>I don't understand why people who last week were all for undoing the
>industrial revolution in case of global warming are being so reasonable
>and level-headed about dirty bombs this week.
>
>Doug's argument last week was,
>"If the theorists of climate change are right - and, given the
>stakes, it's prudent to assume they are".
>
>Well, the dirty bomb stakes are pretty high. So why aren't you running
>for the hills now?
I do have some faith in science. So if the BBC report has scientific evidence that dirty bombs are a dud, then I want to hear it. Most serious scientists believe global warming - or climate change - is for real. What's inconsistent about that?