More research, with more sanity, needed to address climate change

Recently someone said that a consensus exists and that the world's experts agree global warming is man's fault. In science, when does consensus mean absolute or, as Al Gore so emphatically stated, no more discussion is necessary? Many of us everyday people find it difficult to believe that statement just because Gore says so.

When one analyzes data from a scientific observation, results are reported as the most likely solution for that observation. These data also give us a statistical probability of accuracy, certainly not absolutes that need never to be further analyzed. After all, many consensus statements (Earth is the center of the universe or flat, light energy exists only as waves, minorities are intellectually inferior to white Europeans -- you get the point) were commonly accepted until further data proved them to be false.

Shall we agree that climate change exists because historical data demonstrates it to be true? The current argument is simply 1. natural cycles are the driver or 2. it's man's fault.

James Hansen said, "The forces that drive long-term climate are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." This from the original global warming predictor.

Certainly continued research is in order, maybe with more sanity. Almost no one argues we shouldn't be more judicious with fossil fuel use and develop other sources. However, let's also recognize the implication that if you don't join lock-step with this climate-change consensus you must be ignorant.

STEVE SHELTON, Jackson