One of three communications received on March 6th asks "How objective can your site be when it's obviously so biased against the global warming hypothesis?"  This is a rather strange question when one considers a very similar question that could well be asked of other sites: "How objective can your site be when it's obviously so biased in favor of the global warming hypothesis?"  Taken together, these questions imply that if you strongly favor one side or the other in this important international debate you cannot be objective, which also suggests that if you have any opinion on the subject, one way or the other, you're probably biased.  The original question is also strange in the sense that it uses an hypothesis as the basis for determining objectivity, when it is actually real-world data, i.e., facts, that should determine this characteristic of one's approach to attempting to determine truth.

A second global warming-related communication received on March 6th asks "Who am I supposed to believe: scientists or sources paid by the oil industry?"  This is also a strange question.  It poses only two possibilities; and they are not mutually exclusive.  There are, for example, scientists who believe the global warming hypothesis, i.e., that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration are a major cause of global warming; and there are scientists who do not believe this hypothesis.  Likewise, there are scientists on both sides of the issue who have been paid by the oil industry at one time or another.  Clearly, the labels that all of us either purposely or inadvertently place upon others - and we are probably just as guilty of doing this as anyone else - do not help to resolve important issues, if that is all the deeper we investigate them.  Much to be preferred is that we form our opinions on the basis of what we believe to be the facts of the matter.

A third communication of March 6th comes from a junior high school teacher who tells his students they should "look for ulterior motives when an organization with a name like [ours] seems to contradict the majority of the scientific community."  We agree, superficially, that this dictum is probably good advice; but it is even more important to consider the facts of the matter in question.  And one such important element in this case is whether various parts of the teacher's own statement are even correct.  Does our organization, for example, really "contradict the majority of the scientific community"?  Or does it only, as the teacher appropriately writes, seem to do so?  And if it does, why?  What data would you use to make such a determination?  What you read in the press?  What you see on a web site that favors the global warming hypothesis?  Or would you use what is commonly known as the Oregon Petition?  Then there's the problem of being an organization "with a name like ours."  Once again the bogeyman of labels rears its ugly head, inadvertently we're confident, but nevertheless in actuality.  Well, you get the point we're trying to make: there are so many superfluous things that can get in the way of searching out and evaluating pertinent real-world data that people often never get down to that most fundamental and essential element of opinion-forming.

And speaking of names, what if such luminaries as Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, John Glenn, Walter Cronkite and Harrison Ford were to say that (1) "no challenge we face is more momentous than the threat of global climate change," that (2) "the situation is becoming urgent," and that (3) the President of the United States should "develop a plan to reduce U.S. production of greenhouse gases," as they did in a letter to President Bush in the 2 April 2001 issue of Time magazine?  Do we immediately conclude they are right because each of them has achieved notoriety for one reason or another, even to the point of having elements of greatness associated with their names?

Ask yourself this question: How much experience do you think each of these men has had in the area of climatology? meteorology? oceanography? glaciology? solar physics? and a whole host of other pertinent disciplines that could be named.  Or try this one: Would you trust any of them to perform open-heart surgery on you?  Or to merely prescribe it for you?  Even if they consulted among themselves about it?  We sure wouldn't.  And think about it; the conglomerate of all subsystems that determine earth's climate is way more complex than the circulatory system of man and the little pump that drives it.

Clearly, there is no shortcut to truth, no magic wand that can be waved to open up a conduit to instant wisdom.  Neither Jimmy Carter nor Mikhail Gorbachev were born with an innate knowledge of climatology.  John Glenn may have circled the globe and obtained the first "world view" of its atmosphere in action; but he would probably be the first to admit that he comprehends very little of its operations over the eons, or even the past century.  Likewise, Walter Cronkite - once referred to as "the most trusted man in America" - would probably agree he cannot pass judgment on the veracity of the scientific papers of Richard Lindzen.  And Harrison Ford, well, he is indeed a darn good actor!

So, no one gets an easy out.  If you base your opinions on the pronouncements of movie stars and newscasters, as sincere as they may be, shame on you for abrogating your duty to determine the truth for yourself.  You just don't know what you're getting if you fail to personally inspect the merchandise.  You may think it's great.  You may feel it's great.  You may even have some inspector's seal of approval stating that it is great.  But when the merchandise is the only climate system this earth possesses, you had better be supremely confident that you really know, as far as it is humanly possible to know, what you're talking about, especially if you're hounding the President of the United States to act one way or another with respect to CO2 and global climate change.  Warm fuzzy feelings are one thing, and political and economic motivations another; but the hard cold truth may be something quite apart from both of them.  With so much at stake in the great debate over CO2 and global warming, everyone owes it to themselves to employ the only sure means of getting to the truth of the matter; and that's to consider the evidence.  We have made it our job to present much of that evidence on our website.  It is your job to evaluate it.  We hope you take your responsibility as seriously as we do ours.