It wasn't a bad question. The answer is that I'm always suspicious, i.e. skeptical. And of course there are and always will be people on each side of every issue that have all sorts of ulterior motives. If you buy a Dell computer now you get to feel good by donating a dollar or some such nonsense to "grow a tree" (Dell if I read correctly donates nothing!). So obviously Dell now realizes it's good business to promote green. But that doesn't mean that growing trees is a bad idea, does it?

So with regard to global warming, IMO the facts are as follows. There seems to be a very real consensus within the scientific community that global warming is a real and very serious issue. And that the results if we continue to ignore it will be catastrophic. Since I am NOT an expert, I will continue to read and study but in the mean time consider it wise to trust their opinion.

I will also read with great interest any writing by an acknowledged *scientific expert* (which requires peer acknowledgment, not just some proclaiming themselves an expert) that conflicts with the majority view. I will not however give much weight to the opinions of Michael Crichton on the one side nor Greenpeace activists on the other side.

That's an EXCELLENT point. However it does not mean that there are not some people who truly seek the truth as opposed to wanting to impose their truth on the world. And for that reason I must defer to our leading scientists, with the belief that is what science is all about - an impartial search for the truth (before someone argues it of course scientists can be subject to their own impartialities, so what). If in 5 years all of a sudden the vast majority of the leading scientists say "you know what evidence now suggests that global warming is not man-made after all and not a serious threat" then I will again defer to them.