http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/

I believe that there have been changes in sea level, in the levels of C02 in the atmosphere, and in the average global tempature. Science observes and records those phenomenon, however when it comes to drawing the relationships between this data and coming to conclusions about what it means things grow much less clear. Does one change cause the other, is there a correllation, or is it just an unrelated coincidence? Are there other explanations for what the research has identified? Are there factors that have not been considered? Are the trends continuing? Are they reversing, slowing down, speeding up? What are the possible consequenses if they continue, and on what projected timeline? Do we want to attempt to intervene and stop these trends? Can we? What effect will the proposed solutions have? What are the unintended consequences, the side effects of the proposed solutions?

Global warming advocates have been very imaginative in painting terrifying pictures of what can happen in the future if their theories are true, however their imaginations begin to whither when it comes to looking at possible negative outcomes that could be caused by their proposed solutions.

“See Chicken Little run; an open debate, he must shun. After all, the sky is falling; and those book deals, they’re a-calling.”

It was an opinion piece by a professor of atmospheric science from MIT.

Also, scientists didn’t go looking for a gay gene. Geneticists study sections of the human genome, trying to discover what each part is responsible for. You keep starting with a premise and an end game. Scientists didn’t study the chemical base pairs trying to find a gay gene or a fat gene. They went into this trying to discover what each pair was responsible for.

Also, science doesn’t have to make sense to you, or be presented in ways you understand. It’s nice if that happens, but it doesn’t make the science better or worse.

*BTW, when a used the word “difference” (bad choice on my part) I meant being the first to prove/disprove whatever.

As far as funding… the rule “Publish or Perish” applies. A lot of Publishing = Funding.

Lastly, you said, “I believe that at least a portion of the science is clean, but not all of what Al Gore references is clean scientific research, and as you mention his use of it certainly is not.” I have not mentioned Al Gore once. Deliberately. I decided not to introduce advocates from either side in an attempt to avoid politics and focus on science.

http://landshape.org/enm/bias-in-research/

“And your UD friends are leaving out a part of that equation. In order to be published and get funding you must do research that makes a difference.” – Pandora

The key that you forget to add is makes a difference to whom? People can research whatever they want and if they can find a way to tie it into Global Warming Theory, or another field of study that is en vogue they will find it is possible to get funding, access to publication and media attention or both.

Also research for proving a negative will generate less funding, at least until things get out of hand like Global Warming Theory has now. Similarly there wasn’t much funding for reasearch disproving genetic causation of homosexuality until people started claiming science proved it and tried to legislate based on that science.

“Science doesn’t change. Certain parts can be cherry-picked or omitted to make a political point, but if you look at scientific submissions – that have been peer reviewed – the science is clean. How it’s used is not.” – Pandora

I believe that at least a portion of the science is clean, but not all of what Al Gore references is clean scientific research, and as you mention his use of it certainly is not.