The studies that tell us that there is a very large consensus on man made global warming have been limited to climate scientists. I think they should include all earth scientists to be meaningful.
For example, a geologist would view the situation on a much larger time scale than the last 50-100 years and might see it as insignificant. A chemist might tell us that the very tiny amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not nearly enough to cause warming. This dissent is important to good science and should not be discouraged no matter how strongly one feels to the contrary.
When Einstein published his theory of special relativity it was widely accepted by the few scientists in that field. However, when he published general relativity, it affected a broader field and, despite his growing reputation, was disputed by a large number of scientists, including Nobel Laureates.
In an effort to prove him wrong, many experiments were performed but, one by one, these proved Einstein correct. Today only a few disagree. So in that case, Einstein held the minority view, but in the long run prevailed.
If we discourage dissent, or refuse to publish dissent on this matter as has the Los Angeles Times, then we are stifling good science. If dissent is disallowed, science becomes propaganda.
Dick Riethmiller
Pagosa Springs
