Pandaemoni- I apologize for my initial glib response- but I found your post somewhat elitist. Old cynic that I am, too many years in this business have illustrated that the consensus view should usually be eyed as suspect. You’re probably not old enough to remember the “consensus” view on mountain building in the 50’s and 60’s- involving deep sedimentary basins (geosynclines) and isostatic uplift? Continental drift?- ridiculed. Crustal plates moving about- impossible. But even undergraduate students just starting out in geology could see that there were problems with the “consensus” view. Certainly, today’s consensus view on global warming is also far from ironclad. I agree. However, the response to global warming *is* a political decision. I think we would both agree that an informed public will make better political choices than one mired in ignorance. How does the public become informed? Unfortunately, most people don’t have the time, the background or the access to read scientific journals (not that the scientific journals aren’t immune to advocacy). I applaud anyone who is willing to try to understand the differing scientific views on complex issues. In my experience, most people can differentiate propaganda from scientific studies. Global warming is real. The political debate shouldn’t be “What’s the cause?”, but rather “What are we going to do about it?” This decision requires weighing the marginal costs of CO2 abatement against not only the potential costs and benefits of global warming, but also against the opportunity costs. Would our resources be better spent to fight HIV/AIDS, or malaria prevention, or to provide foods and supplements to ward off malnutrition? I am an infrequent visitor to this forum, due to ongoing field work, so my posts are somewhat sporadic.