In the 19th century and earlier, junk sciences like phrenology, alchemy, and astrology were fairly easily recognized for what they were, pseudoscience based on dogma and anecdotal evidence. Today things are a bit more complicated, often to the point that some people apparently don't know when junk science is being used to convince them something is actually scientically sound when in fact it may not be.

Things like junk science being used by the tobacco companies to dismiss the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, or pro-pot smokers using JS in an attempt to legalize marijuana...or, using JS to deny the existence or the potential harm of environmental problems such as Global Warming, asbestos, lead in drinking water, mercury in fish, etc. Also attempting to use JS to support bogus claims for things like alternative or homeopathic medicine...reflexology, colon purges, magnetic therapy for arthritis, psychic healing, etc.

I recently read a blog where they were claiming that Rachel Carson and the modern environmental movement were responsible for the deaths of thousands and perhaps even millions of people around the planet from malaria by using junk science to get the pesticide DDT banned.

Former tobacco company lobbyist Steven Milloy, the self-proclaimed "Junkman" or junk science debunker at Fox news came out right after 9-11 and said if the builders of the Twin Towers had used more asbestos, the building's collapse would have been delayed. Like Milloy, you can publicly endorse any research or science that supports your political or economic agenda, and condemn and ridicule that which does not. You can also call them insulting names and attack them personally which is always good for a laugh if you're a media personality.

If there is an issue which you do support, and that issue has been called into question by some in the scientific community, you can simply hire a PR firm or Think Tank and use their expertise to accuse these same scientists of being purveyors of junk science. Or you can hire your own scientists to do a study which ends up supporting your claim or cause, be it political or otherwise. You might also form your own professional association, like the TASSC (The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition) which you can disband once the issue is settled.

So what is your favorite Junk Science and why do you believe it is junk and not real science? Or is it junk science being promoted as real science and nobody can see this but you?

As science has developed, it has slowly separated itself from its earlier association with magic, religion, mysticism and the charlatans.

Yes, you can sell anything as being "science" if you have the power to do so. You can suppress or edit the "facts" to suit your agenda, if you have the power. To prevent these things from happening, you need an interested public and an independent and credible media.

If my memory serves me correctly, I read that the oil industry has been in contact with the tobacco industry, because the tobacco industry is an expert on the techniques suppressing scientific evidence and in misinformation.

The Bush administration has attempted on many occasions to suppress information with regards to human impact on climate change, and many scientists have spoke out about the Bush administrations anti-scientific policies. Even Al Gore, had a car running outside, all the time while he lectured about car emissions, greenhouse gases and climate change.

Politicians and corporations are no strangers to hypocrisy, to the art of "spin" and editing scientific results to suit their agenda.

Oddly enough, more and more scientists are stepping up to say the global warming scare, itself, is based upon junk science. Oh where will it end.

The funniest junk science nonsense I have seen recently was in a show on crocodiles. The host was interviewing a crocodile expert, some PhD in Biology, about the cocs. THe biologist was lamenting how global warming was going to drive the crocs to extinction because the sex of the crocs is determined by the temperature at which the eggs incubate. Warmer temps means more females. The biologist was claiming the croc population would become all female and die out. He then went on to talk about how the crocs had been around for more than a 100 million years and it was a tragedy that human actions over a hundred years would wipe them out. I almost pissed myself laughing...It seems they do not teach paleoclimatology to biologists...he might have known then that the crocs, with their hundred million year history, had been through quite a few warming and cooling cycles with temperatures quite a bit hotter than the most gloom and doom global warming predictions postulate. They are still with us.

Junk science is just that...junk.

Ray, I believe I asked you for evidence of this once before and the best you came up with was some "scientists" website who was on the oil industries payroll. Have you come up with anything better yet?

OK. How about we start with Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was quoted in the Wall Street Journal concerning global warming: "These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming." [Emphasis in original]

That's enough for now.

