I'm not trying to make waves

In a comment on my rant about politicians, and specifically regarding global warming, Sara referred to "the legimate (peer-reviewed) scientific evidence that is in overwhelming abundance", stating that, "It's a known tactic of these sort of groups and politicians [those who don't necessarily buy into the belief that global warming is anthropogenic]* to try and plant a seed of doubt in people's minds regarding the scientific validity. (see also, "evolution is only a theory!")"

Here is a link to a document listing numerous peer-reviewed papers that refute components of the global warming argument. Not all the scientists who disagree are quacks, funded by oil companies, whose works no peer-reviewed publication will print. I'm sure there are those who will quickly point out that the source of this list is the "infamous" Friends of Science organization, who clearly has an agenda. Duh. Who else is going to provide a list of papers refuting global warming theories than an organization whose agenda is just that? Does that make this list any less valid? Does it make the list less valid than one citing papers upholding global warming theories presented by, say, Greenpeace?

If one wants to take an informed stance on any issue, one must be willing to study both sides of an argument with an open mind. To often people claim to have read "the other side's position" and found it lacking, when the reality is, they've read it with the attitude that it's going to be bunk, and they scoff at any argument presented by the opposition viewpoint. I am really, really trying to understand this subject, so I am open to everything I can find on it. I am not going to automatically dismiss scientists who might be funded by oil companies in favor of those funded by environmentalists. Both sides have their biased points of view. I will try to discern their biases, try to determine who is funding their work, but I'll also try to find out as much about the scientist's background as possible to try to determine his/her credibility and standing in the scientific community.

In a lengthy, ongoing discussion on a LiveJournal blog on this topic, one with many, many comments by Tom Harris, the Executive Director of the NSRP, and during which he was NOT treated kindly at all, one of his most ardent detractors asked this:

"Would you be so kind as to present us with said list of the actual climatologists not associated with the IPCC who disagree with the findings of the IPPC FAR. I request just one more qualifier, - in addition to being actual climatologists (and not a geologist, or an engineer, or a broadcast meteorologist, etc.) - that they have recent, peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate science in a journal which you will then cite."

This poster insisted that no reputable climatologist disagreed with the findings of the IPCC FAR. After being presented the above list, this poster said "I would concede some amount of skepticism is still out there."

That's all I'm saying....some skepticism is still out there among reputable climatologists. I'm trying to understand this issue as well as I can, so I'm not dismissing positions on either side of the issue just yet. I'm still undertaking research.

Oh, and as for Sara's comment meant to show how stupid it is to disbelieve in global warming by comparing it to those who are skeptical about evolution by saying "see also 'evolution is only a theory!'" - well, it is. The definitions of a scientific theory follow:

A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.
http://college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html

And....A theory is generally only taken seriously if it:
is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

And finally:
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.
American Museum of Natural History

I suspect Sara was referring to those who use the term "theory" to mean "an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence", and there are those people out there. Evolution is most assuredly not that kind of theory, but it is a theory.