During the past week's heat wave--it hit 100 degrees in New York City Monday--I got thinking, again, of how sad and frustrating it is that the world's greatest scientists cannot gather, discuss the question of global warming, pore over all the data from every angle, study meteorological patterns and temperature histories, and come to a believable conclusion on these questions: Is global warming real or not? If it is real, is it necessarily dangerous? What exactly are the dangers? Is global warming as dangerous as, say, global cooling would be? Are we better off with an Earth that is getting hotter or, what with the modern realities of heating homes and offices, and the world energy crisis, and the need to conserve, does global heating have, in fact, some potential side benefits, and can those benefits be broadened and deepened? Also, if global warning is real, what must--must--the inhabitants of the Earth do to meet its challenges? And then what should they do to meet them?
Keep in mind, this was printed in the Journal today, July 20, 2006. What cave has Noonan been living in? These questions have long been answered. Only the most foolish, blind followers of Bush republicanism do not accept the findings of virtually all climate scientists. The work has been done, we know what we need to do. Actually, I assume Noonan knows this and is just trying to muddy the water on the issue, but how as an editor do you maintain your dignity when you choose to publish this instead of rightly putting it in the circular filing cabinet?