[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Was that really called for? Why is it unreasonable to challenge some of the patent answers from the climate change believers?

But you weren't challenging them. Your whole strategy was: snide remark, post link, evade.

Every week, some of the settled science facts are disproven or thrown into question.

True in any field. This is how science works. But you haven't posted any solid science supporting your arguments.

Assumptions of climate change science being based on only top-notch, peer-reviewed literature are being invalidated.

Non peer-reviewed literature has no quality control. No validation. It could be interesting, but it could also be a pack of lies. Peer review, whatever its shortcomings, reduces this likelihood. As for climate change, start giving me proof, with good science. Peer-review aside, that article you posted was junk.

The only fact is that there are very few facts to in which to base either position.

Untrue. There is plenty of data out there. You just have to be willing to go to a science library and read. You are not. That's fine, I guess, but admit it.

Stating "thousands of papers" and "thousands of scientists" support the AGW theory, does not make the theory a fact.

Fine, but then place an equal burden of proof on the denial theory. This is where it falls short. The data for denial is lacking.

And, in all reality, if there were such an abundance of such sound science, why did the IPCC base their reports on unsound science, misrepresentations and media soundbites? It should be bullet-proof.

The IPCC AR is flawed. You are correct. But some context. It is not scientific literature. The science exists outside and independent of the AR. Invalidating one reference of thousands in the AR does not invalidate all others. The AR is an assessment; a reference for politicians to summarize an entire field.

The AR is huge, over 3000 pages. It has hundreds of people involved in putting it together; authors and reviewers, with thousands of references. There are bound to be many mistakes, including many still unnoticed.

It has multiple sections. WGI, which deals with the hard science of climate change, is thought to be rock solid. It exclusively used peer-reviewed literature. WGII deals with the potential impacts of climate change. The science is more theoretical, features weak references, and not surprisingly has been the subject of the controversy. For the record, the WGI scientists are livid with WGII for using grey literature, and I agree with them, but grey literature does not invalidate the thousands of good peer-reviewed articles.

The science remains, even if you chose not to acknowledge it.

I use links, because I don't feel like rehashing what has already been exhaustively documented.

But your last link had nothing to do with what I discussed. I read it. Make your point directly.

I don't feel like having the debate being about picking apart my own interpretation of someone else's research, debate or argument.

Well, if you want to talk about science, that's what you have to do. That's science.

I'm merely representing the alternative viewpoint which is valid regardless of your or my bias (and becoming more and more relevant as some threads in the AGW rope begin to fray.)

Viewpoint has nothing to do with it. This is science. Data is what matters.

The Climategate emails did not write themselves and there are threads within that should be deeply concerning (and far transcend the oft-used "out of context" moniker.) Actions speak louder than reputation and credentials, especially if reputation and credentials are on the line.

I agree. The scientists involved are under investigation, and if they are found guilty of wrong-doing, they will be fired; if papers are found to be incorrect, they will be retracted or corrected. But even if you eliminate Jones, Mann, and their cronies, and ALL of their papers, you are still left with the vast majority of the field of researchers and studies supporting climate change. So what then? What is your response?