Yes Col, out of the hundreds of thousands scientists in the world, there are some out there are corrupt, dishonest and deceitful. Just like in the military, in the education department, in the hospitals, in the banks etc etc.

However, you're implying this vast conspiracy between enormous numbers of people who may have never met, who may operate in different fields and who work for different organisations.

Either the scientfic community as a whole, barring one or two individuals, is the most corrupt and grotesque bunch of individuals the world has ever seen, or we do indeed have a problem with climate change.

You can choose what to believe I guess.

Plus, there's a couple of things I don't think any of us can deny with a straight face -

I suspect we can agree that sooner or later, unless humanity develops some pretty drastic new technologies, if we continue on this current course, we will have some severe environmental repercussions.

I'd say this is pretty self evident - is there any who honestly rejects this claim? I mean, be it a few decades or a few centures, is it safe to assume that humanity's current practices aren't sustainable in the long term?

So if we can accept that sooner or later, our habits do come back to bite us, and that ecosystems aren't invulnerable, the question then becomes, what are the greatest threats. What is the form our environmental comeuppance will take?

Sure, you an point to the fact that Malthus's explanations didn't pan out - but I don't think you can pretend we don't have to face some pretty significant changes in habit.

The idea that global warming is taking place just doesn't seem that preposterous, given that the weight of scientific opinion is behind it. Cause and effect - you can't simply pump such vast quantities of any given substance into the atmosphere without having some kind of effect, sooner or later.

Sure, people might lie. People do that. Environments don't.

But the idea that no matter how much of a particular substance is put into an ecosystem, that ecosystem will remain balanced, seems preposterous.

The environment doesn't play politics - and if the vast majority of scientists are in agreement, then yeah, I'll trust them on this one, over the fringe voices of dissent.

TurnRightThenLeft said:

> Plus, there's a couple of things I don't think any of
> us can deny with a straight face -

Strewth, TurnRightThenLeft, are we reading the comments from the same forum? Some of this bunch seem to be capable of saying anything.

People are confused why scientists can't generally agree on such issues. We have an inherent belief in the "objectivity" of Science.

On closer inspection, Science is only objective, sometimes. Its conclusions are also deeply affected by financial incentives such as grants, political imperatives, social beliefs and perception of social equity issues as well as national and individual "agendas".

In the Great Global warming debate these factors coalesce with logical thought being relegated to a lesser place and hence confusion and emotions reign supreme.

What ever happened to the Ozone layer? Suddenly its a non-issue at least in the daily discourse as it has lost its "X" value.

In terms of objectivity I keep on thinking of those (including scientists, from memory) who denied any link between smoking and cancer.

Objectivity depends on where you are standing when the train speeds along.

Ozone depletion is still an issue, but it's less of a danger now thanks to bans on CFCs and the regulations introduced by the Montreal Protocol of 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

A similar statement can be said about acid rain in Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emissions_Reduction_Protocol

Scientists who denied a link with cancer and smoking? Yes, they did exist. Almost to an individual their research was funded by tobacco companies (see: http://smokingsides.com/docs/hist.html#aa15)

The following press release is also relevant. Especially the final line.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/su-tco021307.php