No one is claiming that climatological models alone can properly describe the atmosphere/ocean system, which is admittedly very poorly understood. And certainly no one is claiming that these models alone make an airtight case for anthropogenic global warming. In fact, the state of the art is such that there may be no way of settling this controversy with total assurance, at least not until it's too late to do anything about it.

What we do know is that compelling historical evidence from a variety of sources suggests that anthropogenic global warning does indeed exist, at least enough to bring about a consensus among many, if not most researchers in the field. I am not a climatologist myself, but I do have technical training, in both the earth and physical sciences, and I am inclined to think the problem is probably real and the warnings valid. And I am absolutely convinced that it cannot be summarily dismissed or waved aside or postponed until we do "further research".

The undeniable fact that we are adding tons of gases and particulates, both exotic and banal, to the atmosphere through our industrial activities, as well as possibly aggravating potential effects by our urbanization, agricultural, mining, and logging practices, by itself suggests that we are conducting an experiment with our atmosphere and the global heat engine unprecedented in recorded history. Perhaps this experiment will have no long term deleterious effects, or that it will be masked by natural excursions in environmental parameters. Perhaps. But we do not know that, and I submit that the burden of proof is on those who wish to continue this experiment indefinitely, not on those who question its wisdom. This is particularly critical when it is plainly obvious that these potentially adverse practices continue to increase at an exponential rate and that the global economy appears to be addicted to this uncontrolled growth.

Those who are critical of this point of view would have us believe that concern for these environmental effects is somehow the result of an organized Luddite cabal determined to destroy industrial civilization and push the world back into some romantic eighteenth century pastoral paradise, all for the sake of some sinister political ideology, but they give little evidence as to how this conspiracy is organized, propagated and funded. On the other hand, the denialists, innocently or not, represent the point of view and the interests of organizations who will be severely inconvenienced by attempts to solve this problem, and who have every financial incentive to make sure that nothing is done about it. They also command the monetary and political resources to place every obstacle they can in the path of efforts to address this issue. This is a classic conflict of interest situation. How do you expect a neutral observer to react? To insist on complete and total unanimity of opinion and incontrovertible proof that is accepted by all sides? I suspect that is never going to happen, no more than it did with pesticides, cigarettes, asbestos, dioxins, air quality or water pollution.

Those who feel threatened by the economic consequences of controlling global warming might take some comfort in the fact that strategies to combat this problem have an immediate and intrinsic value, even if global warming turns out to be a false alarm. It simply makes sense to reduce pollutants, conserve energy, and promote sound urban, industrial, agricultural and extractive activities. The environment can never again revert to pristine wilderness, but it can be managed for renewable long term productivity instead of maximum short-term profit. This will improve the quality of life, free us from dependance on foreign resources, contribute to our physical health and national security, and in the long run, create new industries and yes, be good for business.

And yes, we do need the moderating voice of industry and commerce to caution and temper the more radical elements coalescing about the environmental movement. Responsible environmentalists recognize these extremists in our ranks, and we are baffled that the other side doesn't recognize similar fanatics in their own.