The problem is that now AGW is on a moral footing, with oil companies in the role tobacco companies were in 20ish to 30ish years ago. That's an artifact of the

The problem is that now AGW is on a moral footing, with oil companies in the role tobacco companies were in 20ish to 30ish years ago. That's an artifact of the propagandistic nature of the actors in the issue - on both sides. I believe they do that because it better meets their goals. They have a need to win. And it's not an imagined need - the issue has slipped into an adversarial shape. The article exposes this well - people are well-bifurcated around two poles - 1) it's the end of the world or 2) it's no big deal. Maybe that is right, but I rather expect there's something else in play ( because the timescales are fairly long and we're bounded by out ability to learn ) , and that the more productive approach will be more moderate and possibly more experimental. Taking the position of "no, everyone must modify their behavior" does not seem the most reasonable of all possible positions. But I am just interested in it as a problem to be solved, not as a means of winning something. IMO, all the furor seems more likely to produce heat than light. It's slightly crank-ey but I still enjoyed Chrichton's "State of Fear" immensely.