From a wise friend

“I loosely quote a science-fiction author (David Brin), himself a fairly good scientist. He says that there is a difference between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic is fairly convinced that the scientists at least know what they’re doing and are not part of a major conspiracy. But he or she will also point out that there are holes in the research, and areas where assertions are being made that cannot be supported as effectively.

Probably a skeptic will believe something like:

* The temperature change is happening. Measured, and accepted.

* Greenhouse gases could very likely be responsible – at least, computer models predict such a thing (though we’ll never be able to actually prove it).

* People might well be responsible for enough of the greenhouse gases to be at least a major part of the problem.

However, a lot of the debate is done in parliaments full of people that don’t really understand the science. It’s therefore not surprising that most of the “solutions” they propose achieve little or nothing.”

February 2010