CUBS (Center for Unified Biometrics and Sensors) at Univ. at Buffalo, N.Y. has been doing research on biometrics as a means of identifying potential and real terrorist threats. Physical boimetrics claims there are certain human features that are nearly impossible to falsify. The three main steps to obtaining these features are 1. capture the image 2. convert it to a template 3. match the template against a database of stored records to authenticate it. Biometric companies have and still are improving upon the technology...it used to be they converted 2-D into 3-D images using around 200 or so points on the face, whereas now they use 10,000 plus points in less than one second. Lasers are also being used as well.

UB scientists are carrying this technology a step further and claiming they can use this science to determine that an individual may be about to commit a crime and or terrorist act. the system looks for certain facial expressions, tics, smirks, frowns, smiles, and also unconscious movements like arched eyebrows, raised eyelids, etc. which are then matched with various emotional expressions common around the world in all cultures. Prof. Mark Frank has identified movements in the 44 facial muscles and connected them to emotions often used during deception.

The system began by studying common criminals, but then branched out to include terrorist activity. Frank first became interested in this kind of approach when he worked as a bouncer in a Buffalo N.Y. bar, claiming he could spot guys who were underage or packing a gun or looking for a fight by the way they looked. Frank also studied hours of videotapes showing criminals denying they were guilty.

The question is can this be an accurate predictor of guilt or not? And would it stand up in court if it was submitted as evidence against you? Suppose you get called out of the line at the airport because they ran your face through the software program and the way you were grimacing or your nervous tic indicated you might be a terrorist. Is this all junk science masquerading as real science so they can take advantage of post 9-11 govt. research funds and sell these systems to law enforcement agencies and airport security firms?

Ray, can you please provide someone who isn't connected to the oil industry. Please. That's all I ask.

I'm not saying the guy you provided is wrong but that's two scientists you drug out that have connections to the oil industry. While the other guy was a bit more blatent in his theory that global warming isn't due to a buildup of greenhouse gasses, at least this guys doesn't say that's not the case. I see his opinion as more of a "We don't know" type. He doesn't really come out one way or another.

So again, get back in the drawing room and find someone a bit more credible.

Junk science can also be used to lock a person away for a crime he or she may not have committed, usually as a result of a so-called "expert witness" that the prosecutor brings into the courtroom. In 1992, Kennedy Brewer, a mildly retarded black man was convicted of killing a three year old girl in Macon, Mississippi, and sentenced to death. He's spent 15 years in jail so far. In 2002 he was cleared by a DNA test but not released from jail. Evidently the prosecutor plans to retry him based largely on a jailhouse informant's story that Brewer had been forced to bite the little girl's body (several times) at gunpoint.

At the first trial, the prosecutor's star expert witness was Michael West, a dentist and self-proclaimed bite mark expert whose expert testimony has been disproven by DNA in two other cases. Dr. West was suspended by the American Board of Odontology. He resigned from the American Academy of Forensic Science. West testified that at least 5 of the 19 teeth marks found on the girl's body were made by Brewer.

I am not sure about crocs dying out, but the increased heat may cause a gender imbalance. Of course, crocs bury their eggs in rotting vegetation, and cover or uncover the eggs, in order to regular the temperature they are incubating at.

I suspect, crocs will change their behavior and leave eggs uncovered more, because some ancient set of neural instructions is activated by a reoccurrence of warmer temperatures, or you will see natural selection coming into play, and crocs which naturally are more likely to bury their eggs less deep, or uncover more, will be more favorably selected.

Crocs have been around a lot longer than we have, so I suspect they will survive, but global warming will effect them in some way, that is for sure.

Man is not solely responsible for the changes, because the climate is a very complex system. However, Man has introduced changed to the atmosphere which accelerate the changes in global temperature. It is somewhat like throwing a small rock at a slope of unstable snow; a small event, or a series of events causes a very large event to happen, just like in this example, an huge avalanche of snow occurs.

