The problem is that science is driven by polititcs! everyone knows that! Politics is a perverse institution that traditionally utitilizes lies, spin, unethical behaviour and practices etc. Now we know that if scientists /professors/ researches/ edu institutions dont tow the official line, in most cases their funding gets removed or severely compromised.
Unfortunately politics utilizing its hypnotic brain washing tool- A thing called T.V and the media and with the kind assistance of funding organisations all work to cloud and severly taint the grains of truth and that exist to study and publish and share. Take the below for example. Did you know that at least 32,000 scientists signed a petition refuting the absord claims othat humans caused global warming is a scientific fact.
So see below for an extract of one of many articles you can find.
I do think that Reid Horne might want to make contact with these 32 thousand odd fellows and explain to each and every one of them why they are wrong. Im sure his new insight into science which each one of them have unforunately and amazingly missed might be beneficial to the survival of planet earth!

32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”
May 20th, 2008

At a press conference on May 19, Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., announced the release of the names of 32,000 scientists who have signed a strongly worded petition dissenting from the alarmist assertions of Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fears of catastrophic human-caused global warming, requiring draconian energy rationing, are the basis for policies supported by all three leading Presidential candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain.

Al Gore claims that “the debate is over,” and that there are only a “few” remaining “skeptics.”

“In Ph.D. scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC project. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it,” states Robinson. Signers include more than 9,000 Ph.Ds.

Most signatures were obtained by mailing to lists of university professors and a compendium that constitutes a “Who’s Who” of American scientists.

“How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?” asks Lawrence Solomon (Financial Post 5/17/08). He reviews the history of previous petitions, including the Heidelberg Appeal, which ultimately obtained 4,000 signatures, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. In numbers, the Oregon Petition Project vastly exceeds all others, having gathered some 17,800 signatures in 2001—“all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stand these scientists took.”

“Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because ‘increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.’”

Robinson was urged to renew the effort to collect signatures by scientists who were “outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends” (ibid.).

“Proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries,” Robinson writes in the Frequently Asked Questions on a website that posts the Petition, a description of the Project, the list of signatories, and their qualifications.

Tax, you're right!!! I agree 100%. FIrst, millions of years is indeterminable. Nobody can prove that beyond recorded history. Carbon dating is only provable as far as we have record of the studies, anything before that we simply hope to be accurate. Also, scientific data is questionable. There are so many scientists and so much research (much of it contradictory) the only way to truly prove anything is to do your own personal research. Remember also that much of science is paid for by special interest groups. One commercial said, "eggs are bad for you" another says "eggs are good for you", one commercial says "milk is bad for you" another, "Milk is good for you". Research shows high fructose corn syrup is bad for you, other research, and a commercial states it's just fine (in moderation, although that is assumed, but nothing is good for you if you have too much of it, so they're playing on words which could be confusing.) My point is, the only way to find out is to study it yourself because if you look for what you want to see, you'll find it, even if you're missing data that might prove it inaccurate.

I also agree with Tax that it's extremely self-absorbed of people to not hear this man's point of view. I also agree with Chad Myers that it is arrogant of us to believe we have enough influence on the environment to destroy God's creation. Have you not heard of the amount of Methane produced by cattle? This is research I invite you to do without looking to prove yourself right, simply research to find truth, not support of your own ideas.

Two comments:

First on taxbax, like many, your facts are completely wrong. Greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, CFCs, etc) are now proven to have substantially more forcing the naturally occurring events, including the slight solar warming over the last hundred years. Conservatives say "this has been going on for millions of years." There were not coal fired power plants or Hummers millions of years ago throwing the carbon cycle out of whack.

Secondly, Lou Dobbs did not mention that the Heartland Institute is funded primarily by Exxon Mobil to muddy the waters and confuse scientifically illiterate people like taxbax about the gravity of the situation.

If anchors are going to talk about climate, get a climate scientist, not a weatherman and a liar from Heartland Institute.

actually hes right. he doesnt state that global warming is not happening and he doesnt state that global warming has no affect on the weather.

man made carbon production pales in comparison to that of natural sources like volcanoes and plant and animal decay. It also has yet to be proven that carbon is actually the cause of global warming when many data sets portray it to be a result of global warming. many scientists agree that the weather and planetary temperatures are more the result of solar winds and it is a fact that temperatures are rising across the solar system, possibly due to our approach of the galactic equator.

it is ignorant to disregard this mans opinion without researching the available data and making your own opinions. have you even questioned that the accepted theory is but propaganda? no, you just accept it as well, without questioning, because you believe it is aligned to your own beliefs.

question everything!

He would be a great choice for Keith Olbermann's 'World's Worst' feature.