Professor Stanhill begins his essay by noting that the ultimate aim of contemporary CCS is "to control or ameliorate climate change," pointing out that the scientific rationale for this ambitious program resides in the assumptions that (1) there is a discernible human influence on the global climate (presumed to be bad) and (2) climate change can be controlled (by economically feasible means).

Irrespective of the validity of these two major (and two minor) assumptions, all of which could (and should!) be challenged, Dr. Stanhill argues that these premises "are strongly influenced, if not predetermined, by the uniquely global and trans-scientific nature of current CCS."

By trans-scientific, Stanhill means that CCS "seeks to answer questions that can be stated in the language of science but transcend the proficiency of science."  More specifically, he states that "the enhanced uncertainty of results estimated by using a chain of unverifiable models of doubtful accuracies makes it questionable if this aspect of contemporary CCS meets Peter Medewar's definition of scientific research as 'the art of the soluble'."  And with respect to its burgeoning size, he wonders if "its global management and trans-scientific aims have compromised its integrity."

Stanhill cites as a primary reason for this latter concern "the manner in which the views of scientists not accepting the consensus view are received."  Too often, he says, their views "are dismissed by scientists, as well as others, because of the use made of their arguments by energy-producing and energy-consuming interests," a reason that he accurately describes as "scientifically irrelevant."  And, of course, there's all the money that has been invested in the CCS global bureaucracy over the past quarter century, which Stanhill estimates to be on the order of 20 billion U.S. dollars at 1997 prices.

So, is big better?  If it's correct, it probably is.  But if it's wrong, it's disastrous; for it's hard to stop a juggernaut once it's been launched.  Indeed, even attempting to deflect it can be hazardous to one's health, as is evidenced in the decline of classical climatology over the period of CCS's rise to ascendancy and the treatment afforded some of the scientists who have spoken out against the media-hyped CCS "consensus."

Once again, therefore, we ask the question Where is Truth?  If it's found in the big science of CCS, so be it.  But if it's not, we're all in a heap of trouble.