Yes, yet trying to get even the most prestigious scientists to agree on anything is nigh on impossible. Trouble is, egos and career protection come into it with men/women of (perhaps) lower moral character. And that's before you start on so-called "science" journalists. Scientists generally are notoriously inclined to eccentricity - and very unlikey to shift their own well entrenched views on anything. As history has shown.
I again hark back to Dr. James E. McDonald's bio book - "Firestorm" - which makes this very clear, only in his case relative to the huge UFO controversy. The range of opinion for and against his theories were vast. And he ended up taking his own life from the despair of the hoo-ha, the venom, the ridicule, and the downright dirty deeds and cover-ups, and bureaucratic games - all horrendous.
and yes, where did they dredge up that audience? They must have won them in a raffle.
Tony Jones - very biased. Did he aim such scorching analysis of information put forward as fact by Al Gore with "an Inconvenient Truth"?? Doubt it. And this sort of media bias and, sometimes, deliuberate manipulation is what the world's up against.
We, the average population, meanwhile, are going to be made to live our remaining years out with this constant debate waging on and on above our heads.
I for one would like to enjoy life day to day - as I'm sure everyone else would - without this constant unbalanced harping and unecessary apolyptic, and often politically motivated, predictions hanging over my head for the extent years I have left.
Consider the future generations - sure - but give us balance.
