I was with John on global warning - I'd seen too many scientists debunking it and there just wasn't enough science. Not just scientists with ties to the current administration, oil companies, or big money either. It was pretty much 50/50 for a long time. That was until I saw this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml


>Then why are most scientists on one side of the issue? Most of the politics I see are the denials from the oil companies and those beholden to them. As Doug Dodge -- whose politics are a whole lot closer to yours than to mine -- likes to say, follow the money.
>
>Let me phrase it an entirely different way. Do you think we are doing what we should be for the environment? Even if we have provided only 5% (debatable), isn't that 5% too much?
>
>
>>No it isn't. That's half right. The expert consensus is that it exists, the debate is how much is human caused. Most climatologists will tell you that we contribute about 5% of the greenhouse gasses into the air.
>>
>>A normal volcano eruption will put more crap in the air than all human activities combined will in a given year.
>>
>>What bothers me is how this has become a political debate and not a scientific one.
>>
>>>>I really don't know if there is global warming.
>>>
>>>We're lay people. The expert consensus is that it exists and caused by humans