The statement, from the science academies of the G8 countries, says the scientific evidence on climate change is now clear enough to compel their leaders to take action.
It says: "There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities...
...One source close to the negotiations called the support of the US National Academy of Sciences "unprecedented".
In 2001 the US academy declined to sign a similar joint statement because it was preparing its own report on the issue for the Bush administration.
If proponents of intelligent design (ID) wish their hypothesis to be treated as a science, then they must be prepared to generate experiments that will prove ID incorrect and teach their students how to disprove ID. If an "intelligent designer" is equated with "God," then, if they are true scientists, they must now spend their time trying to disprove the existence of God. I am not sure if the proponents of ID are prepared to go down that route -- training a classroom of students to design experiments that rule out the existence of God. Yet, if they wish to add ID to the scientific curriculum, that is precisely what they must be prepared to do. Those experiments would then take their place with all the other experiments designed to rule out any hypothesis, in other words, to show that the null hypothesis (the idea that events and phenomena are dictated solely by chance) cannot be rejected.
Dr. Evan Snyder, neurologist and director of the Stem Cells and Regeneration Program at The Burnham Institute
Bush and the hard right are allies against science and knowledge. Trouble is, must people appreciate the value of science and knowledge even as they dislike the holders and purveyors of that knowledge. So it's no wonder, now, that Americans are uniting against Bush:
I'll answer my own rhetorical question -- no. This administration is not responsible for anything. Not the quagmire in Iraq. Not the economic doldrums. Not the loss of standing in the world. Not the ballooning deficit. And certainly not the terrorist attacks of September 11.