[cogitator]

The unfunded (and thus independent) scientific community is in a position to provide an unbiased view of the subject.

Tell me this. How many people drive cars in the United States? (100 million? 150 million?)

How many of them would you trust would have the expertise to drive a NASCAR vehicle at about 200 mph in a NASCAR race?

The subset of experts who understand what they're doing is considerably smaller than the set of amateurs who don't -- even if the basic skills are similar.

[kidd]

The majority of people in this country do not hold degrees in the sciences. However, that is irrelevant since we are talking about the community of scientists, not the general public.

In keeping with your NASCAR analogy, I would certainly trust a stock car driver or Indy car driver's opinion on how a particular NASCAR vehicle was driven.

Trusting a climatologist to form an unbiased opinion of global warming is like trying to get a Yankees fan to admit that Aaron Boone is the worst third baseman in baseball today.

[Dan Evans]

"The subset of experts who understand what they're doing is considerably smaller than the set of amateurs who don't -- even if the basic skills are similar. "

An amateur is someone who isn't being paid for his work. Pick up a history book and see how many technical and scientific advances have been made by amateurs -- people who fund their own research. Einstein did some of his best work as an amateur when he was a patent clerk.

But you raise a good question -- who should we trust? Honesty is more of an issue than competence. I would trust the man who is not being paid, he has nothing to lose by telling the truth and nothing to gain by distorting the truth to please his politically motivated patrons.