For years, my environmental consultant husband, says he has seen no scientific evidence of global warming. He’s one of the most apolitical people I’ve met in my life, but here comes this highly unpopular, controversial opinion. For my part, while I’m no scientist, I tend to want to err on the side of caution—if there’s even a possibility that global warming is a reality, we should do something about it. Not to mention the fact that who wants to live in a dirty, polluted environment?

Now, this morning, I find two interesting yet conflicting stories in my inbox from weather guru and editor of NREI, Matt Valley. The first, “Study: Global warming could be killer for Chicago” warns that if nothing is done, by mid-century more than 1,000 people in Chicago will be killed each year. The study was put out by a group called Union of Concerned Scientists based on the analysis of climate-modeling projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a 2007 report. Junk science? Or a warning shot over the bow?

Matt’s second email was a story in Marketwatch, “Climate Change on Trial.” In short, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has petitioned the EPA to provide proof that climate change is indeed a threat to the public.

Worth noting is a bit of editorializing on the part of the writer:

“It’s shocking that a business group representing the largest segment of American companies is labeling itself a climate-change denier, especially since the findings from the most well-respected and largest group of scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, proves that climate change is undeniable.”

Of course, I’m not shocked but a little uncomfortable that a journalist should make such a judgment. I say loudly, why not provide the proof? I’m not a scientist and neither is Joe Public. And why should be have to rely on threats of global warming to use resources more wisely or to clean up the air we breathe?