No! That is one of the worst places to go if you want an unbiased view of science.
That site is just an anti-environmental, right wing rag. Basically, something is pegged as junk science if it inconveniences big business, is championed by anyone precieved to be liberal, or if it just sounds like something "liberals" would care about.
They have the balls to call the opinions of the majority of climate and earth scientists at the best universities "junk science".
Translation: its not politically correct, and it doesn't fit the leftist eco-collapse template, the last great white hope of Socialism and coercive statism in the late 20th and early 21st century, so ignore it.
In a February 6, 2006 article entitled "Smoked Out: Pundit for Hire", Paul D. Thacker of The New Republic reported that non-profit organizations operated by Fox News "Junk Science" commentator Steven Milloy from his home had received money from ExxonMobil while Milloy attacked research on global warming.[9] Thacker also noted that Milloy was receiving almost $100,000 a year in consulting fees from Philip Morris while he criticized the evidence regarding the hazards of second-hand smoke as "junk science"."
The ad hominem circumstantial, the first and only refuge of the left wing pantheists, chemicophobes, Neo-Primitivists, Marxists and Neo-Communists everywhere. Who funds who has little merit as a critique unless an actual biasing effect can be shown: that is, if it can be shown that the organization in question that accepted the funds weren't' philosophically and scientifically opposed to environmentalism in the first place. If I were Fred Singer or Milnoy, I'd accept a big fat check from Exxon in a heartbeat, just as fast as the Sierra Club would accept a check from the Ford Foundation, RealNetworks, Bill Gates, or The Tides Foundation, The Open Society Institute, or any number of deep pocketed leftist funding sources (including the federal government). Check out Capital Research Center and take a good long look at the corporate support for radical environmental groups, and then take a look at the disproportionate giving to left wing groups by corporate America. Tarski doesn't have a logical, evidential, or fact based argument in support of the environmental position. No left wing environmentalist does. All they have is to endlessly point out corporate funding sources (without mentioning their own interesting sources, many of them corporate) and show that some corporations support research done by groups opposed to anti-capitalist, anti-growth, anti-democratic leftist organizations, as if they shouldn't and as if the very fact of their doing so is suspect (be careful; people like Tarski don't like capitalism, property rights, and free markets as a matter of principle; it has little to do with science in any event). None of this will be compelling, in any case, to someone who does not hold a preexisting bias against corporations as somehow inherently evil.
The American Left has huge corporate supporters, and of even more significance is the foundation and 517 support for the American left, which bear more than passing similarity to what could only be described as money laundering schemes. Also left out are the large sums of government money that fund most AGW research today. This is important because this is very interested money. Exxon is a legitimate company that employs countless thousands of people at high wages and supports the economic progress and industrial growth of this country, and they have a perfectly legitimate and above board reason to fund researchers who they know are interested in debunking environmentalist pseudo science. Why? Because they don't want to be economically destroyed. Clever eh?
Here's the Sierra Club's grant history. Who needs corporations when you can get money from the Foundation babies, who produce nothing but siphon funds to groups seeking the destruction of those who do?
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/o ... org=SIC104
This is also interesting:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 0164/print
As is this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... ED65397BB9
And this:
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=17
and:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36208.html
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/Industry%20 ... envir.html
Environmentalism and its holy sacrement, AGW, is not science: it is ideology, which is why it is so resistant to science itself.
A site written by scientists would be http://www.realclimate.org/
Realclimate does have real scientists involved in its activities, as does Junkscience.com, CEI, CATO, SEPP, CO2 Science, and many other skeptical organizations. Realclimate, however, as long as Tarski insists on a battle of the sources and ad hominems in lier of argument, is a front for Michael Mann, who had his tendentious "hockey stick" graph, that undid the empirically known MWP and LIA and made the 20the century look warmer than that last thousand years combined, scientifically discredited before the world and sent packing. His refusal to share much of his data with other researchers, a unusually common tactic among global warming advocates it seems, also sent his contribution to the IPCC spinning into a nose dive.
Realclimate is a last ditch effort at salvaging a concept that, for all intents and purposes, is already dead. The empirics have just snowballed (no pun intended) against it to heavily in recent years. The GCMs are discredited, period, as useful models for predicting future climate change. None of the observational evidence supports the AGW thesis, not even in the most minor details.
Oh, and blame malaria on liberals? HA ha ha haha .....what a laugh.
Its no laughing matter to the thirty million people, mostly children, who died needlessly because of angst and ennui ridden westerner's ideological fixations, something they picked up as they left serious religion and serious liberal arts education behind, beginning in the late sixties.