I've written before about how my issues with Global Warming orthodoxy are really the only source of conflict. I don't know enough to say that their theory of man-made warming is wrong. I know that I find their data unconvincing and their methods ineffective.
What is a telling sign of the weakness of their science is the reaction of Global Warmists to "conscientious objectors." One such person is Freeman Dyson, who is profiled in this New York Times Magazine article:
Dyson says he doesn’t want his legacy to be defined by climate change, but his dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science. Dyson has said he believes that the truths of science are so profoundly concealed that the only thing we can really be sure of is that much of what we expect to happen won’t come to pass. In “Infinite in All Directions,” he writes that nature’s laws “make the universe as interesting as possible.” This also happens to be a fine description of Dyson’s own relationship to science. In the words of Avishai Margalit, a philosopher at the Institute for Advanced Study, “He’s a consistent reminder of another possibility.” When Dyson joins the public conversation about climate change by expressing concern about the “enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories,” these reservations come from a place of experience. Whatever else he is, Dyson is the good scientist; he asks the hard questions. He could also be a lonely prophet. Or, as he acknowledges, he could be dead wrong.I really hope you read the article. Dyson is a fascinating man, and above all, a good scientist. I don't think we would agree on everything. His politics ar emore liberal than mine, but he does share my disdain for Al Gore and James Hanson. He asks tough questions and his kind of dissent is the kind that we need.