Sigh--explaining climate change

With another figurative heavy heart, Ned reluctantly must take up the subject of climate change. There seems to be a vast dichotomy between practicing scientists in atmospheric and planetary sciences, who understand the Scientific Method and who accept Anthropomorphically-induced climate change as a Theory, and non-scientists, predominantly undereducated persons, religious extremists and business and communication majors, who express "skepticism," or see it as some sort of a "liberal plot." This causes Ned to sigh with the tediousness of trying to communicate with such persons, many of whom will not be convinced no matter how overwhelming the evidence because they do not inhabit an evidence-based world.
But he will try.
First, there is no debate among the educated, research-based science community on the reality of human-induced climate change. Any debate centers on the nature of the impacts and the timing of such impacts.
The possibility of human-induced global warming has been recognized at least since 1895 when Swedish chemist and Nobelist Svante Arrhenius shows that human sources of greenhouse gases could be significant enough to change the planet's climate. The situation was sufficiently understood by 1958 such that an observatory was set up on the Big Island of Hawaii to measure atmospheric CO2. By 1965, Lyndon Johnson's Science Advisory Committee had recognized climate change as a possible serious environmental issue. By the 1970's researchers like Oceanographer Roger Revelle were describing the emissions of greenhouse gases as a "great geophysics experiment" that humanity was trying on the Earth.
During the succeeding three decades, more and more evidence has been amassed, and more and more models have been supported by increasingly precise data such that the reality of climate change, happening now and accelerating, is no longer in dispute.
These are the scientific facts. But, just as the Pope made Galileo recant his scientific observations because they did not fit Church teachings, there are those today who are trying to do the same thing.
Many educated people feel that the battle between superstition and ignorance on the one hand, and enlightenment and reason on the other, was settled in the 17th century. Ned advises them that nothing could be further from the truth, especially in America, where there exist millions of persons proud in their ignorance. Indeed this is one of the most poorly educated, if not the most poorly educated, advanced country on the planet.
Ned may have more to say on this at a later date, but for now, back to our discussion of WHO WILL BE THE NEW JUDGES ON AMERICAN IDOL!!!!!!