[mburbank]

What most people understand is of little concern to me. Environmentalists come in many different varieties and are as prone to distort data as anyone else. I'm speaking of concensus, peer reviewed, journal published science, not flakking for interetsts. And by the way, almost all the money out there is predisposed against the majority scientiffic view on Global Warming. The oil bidness has a fuck of a lot more scientist hiring money to spread round than the all the green lobbies put together.

I'm serious. I work surrounded by science professionals, and we're hooked up with thousdands of science advisors all over the world. I haven't met a single serious scientist who doesn't think the earth is getting warmer very quickly, and that man made production of greenhouse gasses is the cause.

But the current popular trend is to view "Intelligent design" as being on a scientiffic par with evolution. (Watch, Vinth will chime in that it is and lots of 'scientists' say so, and I know that so why am I lieing.) that's because while Vinth is on the edge of his own personal envelope, a LOT of people, maybe most people, have only a passing familiarity with what the scientiffic method is. They also don't know the difference bewteen a peer reviewed journal finding with widely replicated results and a puff piece funded by a lobby. I don't see Global warming as an even remotely partisan issue in the science community. I know engineers who are so republican they iron their underwear who believe the data. en years ago there was some debate. Currently there isn't any.

Vinthy, if you want to put forward any actual names of crackpot holdouts, I'll be happy to look into them for you. I know if Rush or Newsmax or your favorite wingnut Booooortz says something you believe it, but those dudes know shit all nothing about science.