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.
"If the theory 30 years ago was wrong, why do you think the theory today is correct? Maybe I'm missing something?"
Argh, I see part of the problem now. That 'thing' 30 years ago was NOT a theory. It was a paper published in a very respected science journal. A 'paper' and a 'theory' in science are two very important but different things and you should look them up on wikipedia (my suggestion, good site).
30 years ago there was no theory on climate change, just hypotheses. Today global warming research has concluded that global warming happens. This 'theory' is likely based on hundred if not thousands of papers like the one you mention 30 years ago.
The rest of your post I won't comment on sicne it is all opinion. It was good though. Well, i do have one comment.
"Evolution means we are randomly created and accountable to only ourselves, of no more value than a fruit bat or a grey whale."
Evolution does not say we are 'randomly' created. This is an unfortunate misconception that comes from the term 'random mutation.' There is in fact nothing 'random' about evolution.
"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. "
Oh I know science is not infallible, I'm an engineer. But it is the ONLY tool we have for explaining the natural world, and given that we've cured polio and gone to the moon I'd say it has served us well so far, and that some things can be trusted. When a new unproven idea comes along in science it is called an hypothesis, once that hypothesis has been sufficiently proven that the community feels it is as close to fact as we can get, it is then called a theory (for an explanatory model, otherwise it is called a law). Evolution is a scientific theory, on par for acceptance in the scientific community with every other theory.
BTW, how did we get talking about global warming? I don't know that much about it, and I really don't care either. I do know evolution, and I do care about it.
ALso, I liked your post, you are very polite, thankyou. ;)
Actually it means that the changing over time of allele frequencies in the gene pools of various populations of organisms gave rise to all the different species of life seen today. It does not mean that we are randomly created (in fact, quite the opposite; the process of selection is nonrandom). It does not mean that we are accountable to only ourselves. (I assume you are implying that evolution implies lack of a God, which it doesn't.)