David Appell writing for Scientific American on Hot Words: A claim of nonhuman-induced global warming sparks debate:
In a contretemps indicative of the political struggle over global climate change, a recent study suggested that humans may not be warming the earth. Greenhouse skeptics, pro-industry groups and political conservatives have seized on the results, proclaiming that the science of climate change is inconclusive and that agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on the output of industrial heat-trapping gases, are unnecessary. But mainstream climatologists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are perturbed that the report has received so much attention; they say the study's conclusions are scientifically dubious and colored by politics.
You can color me neutral on this debate as I'm of the opinion that, as a species, we're still far too scientifically underprepared to speak definitively either way on the causes of centuries long processes like global warming. The scientific approaches to this debate vary widely and a new theory seems to pop up each week. Further, far too much of the scientific community is divided on the issue. As such, I am opposed to Kyoto, which amounts to little more than a raid on the economies of developed countries, with a pollute at will pass to third world countries.
Link courtesy of David Appell.