I read this debate in today's USA Today and thought it was very relevant to the readings and topics we've been discussing in lecture lately:
Environmentalism vs. Skepticism
It talks about how science is necessarily biased because it reflects the interests of the researchers; it should not be accepted as "pure as a mountain stream." In the same way that Shrader-Frechette questions the validity of using "underdetermined" science in decision-making, Cal Thomas claims that we cannot use scientific predictions about global warming to justify major preventative measures against climate change because these scientific speculations are uncertain. Also, the discussion is reminiscent of Dunlap in that Thomas likens environmentalism to a religion: "For the secularists, planet-worship has replaced holidays like Christmas and Easter." It's interesting (and satisfying) to see a real life example of how the ideas we've been discussing are very pertinent to current discussions of environmental issues.