For this policy statement, global warming, which goes by many other names, refers not to the natural greenhouse effect necessary to make the planet habitable, but anthropogenic that is man-induced contributions to the effect leading to additional global warming and related climate change. Unfortunately I discovered that so much of what has been written on the subject is contaminated with partisan politics and spin. No wonder you're confused. I almost became dazed myself. I am concerned about a growing print and broadcast fascism or media McCarthyism when it comes to anything even remotely "political", even making political that which is not or should not be. A willful disregard for the facts if you will. What we have is a poisonously partisian debate of political pornography instead of a postpartisan pragmatic approach to problem solving that rewards independent thinking over those stuck to an ideology or dogma. Regrettably hate talk for profit is big business. A fragmented and fearful America is easier to manipulate. Thanks to the inflamatory rhettoric of the polarizers-- the vampires who feed off the blood of an embattled public, right and left leaning citizens have become two peoples seperated by a common language. And it becomes difficult to render one language's reality into another tongue. But TV and radio bottom-feeders who practice the dark arts of extreme punditry have as their un-patriotic and un-Christian primary goal that of their own renown. Pimping themselves to the lowest common denominator as the prevailing wind blows based on polls and focus groups to decide what stands to take to be most popular. Because to them the almighty dollar is worshiped over The Almighty. But for some of us who turn off these programs, intellectual complexity makes the truth much more interesting than talking head fiction.

I didn't feel confused before I started, relying only on what I could remember from every scientific paper I've read on climate change questions over the past 30 years. I became a student member of the American Meteorological Society when I started high school and that's when my reading began. So I view the matter through a lens ground by decades of study. But reading or listening to the popular media on the subject leads the head to swim. To paraphrase the theologian Weigle, we may be grappling with the extreme limitations of the discernable. Hard issues require hard thinking. But I fear free-range lunacy has become a new American sport with the plethora of broadcast shows and editorials generating nuclear heat but little light, where anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed by a fierce, bullying witless tone of intolerance.

This odious and disdainful poision may be popular and successful, but we all pay the price for the uncivilized tone, the big lies and the smear tactics. The many same-message talkers in the comentariat are a powerful self-styled self-important wealthy elite. In reality they have small minds and even smaller vision thanks to their addiction to money and power, they are mere wealth junkies. These Power Kings are bowed down to by their fans. The paid to talk professional blabbers are full of bitterness and angry at fate that they're on top of the world. Their sense of injury nurturing their stubbornly held resentments. Their heavy-handed tactics make sure we dont work things out, keeping us in a perpetual state of emergency. If red and blue states get along there is no money and power in it for them. But their supremacist belief creates its own reality, a series of circles, a world where people of good will dont belong-- where tough talk is worshiped as if it were action, and facts are sacrificed at the altar of me-too entertainment passing as information. The self-satisfied self-referential monologue is laughable, but is also a sad personality defect and character flaw. For the life of me I dont understand why tearing apart our country is considered entertainment or a high calling worthy of fame and fortune. In my Midwestern Traditional American Family Values this strikes me as unAmerican and unChristian. What we need is the radical center. A center which collects evidence and weighs it in the light of history and experience, and balances the unknowns, to reach as reasonable and responsible a conclusion, as compromise and consensus can build. Our plastic nation must realize truth does not belong to the loudest or the strongest. A clever burn or shouting doesn't make your case better, and the truth is not just a point of view.

There is ample room for specific disagreements, but the only hoax I am aware of is the claim of a hoax. There is no consensus there's a hoax and no proof of a hoax. Innate reason makes me tend to believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, and I believe what I "see" for myself, not what some columnist and TV or radio star tells me to "see". I scoff at those who laugh off claims of vast conspiracies then say a vast conspiracy exits against their point of view when it suits them.

There are a lot of written and verbal nonscientific personal opinions in the media, but posturing aside, the scientific expertise of those active in climate research far exceeds that of most professional meteorologists including myself, and is therefore well beyond that of some appologist blow-hard with a blog or a tv/radio show or editorial. The consensus view is certainly not final or definitive, science is dynamic, but its the best science we have now. At least we can admit the experts know more than we or our favorite talk show host or writer. And we should do our citizen homework to make sure some expert quoted to support an agenda is really no expert at all.

