It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

I’m glad to hear you have some reporting going on into the primary sources themselves. I will try to keep up with your blog (and any articles I become aware of) and look forward to hearing your own impressions.

While I appreciate your obvious desire to be balanced and fair by presenting both sides’ views, I’m anxious for the mainstream press (may I tease you with the label “prestige press”?) to get in front of this story.

Thanks again…
csf

As a voter.
As an evangelist.
As a contributor of time and/or money.
As a public influencer (whether as an official, a pundit, or a critic).

Additionally, but in an at least slightly different way, one can be a candidate. General Powell is attempting to be a public influencer. Whether right or wrong, the people who, together, influence the actual direction of the party are going to buy into or reject his advice based on far more than the actual validity of his argument. This is as true of Democrats as it is of Republicans.

Personally? If Powell had remained quiet during the election, and especially if he had actually supported the ticket, he would have far more clout than he has now to bring his brand of reform. Then, I would argue for or against his point.

As it is, there are three kinds of people whose “help” I’m not interested in having my party receive. Democrats. Liberal or “moderate” journalists. Stab-in-the-back Republicans. General Powell falls in the latter category.

Remember, Republicans—against my deepest wishes—nominated the exact kind of candidate Powell now claims to support. Instead, he voted for—and publicly endorsed—a candidate almost certainly guaranteed to move the country toward socialism.

And that, big tent or not, is not what the Republican Party stands for.