I am tired of excuses; we should attempt to make industry as green as possible. Profit today does not in anyway, outweigh the possibly of Man contribiting to large changes in the climate, happening today and getting worse tomorrow.

I find it funny, that those who often talk the most about personal responsibility, often favor personal or corporate irresponsibility, when the responsible or more ecologically holistic approach, might negatively impact short term profit. Lack of long term vision when it does not involve their personal gain, and lack of concern for others, seem to be reoccurring rightist blind spots.

Brother Myr, I agree with you that industry should be as green as possible...however, I do not think junk science about global warming is the reason. Personally, I do not want to live in a polluted cesspool. I want to breath clean air and eat uncontaminated fish I catch in clean rivers and lakes. The climate is going to change...its what climates have done for as long as we have had weather on planet Earth. There exists plenty of evidence for climate change, even sudden global climate change.

Stone seems to immediately disregard Dr. Lindzen's research and comments because he is allegedly somehow associated witht he oil industry. I think that is disingenuous. If he wants to discredit Dr. Lindzen he ought to provide some scientific evidence that refutes his comments rather than try a personal attack based on past associations. Dr. Lindzen raises some valid points...even if the models the most hysterical global warming proponents use are correct those models DO NOT predict the dire catastrophes these same people use to try and shape public opinion.

The earth today is warming...that seems prety well established by the available evidence. WHat is not so well established is the mechanism behind that warming. Even if we concede a human impact on the process--and its pretty clear there IS some human impact--the available evidence does not clearly establish the weight of that human impact. This is important because it raises a question of cost-benefit balance in the effort to reduce the human impact. For instance, if human induced global warming accounts for 99% of all global warming then perhaps it is off benefit to reduce the human contribution. On the other hand, if humans contribute only 10-15% to global warming then it is not in our interests to disrupt our economies and lifestyles to eliminate that contribution. Our efforts would be much better spent on dealing with the changes rather than futily trying to stop them.

I'm sure you've read Arthur Conan Doyle and the many times Holmes and Watson went out into a 'pea-soup' fog on the way to their adventures. I'm also sure that you know about the cost to clean and preserve the Lourve, the Acropolis and many other structures that have existed, unharmed, for decades and/or centuries.

The pea-soup fog was the consequence of the industrial revolution that used coal for power.

China is shutting down gas stations and converting pump nozzles to nozzles that capture fumes and store those fumes in tanks for later use. China is trying desparately to clean the air in Beijing in anticipation of the Olympics. How can athletes compete in polutted air?

Do CO2 emissions contribute to global warming? We really don't know, do we? They haven't been around long enough to know.

We do know that the emissions contribute to health problems--just as smoking does. If we don't cut down CO2 emissions for our earth, can we do it for ourselves?

Are you asking me personally, Liz? I think my comments to Myr answer that question before you even asked it...

I think I pretty clearly acknowledged that human actions have had an impact on the environment and on climate...the question is really how much of the climate change is attributable to human behavior. Or, to put it more pointedly...how much of the climate change can we halt or reverse by changing our behaviors? THis is where the issue of "junk science" raises its ugly head. Too many people are mistaking correlation with cause...that is junk science.

What part of


did you not understand? I didn't entirely dismiss him though his connections to the oil industry do make him a bit suspect.

Oh, I see. So maybe we need a greater show of hands, huh? OK. How about this report in the National Post [http://tinyurl.com/2yz5ej] concerning a "letter" written to the United Nations Secretary General in reference to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:



The "letter" was signed by MORE than two scientists:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut fur Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman -Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling -virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Karner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut fur Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University

Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief -Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH(Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager -Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

Naturally, I'm sure they're all connected to the oil industry, too, if not completely on the Bush family payroll. You suppose?

If your posts get much longer Ray, I will move them to "Jesus Talk" . Nice list of scientists, but I wonder what percentage of scientists would agree with these people, compared to the percentage of those who disagree. I also would like to know what percentage of those who agree, have funding from oil or related industries.

