The Global Warming Debate

[refill]

"I’m not sure if I completely understand your comment about climategate.

The Climategate incident wasn’t a study. It confirmed what many believe to be unethical practices among a key group of climate scientists in the field of paleoclimatology. Among the charges against this group are manipulation of data and coordination to suppress publications by critics."

I understand. I'm saying that it seems that a large part of the counter-argument hinges on climate-gate, as if it totally negates all other research.

Regarding funding of research...are there no studies funded by tax dollars only (i.e., neither by Greenpeace et al, or the oil industry)? What do they say?

"I think that many of us can better assess this by examining the science, rather than trying to evaluate the sources.
I don’t think that we need to rely 100% on an argument from authority on this issue."

To a degree this is true. However, unless you intend to go get a PhD and then do your own research, you have to decide which experts you trust. Aside from one's 1 or 2 fields of expertise in life, you have to trust the opinion of your doctor, mechanic AC repair guy, lawyer, etc. The fact is, even if we have the mental capacity to achieve expertise, we do not have the time to be expert at everything.

Regarding the picking and choosing of scientists to confirm one's opinion...one question to ask is which side has more credible scientists (and studies) from which to pick and choose? Seems there are very few credible scientist on the skeptics side (your list of 3 are the most prominent of a short list, from what I can tell).

Here is a pretty good site I came across that counters a lot of the skeptic arguments:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-rin...roblem.htm

...including much of the minutia around tree-rings, cones, etc.