[SecretMaster]

The central focus of that whole "doctored data" scandal from two years ago was precisely because the researchers edited their data to highlight and support their conclusion that human beings are causing the global climate to destabilize in heat up.

Except they didn't. Every "denier" went into a tizzy with the climate-gate scandal over nothing. If you take anything without it's full context it can be dangerously misconstrued. The only problem with the CRU was it's poor handling of data sharing. I think there were three or four separate investigations that found the CRU had no wrong-doing. Furthermore even if they did "make-up" their data, that is one data set out of literally hundreds.

My whole fight against climate change believers has always been the poor methods the researchers use and weak-minded politicians trying to enact legislation based on inaccurate and shoddy pseudo-science.

Again what poor methods? That whole post I made earlier was meant to show you exactly how this field of study came about, based on replicable empirical data. If you actually took the time to read even a handful of the papers published, and read them well, you wouldn't be questioning the methodologies. Labeling all the work done by individuals as "poor" without even seriously looking at it is dishonest.

Our climate records do not go "way way back". 350 years (and I am being generous here, because there aren't records for climate or weather patterns in South America from the mid 1700s, for example) compared to the entire lifespan of the planet is most definitely insignificant. Incomplete data gives incomplete results.

Except you can infer the climate decently through various observations. Of course we will never actually know, but our knowledge on physics, chemistry, and biology lets us know that the data is good enough. If the data was completely wrong, well then our world would come crashing down because so much technology functioning on the same premises exists today and still functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Just read the wiki primer on it. It's really fascinating stuff.

My other claim about climate change has also been that its adherents believe in it with almost religous fervor. They can't prove to anyone else that what they believe is true but they do try to proseletyze to anyone who will listen. *shrug*

That's true of any group. There are "science!" zealots, there are religious zealots, etc. I think a vast number of individuals (such as myself) do speak out against statements that are blatantly false. There are extremely weak arguments presented by the majority of the conspiricists out there. When rebutted with evidence that shows they are wrong, and asked for a better response, they simply get blathering that amounts to nothing.

There are valid criticisms to make about climate science. Nearly all "deniers" are just that, deniers who will never budge from their positions. "Skeptics" are a good thing, skepticisim in science is crucial. Skeptics consider the information given, and give constructive feedback. Skeptics can be reasoned with, and ultimately swayed one way or another. But most skeptics are you know, usually scientists who know what they are talking about. Unlike nearly all deniers.

is discussion also highlights a point I was making elsewhere--for every scientific study I can find that disproves global warming someone else can find a scientific study that supports it. Which study do we believe? As with most things, we all have to choose for ourselves what we will believe.

I promise you, you cannot. Give me 10 published papers that you have actually read through and in the paper they explicitly say "global warming does not exist." Papers by different authors, and not the same person publishing the same thing year after year. Also if it so common to find such papers, exclude the one published by the Heartland Institute, which was so blatantly wrong and politically biased it should be a crime. If you can that, we'll start from there.

This article isn't proof, one way or t'other, but may be of interest

I admit I skimmed through the article, I might re-look at it more thoroughly later. I think the main point to keep in mind however is that media coverage =! scientific majority. Believe me or look it up yourself, as our understanding of the planet has progressed, the belief in heading towards a cooling spell has consistently been a very minor viewpoint. The whole topic of media portrayal of science deserves its own thread, and is something most of us (and by us I mean those who are in academia) have a lively debate about constantly. If you are interested I have some good reads for you.