Climate change is complicated, and while there is a worldwide consensus that temperatures are rising and humankind is responsible, scientists don't all put their flasks and beakers down and go home at that point.
The only reason climate change been reduced to simplistic, diametrically opposed possibilities is because industry interests and their political allies have politicized the issue in the interest of saving money in the short term. Lest we, say, try to do anything about it, like limiting carbon emissions by law.
We're forced to litigate the most basic things, because we have a continuing tradition, especially strong in this country, of people taking some kind of pride in being able to "believe" whatever they want, including whether facts are facts or not.
We should be well past the question of whether we're impacting climate, and into the exponentially finer details of exactly how we're impacting climate, and how we can mitigate future disastrous effects. And we are, but down here at the layperson level, we still deal mostly with Joe the Plumber type debate over whether scientists are just a bunch of silly hippies out to spoil Exxon's party.
All of which is to say it's perfectly that normal science goes on, including whatever bits and pieces may not point directly to anthropmorphic climate change. As long as it's real, objective inquiry, science should do what it does -- question everything and try to disprove every hypothesis.
= new reply since forum marked as read
