Christian Science Monitor article on global-warming controversy
Amid mounting evidence that temperatures are rising on planet Earth, the "skeptics" and "agnostics" are a smaller band than they used to be. Yet those who do still harbor doubts about a looming global-warming crisis are quietly continuing to test alternative ideas about how climate works and what, if not the burning of fossil fuels, might be causing the temperature creep . . . . .
. . . . . even critics acknowledge that science is a discipline that needs its maverick thinkers - and that the global-warming skeptics and their research provide a kind of reality check on the climatology field . . .
"To imply that any scientist who has questions about global warming is somehow part of an orchestrated campaign" by industry or interest groups greatly oversimplifies the spectrum of motivations among those outside the consensus view, says Annie Petsonk, a lawyer with Environmental Defense. "It is much more complicated than that."
History shows that science is a field in which it can be difficult to achieve consensus -- even when the question at hand has no public-policy implications. When the question gets tangled up with politics, economics, and lifestyles, the ranks of the unconvinced can thin far more grudgingly.
Labels: Evolution controversy (1 of 4)