This faith in science is often accompanied by the antiquated view that there are facts separate from values and interpretations. But the fact that there is a strong international consensus among scientists that global warming is caused almost entirely by humans does not make it any less of an interpretation. Simply deciding what to study, and what kind of hypotheses to form, is a value judgment. The facts one chooses to give greater weight to in the case of global warming are deeply informed by one's values. The facts tell us that global temperatures have been rising over the last century. They tell us that human sources of pollution have probably been in some significant part responsible for those temperature increases. They tell us that global climate change and habitat destruction may be leading to the mass die-off of many plant and animal species.

But the facts also tell us that global temperatures have fluctuated wildly over the five billion years that the planet has existed; that there have been at least five previous mass extinctions during the history of the planet; that asteroids, comets, volcanoes, and ice ages have dramatically changed the climate and habitat at a planetary level; that the earth will very likely be here for billions of years after all traces of humanity have vanished from its surface; and that some form of humanity and human society will likely survive the ecological crises we face.

More idiotic rambling by people that don't actually understand science. The funny thing is, I tend to agree with what seems to be their overall points: Hectoring people is not the best way to effect change, "harmony" in nature is a fairly meaningless term when used the way it is most commonly used, there is a way forward that is not a way back.

However, the above quoted text shows an inherant inability to examine data in a rational fashion. They ignore time scales, long term patterns and context when bringing up past disasters and temperature fluctuation. The point isn't that these happened, the point is that "some form of humanity" is not the same as "humanity as we know it". Nor are they correct in assuming this. Humanity may survive in the short term, but to use one of their examples, it may be no more related to the humanity we know than birds are to the dinosaurs from which they came.

Simply deciding what to study, and what kind of hypotheses to form, is a value judgment.

No, sorry. The nonsesnse that followed that statement in the article shows a limited understanding of the scientific method and a desire to argue to a specific outcome. In science you examine everything. Individual scientists cannot do this, but the community as a whole does. As bits and pieces emerge from individual studies and areas of research, a whole picture is pieced together. Had they bothered to do any research at all, they'd have found that the body of evidence currently points away from natural causes being responsible for the temperature change, not just toward human intervention being responsible.

Another problem here is that they think "SCIENCE" has stated something when in reality research points toward likely conclusions. When scientists find results that contradict their expectations or hypothesis, they don't reject them because their "value judgement" says to, they check the results and if they are consistant, they form a new hypothesis. This is the basis of the world in which we live right down to the way you're reading this very bad article and the comments that followed.

Were this a paper for a class, the authors would be looking to take the class again 'cause they aren't passing it this semester.

So what's the over/under on when Steinbrenner hires Torre back?

From what I've seen of your postings here on Salon, you'll end up heckling yourself within 3 sentences.

It isn't as offensive as "Jeter has AIDS", but I did see a pickup at IKEA in Stoughton this past weekend that said "Jeter Drinks Wine Coolers". And we all know what that implies!

I used to live in NJ and now live in MA. Boston fans hate much more than Yankees fans from what I've seen. There's one guy where I work who is a Sox fan and he has 20 or so stickers on the back of his Jeep. One says Go Sox. The others all say Yankees Suck!

As for me, I don't care about either team, though I like the history of both.

GO PACKERS!

This is just more evidence that the supposedly healthy economy of the Bush years has been a lie. It has always been more hype than substance. While the powerful have managed to accumulate enough wealth to drive a few significant economic statistics, the general populace has stagnated or fallen back. Costs have risen and income has fallen.

At any given moment, they grab the one or two indicators they've managed to fool. Right now it is the stock market, just don't look at housing. Earlier it was unemployment, just don't look at it too closely. At other times it was job creation, just don't look at what jobs have been created.

As Paul Krugman said in his interview on NPR yesterday, more of the nations wealth has been concentrated in the top few percent of people while the vast majority have been excluded from prosperity.

The problem is, the threat to America is not going to expire in February

Exactly, it won't expire until noon on January 20, 2009.

And then W and his ilk should be going to the Hague, but sadly his replacement won't have the courage to do that.

Even when asked point blank if he'd made a mistake in his first term, Bush couldn't think of one.

That's mostly 'cause he couldn't remember it.