Unlike in religion and politics, in science we insist something can be true, only if it is also factual. This is quite different from easy-answer media where everyone is an expert. A realm where even a failed lawyer or former house painter can suddenly be an expert at economics, global climate, defense and foreign policy-- because they say so, have a blog or have a microphone or camera in front of their loud mouth. I suppose we must always hear from the peanut-gallery pundits. But these flamethrowers with their scorched earth tactics provide only an invisibility cloak for truth. This copycat idiocy is enjoyed by and perpetuated by mean-spirited people who get a charge out of seeing other people all riled up. This media frenzy and manic debate is ideal for those married to faith-based dogma. Never let reality get in the way of an opinion. For the big mouth and the lazy ear, the broadcast carnival is the perfect place for minds undisciplined by steady engagement with complexities. A debate about a serious issue is not the same as a serious debate. Too many fans of the genre don't get that, clearly neither do its practishioners. But historically speaking it is best to beware the arrogance of power and to question authority, even if its only self-proclaimed.

The same people who whine ad infinitum about education in America look down on intellectuals. This is perfect in Americas new no-accountability culture where the incompetent get a medal and a spirit of gentleness is rejected as weak by a professed Christian nation despite the teachings of Jesus. Thus our country has lost its moral poise. I find the orchestrated choreography of talking points of left and right wing political correctness both vapid and boring. It may not be sexy or get great ratings, but building a consensus with reasoned confidence takes hard work and guts. In olden times this was America at her best.

As history professor Cooperman of the Univeristy of Maryland observed, the problem with so-called info-tainment in news and talk, is that as a result, its fans have come to believe that all expertise is bias, that all knowledge is opinion, that every judgement is relative. They dont believe in the transformative power of knowledge because they do not believe in knowledge itself. It's more important to them that something "feels true". So they look for "data" or headlines that support their position no matter how superficially, they suffer from "confirmatory bias". But no serious problem can be addressed by a society that equates willful ignorance with freedom of thought.

As JFK said: "The great enemy of the truth is often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, pursuasive, and unrealistic. The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction. Too many enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought".

In science papers the issue is not as divisive because researchers on both sides follow the scientific method and therefore acknowledge potential limits of their data and findings. The whole enterprise is peer reviewed to ensure the methodology; data and conclusions are scientifically sound. Supporters and critics get to see it all in this transparent open source approach to seeking truth and facts. Objections and concerns are answered until an intellectual equilibrium is reached. The authors of these papers would not recognize their own work after reporters, politicians and talk show hosts get a hold of it. I did not keep all those scientific journal articles nor do I have all those ever published on the issue. Nobody has read all of them. Even if I did, I cannot vet and parse them all for you because that would be a full time job, and I already have one.

So all I can do for now is give you my thoughts on the whole mess. Scientists are trained to ask questions and seek objective proof. Trust is minimal, which is why new findings take a while to become widely accepted. I look forward and backward with a seeking eye, and see the present with a jaundiced one. Among other things the precautionary principle, von Neumann measurements, Heisenberg's principle, information theory and Lorenz Chaos Theory all apply to the question at hand.

I have found that BOTH sides are guilty of the same disingenuous sins of spin in the popular press. I found much to attack on both sides, so a pox on both their houses. This is not an endorsement of or rebuttal to Al Gore's movie (haven't seen it yet) or anyone or anything else. When trying to decide serious matters I avoid those I know to have a predetermined agenda, like politicians and their mouthpiece supporter-advocates, the masters of spin on radio and TV shows who are willing collaborators in the neofascist war on reason and enlightenment.

Please don't confuse the popular media with scientific findings. And remember there is doubt, and then there is reasonable doubt. As Keats said "The poetry of the earth is never dead. I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections, and the truth of imagination." Global warming may be controversial, but we can work through it if we heed Lincoln and follow "the better angels of our nature".

While this is not a work of scholarship or the comprehensive science brief I set out to attempt, I hope it will give you a sense of the scope and nature of the debate. Borrowing from the author of Franklin and Winston I have tried only to make some small contribution to swelling the ranks of those in what Thomas Jefferson called "reasonable society" -- those willing to approach these questions with an historical sensibility, an analytical mind, and, at the risk of wistfulness, an open heart. So let us conduct this debate in a spirit of grace, and steer a middle course. To turn the poet Yeats, the center must hold.

Next page