We have much sympathy for Rasool's feelings on this important matter.  With the leaders of many nations already stumbling over themselves (and trampling others) in an attempt to take the lead in restructuring the way industrialized society functions, we cannot afford mistakes at so critical and tumultuous an historical juncture.  Caution, therefore, should indeed be our watchword, or misguided policy initiatives could well be the costly result.

Rasool makes this point himself in citing the recent paper of Fan et al. (1998), wherein it was reported that the vegetated land area of the United States and Canada yearly absorbs an amount of carbon close to what the two countries emit via the burning of fossil fuels (see our Journal Review CO2 Sequestration in North America).  Noting that this finding is the result of a "model run, and there appears to be no credible way to test it," he suggests we should "hope that these modelers are right; otherwise, the U.S. research community will begin to lose credibility in this critical field."

Although sharing Rasool's concern, we find it worrisome that he couches it in terms that emphasize credibility -- and the credibility of the U.S. research community in particular -- more than truth.  Why should we "hope that these modelers are right" merely for the sake of maintaining U.S. credibility?  Ought we not rather hope for the truth, whatever it is, and whatever the consequences?

Perhaps we are straining at a gnat, but Rasool is not the only person in recent days to have expressed this less-than-righteous philosophy.  Just a week earlier, in the 5 February issue of Science, it was reported that the United States seriously lags a number of other countries in climate modelling computer power (Kerr, 1999).  One of the main reasons for concern about this gigaflop gap is that, if the situation is not soon remedied, U.S. decision-makers will have to depend on climate simulations done by scientists in countries "with different priorities than those of the United States" (Reichhardt, 1999).

Does this complaint imply that the computer modellers of other countries cannot be trusted in their quest for truth?  One would hope not; and Jerry Mahlman, head of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, clears the air on this point by stating that "these so-called foreigners are our friends and colleagues."  Does it then mean that their governments cannot be trusted?  Again, one would hope not; but when Kerr acknowledges that the United States itself is attempting "to shape the world's greenhouse warming policy," one begins to wonder about one's own country.  And if one's own government can't be trusted, whose can?

We don't know where these several thoughts leave us; but they are unsettling.  Are there forces at work that are greater than the simple scientific quest for truth that are shaping the ways climate scientists do their jobs?  Is science but a pawn in a much bigger enterprise designed to redefine the nature of countries and their interactions with one another?  Again, we don't know; but if scientists can be chastised by Rasool for rushing to judgement, policy-makers must be even more deserving of his opprobrium, rushing headlong into international agreements, protocols and treaties based upon scientific findings that have yet to be found!

Yes, caution and credibility are indeed sorely needed in the ongoing debate over potential global change; and scientific freedom and political responsibility sound to us like the way to obtain them, except for the strong possibility that political responsibility may be an oxymoron.  Clearly, less politics and more science -- even with its frequent false starts and unexpected turns -- is what is needed.  Unfortunately, just the opposite is what we seem to be getting (see our Vol. 2, No. 3 editorial: State of Union Speech Ill Reflects State of Nature).