Hotting up.

The article discusses the political debate over global warming. "The intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history." So warns Michael Crichton at the end of his current, popular novel, "State of Fear". He argues that wilful obfuscation by politicians and wild-eyed greens is leading to a herd mentality over global warming, akin to the uncritical embrace of eugenics a century ago. "Once again," he intones ominously, "critics are few and harshly dealt with." At first blush, it appears that Dr Crichton might have a point. Of course, there was once an intense global debate over global warming's most sacred cow--the Kyoto protocol on climate change. The treaty calls for immediate reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases by industrialised countries. George Bush upset many greens by abruptly confirming in 2001 that America would never ratify the Kyoto treaty. But other countries did ratify it, and it is due to come into full force for them on February 16th. Despite Kyoto's coming into force, vigorous debate between and among climate skeptics and climate hawks continues. First, consider the ongoing haggling over the science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of leading scientists which advises the UN on climate issues, has established that the Earth is indeed warming, thanks in part to man's burning of fossil fuels. However, questions still remain as to the particulars. For example, when Kevin Trenberth, head of the IPCC's panel on hurricanes, recently suggested that there exists a link between climate change and the wave of powerful hurricanes last year, he was immediately challenged. Christopher Landsea, a hurricane expert at America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC panel, arguing that Dr Trenberth's comments went beyond what the peer-reviewed science could justify.