This author's use of the word "deniers" makes his objectivity highly suspect. In science, the only "targets" should be the arrival at factual information, sound theory and usable technology. I confess I still feel a bit odd questioning doctrine that has been embraced by so many (but, but no means all) in the scientific community. "Doctrine," which denotes what is often termed "political correctness." In reality, a number of commentators in the seventies and eighties spoke of the possible dangers of climate change, but in the framework of global cooling, not warming. A recent London Times article described how recent temps in Britain have been unseasonably low, and how the polar icecap has regained much of the mass it had lost. We already knew that part of the Antarctic glacier pack has been growing for some time, not thinning. If an open-minded individual is willing to spend a few minutes perusing the US Senate Minority Report on Climate Change from a few years ago--easily locatable online--s/he will notice that some 700 reputable scientists now have serious doubts about the global warming premise. This premise is based on several assumptions, and the more one examines these the more one must admit that, while we seem to have been witnessing some unusual weather phenomena, it is not at all clear that this is man-made, nor that it is in the direction of warming.
There is also the possibility that US military attempts to affect weather, using HAARP technology to "screw with" the ionosphere (since the fifties), may have finally yielded egregious fruit. Please examine the facts, and then draw reasonable conclusions. Anything else is pseudo-science or just yelling "Sieg heil!" to the propagandists or nut-cases.
Dr. Thomas Halle
Los Angeles, CA
Apr 23 2010 - 12:16am