Also, how many times do we see some scientific “fact” change. Within years they disprove a theory that someone was portraying as fact.

Just because it’s science and it goes through the scientific process, doesn’t mean it’s free from flaws and opinions of the individuals doing the research and/or peer-reviews. It’s naive to think otherwise.

I’m in no way saying that all science it corrupt, I’m just saying that it’s no where near free from the influences of political lobbying.

However, I can say almost without question that if anything has perhaps begun to erode the openness and integrity of the scientific process, it’s the recent influx of pseudoscientific hacks promoting creationism and equivalent claptrap, who demand equal time for their unsubstantiated and indefensible views.

My mother always used to say (when speaking of scientific evindence), “If you look hard enough and long enough, you can always find some idiot to agree with you.” She also used to say, “figures don’t ly, but liars figure.” That’s only remotely related, but points out that people can skew results of scientific studies if they really want to.

So peer-reviewing scientific findings, although the best method we have in the scientific community, is still flawed in that people can be easily be swayed if the evidence is remotely close (or if they will substantially gain from it).

Even scientist have their agenda. Whether that is political or not doesn’t matter. It’s very difficult to separate your own opinions when trying to prove or disprove something when you already have any type of feelings on it.

I’m sure there are many (including myself) that try to be open-minded when approaching these types of studies, but let’s face it… we all lean toward an agenda.

In many ways, it’s like how the creation scientists aren’t by and large part of the “scientific community”. They don’t publish in established peer-reviewed journals and their writings don’t stand up to scrutiny, and yet, they want to call themselves scientists on the basis of their credentials. It’s not credentials that give a scientist credibility, but rather the reproducibility and co-verification of his findings as they fit into established science. Science isn’t made in the popular press, nor in press releases, as we both know.

And, no, when it comes to science, I try not to lean toward my political agenda. If peer-reviewed articles in established climatology journals cast doubt on global warming, then I would be interested in the findings – and frankly, I’d be relieved.

The problem is that it’s not just one organization. It’s not a tide of scientific evidence. The evidence goes both ways in many instances. There’s been controversy over this issue from the very beginning.

You really think I would just take into one account? I looked at several sources. That was one that I found rather interesting with some interesting data points.

Sure, I lean toward my political agenda. Doesn’t everyone?

My point was not that Global Warming isn’t happening… sure, I worded it as if they have disproved it, which I probably shouldn’t have. But my main point was that the media has never indicated (at least not with the same vigor) that there is an opposing view from the scientific community.

The testimony of an emeritus professor of engineering that you cite as compelling was in fact purchased by money funded by a think tank underwritten by Jack Abramoff’s extortion:

http://indian.senate.gov/2005hrgs/062205hrg/ridenour.pdf

Singer is a paid lobbyist, not a researcher, and buying his lone voice against the tide of scientific evidence is naive.

Wikipedia :: Science and Environmental Policy Project

Please dig a little deeper and don’t simply take cheery-picked evidence just because it fits your political biases.