Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.
There's some politicians who still seriously believe that we haven't got global warming.
As this body of knowledge has evolved, a much more critical job for researchers and scientists has evolved into explaining and educating policy makers and the public to the risks of global warming and the possible consequences of action or of no action.
Many of the alarmists on global warming, they've got a problem because the science doesn't back them up.
How is it that, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, there are still some who would deny the dangers of climate change? Not surprisingly, the loudest voices are not scientific, and it is remarkable how many economists, lawyers, journalists and politicians set themselves up as experts on the science.
Global warming is controversial, of course, but the controversy is mainly over whether human activity is driving it.
Politicians or pundits can distort or cherry-pick climate science any way they want to try and gain temporary influence with the public. But any serious industrialist who's facing 'climate exposure' - as it's now called by money managers - cannot afford to engage in that sort of self-delusion.
Most North Americans know that human-caused global warming is real, even if political leaders don't always reflect or act on that knowledge.
Climate change - for so long an abstract concern for an academic few - is no longer so abstract. Even the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Programme reports 'clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.'
The question of whether or to what extent human activities are causing global warming is not a matter of ideology, let alone of belief. The issue is simply one of risk management.