I keep watching with interest the crescendo of debate on global warming orchestrated to coincide with the Copenhagen Summit which is now underway. I am no scientist and a great number of you reading this post probably understand the data and implications better than I do.
It does seem to me that those who believe that humans are causing the planet to warm may be guilty of some dirty tricks regarding peer review inclusion of dissenting views. This is a shame because peer review and debate to me is a time-honored tradition and through the friction of opposing views, observers can come to informed conclusions.
I wish political arguments on say health care used peer review. Then most of us Americans might know a bit more about what we are talking about and logic might prevail over emotions.
Most people are emotional on the issue of climate change as well. And I think both sides in the scientific community have managed to dent their own credibility.
But that's not the key issue. The key issue is that the risks in not acting in a global way may end life as we know it on Earth. It is clear that the overwhelming number of those expert in this field see overwhelming evidence that we are on a path of destruction so imminent that it could impact or even terminate the lives of our grandchildren.
So when I hear the argument that the Earth has only warmed by a mere half degree in 30 years and therefore the movement to curb emissions is a massive and costly overreaction, I wonder.
Maybe they are right, but am I willing to risk the lives of my grandchildren on that speculation? My oldest granddaughter is 11.Perhaps, if she drove my car down a highway she would not hurt herself, or anyone else, but why would I take that risk?
Who in their right mind would take that risk? What society in its right collective wisdom would take that risk?
We'll find out the answer to that question very shortly in Copenhagen.