I honestly do not know what the truth is about the science on global warming.
There is enough scientific information available for me to believe, which is quite different from knowing, that the climate of the earth is undergoing a warming period.
Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence for me to believe that said warming is, in part, a function of human endeavors.
Where reasonable people may disagree, it seems to me, is in the extent to which such warming trends could happen in the absence of human intervention, and, regardless of the answer to that question, whether or not we ought to do something to stop the trend.
My problem with the debate, and the reason why I have not participated in virtually any of the threads on the topic in this forum, is that I still think that
the science is not yet definitive to the point of proscription or prescription.
Having said that, it is precisely the 'losing friends or acquaintances or being attacked for taking a position' that prevents me engaging the topic. Dyson's intelligence and academic corpus are put into question because of his scepticism regarding the preferred path from this point forward. This, to me, is an example of the left being as intolerant of the disagreeable intelligence as they often accuse the far right of being.

Reply With Quote