Um, are you sure that email came from the Discovery channel and not the Discovery Institute? Two
very different organizations....
Here's the thing with global warming: the science is in that mankind is at least partly responsible. That part is no longer in doubt, so get over it. Where there
is still room for debate, is A, the degree to which GW will affect us, and B, what we can or should do about it.
I for one have been disappointed at the many times I've heard someone make a really ridiculous claim about climate change like "the sea will rise up and swallow all our major cities" or "this could make humans go extinct" and then
not heard a rebuttal from those in the climate change community who should know better. (The media is equally to blame I think.) Apparently it's for the greater good to let slide a little hyperbole if it will get the masses scared enough to care about GW.
Regarding what to do about GW, I also have a problem there. Far and away about the only solution being given any press or consideration involves major cuts to energy usage, cuts we can't make at this time without far greater economic upheavals than would ever be caused by GW. A case of the medicine being worse than the disease. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that the Kyoto protocol was a monumental waste of money for an absolutely
negligible impact on climate change. Why so little attention to geothermal, nuclear, wind, solar, and other alternatives? What about efforts to seed the oceans with iron to soak up more CO2? Has anyone even done a cost/benefit analysis using the
most likely GW outcomes? (I do recall one study some months back, which was roundly criticized as being economically flawed and questionable in its assumptions.)
I think the time is over for denying the existence of GW. At the same time, though, I think we need to do a lot more thinking outside of the wealth-redistribution economic box, and give serious consideration to the economic harm that will be done by our current proposed "solutions."