any science which has political implications with which the person using the phrase disagrees.

In other words, "junk science" is junk terminology. Like "political correctness," it's become a catch-all phrase used in an effort to cut off debate. Don't like what someone is saying? Slap it with a pejorative label and hope that will make people stop listening. The depressing thing is how often this tactic works.

Since it is the Upper Class, and their Corporate servants,

who fabricate the complaint about junk science, let's invent

some new terms to redirect peoples' attention to who put the

junk in the science.

Corporate Junk Science.

Not-for-profit Sound Science. (or Sound not-for-profit

Science, if you prefer).

I share the authors indignation at the paid shills who would trash global warming prevention policy and I enjoyed reading the wit of the other post, but Milloy and others need to be answered with more than sarcasm and indignation.

I noticed that the article did not, nor any of the post, respond to the FEAF's statement, "Now GE shareholders will have the opportunity to request that GE justify its global warming policy in scientific and economic terms."

So, if CO2 emmisions from human activity are in fact a contributing cause of global warming, where is the science? Sound scientific argument is needed to debunk the debunkers.

I'm not a scientist, but my cursory searches on the Internet have not turned up any anything more than hypothesys as to the causes of global warming. There is a wide consensus among scientist that global warming is a fact, but there is much less consensus on the cause.

Not only is there dispute, but there seems be a lot of it. There is also the famous "hockey stick" case where proponents of global warming being caused by human production of C02 gases were apparently falsifying data. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4349133.stm). This, of course, is being widley used to discredit the proponents of C02 induced climante change by right wing corporate shills.

My personal inclination is to believe CO2 emmisions from human activity is a major contributor to global warming, but I'm still searching for convincing scientific evidence. Hopefully, someone out there can supply it by way of another post.