I found Rudy’s statements in the June 22 editorial interesting in view of my own experience investigating this admittedly emotionally charged subject since I have arrived at precisely the opposite conclusion. Having recently been prompted to explore the whole anthropogenic global warming/climate change controversy by increasingly frequent claims of scientific consensus, I have personally been unable to find a satisfactory scientific study supporting a anthropogenic CO2 (or related “green house gas” emission) causal link to global temperature changes. Instead, the literature seems to be well populated with studies which implicitly assume an anthropogenic cause for climate change and proceed to address whatever effect being reported upon might result. The reliance of the anthropogenic climate change theory on global circulation models which appear to be poorly validated is hardly incontrovertible proof. One thing that does seem to have resulted from the recent focus on climate change is an apparent increasingly sophisticated understanding of the various natural forces effecting global temperature cycles.

Rather than sneering at opinions at odds with the so-called consensus, resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks, one would do well to retain an open mind towards such a politically important subject. The stakes have been raised to high levels and the consequences have the potential to be profound to future scientific funding and economic growth.

i think, that almost every scientist knows, that co2 can not be a primary climate driver.

everybody who do so, must be well payed or a piltdown thinker.

but is does not realy matter. this co2 trading ist big business and it will stop in a few years, because there is no hope for further global warming.
all the guys like gore and other “consensus fanatics” will be recovered like the club of rome: always wrong, but we forgott!

1. “Increasingly difficult to challenge”. I have been reading extensively on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately both have very politicized persons that damage credibility. Sorting through the specifics, there are some very credible “skeptics”. Give them their due. It would be nice to see a scientific discussion regarding their objections instead of the ad hominem attacks. Have you searched out any of the many credible skeptics and discussed the basis of objections?

2. I would welcome your providing a solid reference in the pro camp that is not linked to the IPCC or IPCC report. All the Pro AGW groups tend to reference back to IPCC. The flaws in IPCC are very well documented. The IPCC reports fail in my scientific credibility test, as the politicization is clear on the pages. The links in your editorial all tie back to “see IPCC”. I welcome your reading suggestions for a good scientific discussion on AGW (not the political glossy brochures).

3. Your editorial is loaded with subjective labels not worthy of a scientific publication. Labels have no role in a scientific discussion. “Deniers” has politically loaded connotations, that you realize and thus by using, you indicate a subjective view on your part. Use “skeptics”
Other subjective labels used include: whipping boy, die hard, purveyors of nonsense, flogging a report,
Your directly inferring the link to creationists, is over the top. This is an old political ploy, not science. And, you wonder at expressed anger.

4. Did you read the NIPCC report prior to your comments. Specifically, with what specific detailed items in the report do you disagree? Based upon what science? Did you approach them with your specific objections for discussion? Have you read any of the publications of the listed authors? Which of the referenced articles is incorrect?

Basically, your editorial was very swallow and politically charged. One wishes ACS would be a much more scientifically based organization, even in editorial comments. Science needs to rise above the politicians. The too extensive feeding tube of funding from political organizations has and will corrupt science. Maybe your editorial is indicative of the state of our corruption as a profession. Want tenure or funding, here is all you need to say…………