There is evidence that somewhere back a LOONG way, the earth rotated on its side and the poles got more sunlight than the equator... wouldn't that be something?
The whole problem I have with science in the US (and it may be this way everywhere) is that it's vision has gotten as short as the next grant cycle. (much as the US stock market has become myopic) Unless the research is being funded BY someone in order to return a certain result (which happens all the time) it's funded based on it's seeming merit. In order to establish that your project has merit you need to make a LOT of noise... BIG FINDINGS, WORLD CHANGING RESULTS, COLD FUSION!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] Of course this leads to a lot of overstating and hysteria inducing press releases, that turn out to be borderline BS. Honestly I think that BOTH sides of this issue are equally guilty of garbage science. One side overstates EVERY finding to try to whip up public support, the other side finds a needle of dissenting results in a haystack of confirming data and promply demands we throw out the WHOLE LOT.
Makes me glad I'm an Engineer.
Bottom line for me: We ARE changing our environment, we ARE increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, we have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what that means over the long haul, but it could be VERY BAD, or it could mean nothing. In light of such information, it would seem the smarter course would be to follow the path that minimizes our chances of wipeing ourselves out. Very bad on one side... not much of anything on the other... I'd try to minimize the Very bad side myself.
That doesn't mean I support Kyoto... when I looked into it I came to the conclusion that I'm not much in the mood to "do my part" when so many other countries get waivers and exemptions.