[kidd]

Let's try this on Global Warming:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media - yes, frequently

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work - yes, often "big oil" is blamed

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection - yes, we've been told it'll be 30 years before we can determine if the oceans are rising or not, plus other examples

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal - yes, "sure was a hot day yesterday...must be global warming"

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries - no.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation - no.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation - yes

Global warming gets 5 out of 7. Sounds like junk science to me.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I would completely disagree with you on this one.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media - Climate change data has been published in the scientific literature for decades. Only a small amount of this goes to the media. Score 1/2. Running score 1/2.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work - No, the GW people only claim that they're being ignored, mostly by the Republicans. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection - No. The effects are large increases in average temperature. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal -No. Temperature measurements (and range of polar bear migrations) and such are given as evidence. (In fact, most protests against GW are anecdotal.) Score 0. Running score 1/2.

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries - no. However the claim has been around since the 1870s. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation - no. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation - no. GW makes no claim of new laws. The physics are well understood. Score 0. Running score 1/2.

Total score 1/2 due to media attention. GW is certainly not junk science. It may or may not be correct and the effects may or may not be as often claimed, but it cannot be dismissed as junk science.

Failure to address GW scientifically has put the conservatives at a disadvantage. For example, the Koyoto treaty did nothing to alleviate GW and its consequences. Conservatives were handicapped by not having a credible scientific response and thus had to make economic arguments.