on industry to step up and take pre-emptive action. Hmm, that phrase sounds vaguely familiar. Didn't we just have this discussion about foreign affairs? Seems the consensus on your side was that if a threat is perceived, even if the proof is not overwhelming, then you're completely justified to attack the problem in the name of security.

Somehow I think mankind's long term survival is more threatened by the possibility that global warming is caused primarily by man than any amount of terrorism we might have to endure. I really can't see any long-range downside to making the assumption that we're greatly to blame and start making changes to the way we burn fossil fuels. My guess is, even if the theories are wrong and it's all being caused by some supernova in Orion's belt, the changes we make in our society will still be for the best. Our air will be cleaner, our energy costs less, and more political stability will ensure.

Art