...and how many scientists of the global warming advocate school of "concensus" rely, for their livelihoods, upon government and/or "green" industry grants that reward startling and disturbing findings necessitating additional grants for further research? Hey! They all have to eat, right?

Green industry is not something to be welcomed? If you are saying there is money in green industry, then that is not a slam on it, it is just saying there are profits to be made in something that many people on the right seem to view as economic suicide.


One profits from causing more damage to the Earth, while the other profits from activity which reduce damage.

Green industry funded science can find disturbing things which can also benefit the industry? I don't care frankly, as long as what disturbing things are found are actually truth. Science relates to the process of discovering truth, regardless of raised or reduced profits.


If one wants to find truth which relates to industrial/human related harm to the environment or the human effects on global warming, then the oil industry is unlikely to be funding it. If one wants to find spin which is generated to cause doubt in peoples minds about the relationship between global warming and human activities, the oil industry is often times behind it.

Doubt causes delays in action, delays in action or delays in changes towards greener energy solutions, means a maintenance of the status quo, and a maintenance of the status quo, means a maintenance of older non-green energy solutions like oil, and that means more oil profits. The equation is easy to read, if you wish to read it.

.

Myr, what I think Ray was rather rightly pointing out was that the scientists who are among the most vocal proponents of global warming are also biased...every bit as much as those scientists with connections to the oil industry about whom Stone is so doubtful.

The vocal global warming proponents have a vested interest in having their research funded and so have a vested interest in publishing results their funders will like and that will justify further funding.

Here is thing, Myrddin...it appears some, perhaps a lot, of what these scientists are 'finding' is not in fact the truth but is motivated by the desire to obtain future funding. This is why it is so important to look at research objectively and to look at multiple, repeatable, research projects. It is necessary to winnow out the "junk science"...You and Stone and others have no problem applying that to the research that purports to show the global warming issue is conflated. I suggest true intellectual honesty requires you apply it to the research supporting the claims of the global warming alarmists.

While it is indisputably true that we are seeing global warming take place, it is FAR from established that Mankind is solely or evenly largely responsible for that warming. Much of the research that claims to demonstrate this responsiblity does not in fact do so. What it demonstrates is a correlation. Guess what folks, correlation in science does not equal cause.

I look at the claims of both sides, and I look at sources of those claims and who funds them, and I still find I have more reason to doubt the oil funded claims. I am always interested in the truth, and I am always interested in who profits from bending the truth.

I am sure that you and I will both agree that greed can be a great driving force both for economic development and for technological development. In that case lets, just for the sake of argument, say both the pro and anti sides of the greenhouse gas debate are both equally greedy. Now, if both are equal in this regard, but one (a)offers a continuation of deterioration in the environment while the other (b) offers an improvement of or a slowing down of the deterioration in the environment and a path towards future more sustainable economic economic development, which do you pick? (a) or (b)?

To me, who has no direct share in the profit of either side, the best group to back seems to be (b), since I actually care about the future. What do you say? Ray seems to be picking (a).

Ahh...but you see, Myr, this is a rather different issue than global warming, is it not? I readily accept the need for industry to be more conscious of the environment if for no other reason than to reduce pollution. However, that is unrelated to the issue of human impact on observed global warming.

I remain unconvinced as to the nature and extent of human impact on the observed global warming. As such, I remain unconvinced that measures like Kyoto are in our best interests. To relate this to the topic of the thread, junk science is often used to support various agendas...the global warming proponents do this every bit as much as those who deny the reality fo global warming. I mentioned one such example concerning crocodiles in my first post in this thread.

You have at times displayed something bordering on paranoia with regards to your ideas of perceived secret, malevolent intentions within the Kyoto Protocol. Best interests? The best interests lie in preserving our planet as a suitable habitation for our species and others, and all other decisions, economic or otherwise, must be made within the context of that best interest.