Frankly, I believe this is the crux of your problem. You don't trust the well preformed research and give it equal weight with poorly done research and research where the conclusions don't match the data.
Paranoid conspiracy theorist often believe that most everyone is lying. It makes it hard to find any truth.
I get what you are saying, and actually agree with you by and large. My statement that you have highlighted is an (over) generalisation in summary of a number of other points.
It is difficult for the layperson to establish the truth, they do not have the time nor the training to establish the facts beyond any reason and as such have to rely on the politicians and lay publications.
So how does Joe find out the truth of this. How do we clear the water of mud to see the truth?
Many say: It's simple - go to the source. The fact is that Joe wont go anywhere near it, so this suggestion is not going to come to pass and (probably) nor should it.
But Joe has an opinion and that opinion remains important to the future research requirements, funding and political aspirations of many. Sadly, in many ways - but such is the nature of this beast.
Is it not true that in the public arena the water is already so muddied it is in fact hard to tell the truth from the lies?
Should Joe believe East Anglia, the IPCC, etc. The players, Pachuri (dare I say) Gore? Do I look to the other side and McIntyre and Monckton. IoP memos or a look outside my window. And what of the genuine scientists who are on either side of the debate. What of the controversies; they don't have parliamentary hearings for no reason. Climategate, Wiki etc etc etc. The list goes on.
And you are right. I don't trust some of the well researched data and conclusions. That is not based on some paranoid conspiracy theory, that my friend is based on an entire field that has grown to big, too fast and has to some extent been hijacked by greed, ideology, politics and/or power and has lost much of its integrity - that isn't my fault, nor Joe's, nor the deniers (although they may have helped), the warmers themselves have caused that.
Can we remove those things?
I doubt it too and so we go around and around and around.
Big endians and little endians all playing off against one another, until what? Six rebellions and civil war?
I have only a couple of suggestions (that I have already touched on) but they are far too difficult and unrealistic to manage - as one person said "fat chance".
In a nutshell we need to:
- let the scientists do what they do without fear nor favour with regard to results. (Many see the data is made to match the result required)
- allocate appropriate levels of funding for valid research
- remove the alarmists and their predictions
- remove the political and ideological connections
- start from scratch (possibly) and reconfirm all the major conclusions.
Failing this, what do we do?
I for one can see this ending only one of two ways and both ways are appalling if AGW is real:
- constant continued arguing until it either blows over (and proven false) or is too late (and proven true)
- The science of AGW falls into further controversy and ignominy until it is a political turd that no one will touch.
Thats why it seems to me we need to 'go back to the drawing board' and start over.
