What will it take to result in a general acceptance of the facts? Riots in the streets in Western nations? It appears likely that this will indded be necessary, because our civilisation, dominant on this small planet, has ignored failure of society on whole continents such as Africa for a hundred years or more, is incapable of sorting out even the relatively small Israel-Palestine problem, apart from selling arms to both sides, and has for half a century now spent large portions of its treasure on making war in Vietnam through to the middle east.

So, my grandchildren are probably going to receive an inheritance consisting mainly of a depleted planet, warfare over land and water, and short and brutal lifespans for most of the world’s inhabitants.

For those who either don’t know or don’t care about climate change:
Rational folks change their view when new facts are proved by science.
To not adopt to new information, but to continue previous behaviour and beliefs in the face of new data is not scientific or rational - in fact it is a good working definition of insanity.
Climate change sceptics are thus certainly insane.

What the rest of us (perhaps 95% of rational folk) need to work out, is where and how to lock up the sceptics, so that we can set about fixing this planet.

Climate change will almost certainly make the current economic crisis, which is primarily just a sideshow, staged on Main Street by economic vandals and thieves, who know no limits to their vanity and desire for wealth. This will pass.

Climate change, meanwhile is getting bigger, meaner and faster than predicted.

And we allow “balance” interfere with this struggle, which is the largest matter of life and death ever confronted on the planet in the time of human inhabitation!

If there is no such involvement by Dr Glickson can he explain why filtering of these critical issues by someone from a different discipline is relevant. What is the agenda? Is it to demonstrate that the workers in this field are bad at self promotion, or incapable of communicating their work to the broader public?

Spotlighting any canon of work by Dr Glickson relevant to the manmade aspects of this crisis will help overcome the view of some associates that he is just a rent seeker trying to get a grip on the shirt tails of those actually doing the original research into the human causes of global warming and climate change.

a not insignificant, and surprisingly well informed, body of scientists say that climate change is driven by solar activity, sun spots in particular, solar winds, and ocean currents, all vast and natural phenomena and not man made co2 emissions.

co2 was found in the natural environment many many years before man produced such emissions and, the skeptics will say, is a result of natural climate change and not a cause. it seems to me that the debate is far from won and therefore both sides well deserve 50% of the publicity..

it must seem to every generation that weather events that THEY experience are the most extreme, the worst ever and so on but how are we to really know that when accurate records are barely more than a hundred years old in this country? and is such an historically small statistical sample really a proper basis for making extrapolations like “the world will over heat in 50 years and we’ll all die?”

and btw Engineer, it’s not the silly benighted people who are preventing peace in palestine. there would be peace there tomorrow if america stopped arming israel to the teeth, pure and simple.

The debate is endless not because the facts are in dispute but because ‘presenting the controversy’ has become the delaying tactic of choice for people who just don’t want to take action. With tobacco it just cost individual lives, with evolution it doesn’t really matter what fundementalists want to believe. But I don’t think people are going to want to debate grade-school scientific mistakes for too much longer for the comfort of people who can’t realise the status quo is dead. If you doubt me, find me a climate change denier under 20.