more of the same... except opposite

As someone who is probably more skeptical about global warming than the average person I appreciate reading something from someone who wasn't convinced beyond doubt that global warming is not only going to happen but already is happening. (obviously Crichton is quite the opposite.) I thought Crichton portrayed this type of thinking well with the statement "It is not speculative. It is happening". I feel like a state of emergency is being declared about to global warming (and perhaps rightfully so) that forces people to "pick a side". And when the consequence of the world doing nothing and being wrong is global destruction it would make sense that the average person would agree that something should be done. And in fact even those who don't neccesarily believe the hype of global warming usually are in support of reducing emmissions. Making a decision to elimate the worst possible scenario isn't all bad but I feel like it prevents productive conversation on the topic.

The novel dissapoints me not that it is one sided but that it seems to think it is objective. He talks about the danger of politics mixed with science and though I agree with him I realize that the seperation of the two is implausable at best. The problem that we are facing is that it seems no one (i hope im wrong in saying this) is willing to take a close look at the facts that don't support their opinions, or atleast not publicly. Isn't there anyone that doens't have so much stake (whether political or otherwise) in their own opinion that they are willing to discuss the facts and admit that science doesn't 100% support their view. I guess this is what we hope to accomplish in this class but few of us have sufficient scientific knowledge to really weigh in with anything that hasn't already been put through a political filter.