"These same intellectual idiots are the ones that you bow down to? Good God, how embarrassing!"
I'm going to assume what you posted is true, though please post links from now on. For all I know, you could have gotten this from the discovery institute website.
30 years ago? Has it occured to you that much research has been done since then? Why does it matter what the first papers published on climate changed said 30 years ago? Today, scientists feel there is enough evidence to officially back the idea that global warming happens. Why are you so against that anyway? Why do you care? Wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution? Aren't you just towing the republican line? Regardless, I'm waiting for an actual reference. The 'Science' journal in the 30 year old reference you gave is an excellent journal that I would very much accept an argument from. Assuming it is a bit more recent...
Again I must ask you, why no problem with flight? Or germ theory? You are pretty selective about when to trust the scientific community, and when they are liars.
I actually am old enough to have read some of those articles. You can probably find them if you search online. Global warming models have not been shown to be predictive, so making policy based on the concept is likely to be unnecessary, economically suicidal, and have other unintended consequences.
If the theory 30 years ago was wrong, why do you think the theory today is correct? Maybe I'm missing something?
There is some science that is observable. Sterile techniques reducing the spread of disease is a good example. Good and bad effects of drugs are another.
There is lots of research that is agenda driven too. Looking for the homosexual gene. Children raised in single parent families do just as well as those raised by both biological parents. One of my favorites is that gender has nothing to do with likely behavior - that femininity/masculinity is entirely a societal construct. Television does not influence behavior, unless you're selling commercials. There are several studies linking abortion and breast cancer, but because the concept is politically unpopular, it is not well-publicized.
Global warming theory places the developed nations in the position of evil empires that unchecked will lead to TEOTWAWKI, when in many cases the pollution levels are higher in less developed countries. Taken to the ultimate of ridiculous, we should get the heck off the planet before we ruin it. Hopefully the NGO folks will go first . . .
Evolution means we are randomly created and accountable to only ourselves, of no more value than a fruit bat or a grey whale. We're getting more knowledgable every day, so when we decide that homosexuals should marry, by george, they should. If someone wants to leave their marriage to "fulfill themself", who has the right to disagree with the decision, even if there are young children involved? If someone wants to molest an 8 year old, or have sex with an assortment of farm animals, what is the problem? If a baby doesn't live up to your expectations, why not let it starve to death?
Belief systems have consequences - yours in evolution and mine in special creation. Even if special creation/intelligent design by God was not true (and there are good reasons to believe it is), like the Marshwiggle in the Chronicles of Narnia - I'm going to live like a Narnian even if there is no Narnia.
That may not be the robust scientific truth you're looking for, but if you do some fair research, you'll find that science is not an infallible source, nor as simple as you seem to believe.
Blessings to you and yours.