I tend to believe that in most situations cooler heads prevail.
Alarmists on both sides need to chill, compromise, get more scientific evidence, and then layout their claims.
Too often today in the mass media, books, and now sadly scientific journals the practice is to write first and research later. Several theories now abound that just don't have as much proof as the sources would have you believe.
In modern times like we live in today I'd say our responsibility to stay informed now rests more on our ability to cipher through the vast amounts of information out there than believe our once trusted news and science sources. It used to be that you could believe this report or that but this is not so anymore and probably in part due to the internet and how fast and readily available different sources of information are available. It used to take a book or a published source to refute a claim or a theory and now it just takes a bit of money and a website.
I welcome debate on these issues and also welcome taking to task some of the 'accepted' theories. If anything it will make both sides of any issue dig that much deeper when they know they are going to be held accountable for their findings.
