Two points:

The best thing about science is that it can and usually does correct itself. I am pleased that there IS this sort of vigorous debate in the scientific community. Certainly, I take issue with the common assertion that science is some sort of "religion": while there obviopusly is convention, standards and even dogmatism, science, unlike religion is very, very malleable. Not exacly decreed from upon high by some unreviewable, unquestionable force.

Second point is that I don't really understand the rather violent reaction people are having to this whole thing. Some folks seem absolutely, desperately determined to "disprove" global warming, and I and confused as to why this is such a hot-buttion issue.

The only things I have come up with is that a.) these people hate being made to feel responsible and accountable for anything, b.) they are at risk of being fiscally impacted by environmental restrictions, or c.) they just simply hate all science and see GW as something they can easily attack. Maybe the idea that the Earth doesn't give a toss if we are here or not bothers them, or are upset that God hasn't intervened, and take it out on the science...?

My take is that even if global warming isn't man-caused, it still makes a whole lot of sense to take actions now and act as if it were. Surely taking care of the environment isn't a BAD thing, is it? Spewing coal dust into our air, or making vehicles with no regulations on emissions isn't exactly smart, you know?

So, why all the angry fuss about this decimal point or that data sampling? Petty.

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.