I think it is quite ludicrous that there has been so much on-going debate on "Global Warming." What really gets my dander up is this notion that "scientific concensus" equals proof that such a thing actually exists.
In an article I found on Financial Times (via a link from Slashdot), Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus openly declares his frustration with a scientific community whose primary purpose is no longer to seek truth, but is to enact global social change through not hard data, but "scientific concensus" based on woefully inadequate sources. I urge you to read his piece, as I am afraid I'll do it no justice. Suffice it to say, that I whole-heartedly agree with it, and hope someone gets the cohones to take the scientific community to task and ask for truly hard evidence, rather than near-religious faith in quite sketchy speculation based on data which they have twisted and bent to fit their own socio-political agenda; state what their political affiliation is and demand that we know what might be their motivation for such religious fervor about something that has no substantial proof.
Link: Financial Times Article by Vaclav Klaus
