Ill Informed?

When it comes to global warming/cooling/climate change (whatever weather-related news is being called these days), I would largely agree with the following:

Is the planet warming significantly due to human activities, and if so how much can it be expected to warm in the coming century? Frankly, I have no idea.

I would also apply a bit of simple logic to the matter. A friend recently put it along these lines: When one looks at the factors which influence the temperature of our planet we have the sun, space, and oxygen rich environment which enfolds the globe. Of these, it would appear as though the sun itself might have the greatest influence. Then, looking at the earth, we have the oceans, the continents, plant life, animal life and human life. To say that humans are the single most important factor in this equation (and that we have the power to change a planet by emitting less carbon) requires a serious dose of self-centeredness, in my non-scientific-expert opinion.

In another section of the above-quoted article, the author continues with his thoughts:

Just last week I heard a respected astrophysicist say to an audience of two hundred scientific laypeople, “Anyone who doubts that human beings are causing global warming and that it will have catastrophic consequences over the next century if we do nothing about it, is either stupid or ill-informed.” I am sure many in the audience were impressed; I was not. Lindzen is not at all stupid, and he is much better informed on this subject than the astrophysicist who made this bold claim. Physicists of the caliber of Will Happer of Princeton University and Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study have spoken out recently to express doubts about the solidity and genuineness of the scientific consensus on the subject. They also are not “stupid or ill-informed”.

To claim that there is consensus on the subject of AGW is outright untruth. To dismiss to their rooms any who would break the consensus is to strike at the very heart of the scientific approach: Hypothesize, figure out how to turn that into a testable theory, test the thing, get a bunch of other folks to test it, write up the results, compare notes, find a bit of truth, throw the rest back into the hypothesis hopper for another go-round.

Ahh, but that wouldn’t get all the government funding now, would it?