Well, I am disgusted with the AGW crowd and much of the science tangential to it, for one very simple reason: peer review is now corrupted by all the studies based on false data. Since these studies are referenced in and across disciplines to prove theses, their speciousness invalidates peer review’s credibility on its face.
Whether internal arguments are valid, sound, and so forth, as you both have been discussing and arguing over, is pointless, when the data is so corrupted that the research cannot conclude results correctly and accurately.
And that makes me very angry. I have believed in the value of the Academy all my life. I’m arriving at the point of thinking it’s mostly a sham, except for accounting and electrical engineering, neither of which is my content area.
And I don't really see any solution. Good science requires significant funding. If the only funding came from the private sector then we might only get advances in short-term technological improvements.
Funding of science by democratically elected governments is supposed to be more longsighted and dispassionate, but it seems to be all caught up in the flavor of the month, which always turns out to be "Rocky Road", i.e. one crisis after another.
The long term solution is for scientists to be well-trained and courageous enough to speak up when the scientific method is being undermined or disregarded. It's also important that things stay in the open so that when failures occur they are very public.
The only good news about the AGW madness is that its proponents are so open about their ideas. When AGW finally becomes too tenuous to sustain the failure will be very public and very damning.
I only hope that when that happens, the average man in the street doesn't lose all faith in science.
That’s pretty much my point.