SOMEWHAT JUDGEMENTAL VIEWS

"Andrew Revkin I'd like to refer you to several pieces that have
touched on these voices and concepts.
I interviewed Dr. Lovelock in 2006 (in print and on video) about his
stark vision of a greatly reduced
human population.

Many scientists completely disagree with his view, and say that
humans' adaptability will allow
us to build resilience in the face of rising temperatures and seas and
constraints on natural
resources. But others, including Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a top
scientific adviser to
Germany's government, have talked about even greater human losses.

I wrote an article and a Dot Earth blog post earlier this year
exploring the idea that
tipping points loom in the climate system. The overall conclusion was
that there are
likely to be so many points, and the uncertainties about them remain
so large, that the
overall risk remains as it has long been cast: More emissions and
warming will raise
the odds of disruptive change.

Related to your point on extinction, Edward O. Wilson told me last
year that he's
increasingly concerned that there is too much focus on stabilizing the
planet's geophysical system (concentrations of greenhouse gases) and
not enough on conserving its biological systems.

Where the Science Leads

Q. Based on your bio, it's not a leap to infer that you are a true
believer in man-induced global warming and its supposed catastrophic
effects. Given your financial and professional interests, if the
evidence takes you elsewhere, will you have the capacity to report
truthfully? As you know, this weekend the BBC posed the question "What
happened to global warming?" taking many people by surprise. Would you
and The Times have the intellectual honesty to pose the same question?

— Paul B., Princeton, N.J."