Granted, the New Yorker article includes some political argument, but it is not a one-sided slam of US environmental policy. The great majority of the 50 pages focuses on the researchers and the research methods and models of those testing the hypothesis of human contributions to global warming. It’s worth reading to learn of the "alvedo effect," the climatological analysis of the fall of the Akkadian civilization, and the scientific analyses of polar ice.

What our national environmental policy should be is well worth debating, but the science of global warming is being produced by responsible climatologists, and there does appear to be increasing scientific data supporting the hypothesis of human contribution to global warming. As a non-scientist, I try as best I can to understand their studies, methods, arguments, and I find Kolbert’s essay engaging and informative.

Otherwise, I rely on what? The testimony of the two senators from my state, Imhofe and Coburn? In a speech reported in the Sept. 8, 2004 Daily Oklahoman, Senator Imhofe, citing no studies whatsoever, declared that "global warming was a hoax." He was joined by then, candidate, now Senator Coburn (M.D.) who declared, again, with no evidence, "There's not any hard science, I guarantee you, on global warming."

You may trust these two esteemed public servants if you wish. I find Elizabeth Kolbut’s reportage–and the science she bases it on-- more convincing. From part 3 of her "Climate of Man" series:

In legitimate scientific circles, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. This fact was neatly demonstrated last year by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California at San Diego. Oreskes conducted a study of the more than nine hundred articles on climate change published in refereed journals between 1993 and 2003 and subsequently made available on a leading research database. Of these, she found that seventy-five per cent endorsed the view that anthropogenic emissions were responsible for at least some of the observed warming of the past fifty years. The remaining twenty-five per cent, which dealt with questions of methodology or climate history, took no position on current conditions. Not a single article disputed the premise that anthropogenic warming is under way.