Reply to comment

PKRug,
You wrote this:

That raises an important point - the average Joe cannot critically evaluate heavy-duty science - can not even begin to attempt to understand what is going on. So the average Joe is strung around by his unit, not knowing who to believe, but those with the status quo (oil companies, current administration,etc) can induce enough Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt into Joe's mind that Joe will basically go with what he wants to hear, which is "There is no problem, do nothing, go back to your chair and watch Nascar".
There are 2 interesting thoughts that come to mind:
1. To many, scientists are becoming the new priesthood. In the middle ages, the common person did not challenge the authority of the church, because they did not have the authority, understanding, or ability to read latin that was given to the religious priesthood. Politicians consulted with and sometimes cohorted with the religious leaders to achieve their political goals. We are not far from that today. If the average joe can't understand science, then others must summarize the information in bits they can understand. This leads to the large likelihood of abuse from those representing both sides of a scientific argument. Obviously not a perfect analogy, but strong similarities, and a lesson from history we shouldn't ignore. Not sure what the solution is, since granting authority to any priesthood and trusting them to get it right is not all that comforting. Even with science, which is "self-correcting", there are historically long periods of time when scientific "consensus" is just plain wrong. Basing public policy on such young science is ignorant and foolish at best, and deviously opportunistic at worst. (Foxy Loxy is ready and waiting...)

2. FUD can be used by all parties. As with all scientific work that is grand in scale, one must follow the money/power train on all sides. Money, power, and research are inextricably linked. While human-influenced-global-warming supporters see the oil companies and conservative politicians as trying to manipulate information, others see the environmental lobby and liberal politicians doing the same from the other direction. Neither side enjoys objectivity here, nor do the scientists, as their paychecks depend on the ability to gain funding for their research. Who provides the funding, and where do their tendencies lie? Wherever the money lies, there lies the research. What is the political science associated with the natural scientific conclusions? Does the result push toward more governmental regulation or less? Are political parties more bent on more or less regulation, in general? I am in no way advocating either position, just observing that the "tainted by oil companies" line is often thrown about without recognizing the presence the equal and opposite taint. Welcome to the post modern world, where every position is a tainted one, and there is a Foxy Loxy behind both sides of any argument, ready and waiting to show you the way to the king...