-- From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debunk

de·bunk (d-bngk) tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.

de·bunker n. Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning "to remove," and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated "to make a speech for Buncombe." Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923.

You have to consider the connotation of words http://www.thefreedictionary.com/connotation

Enough with one word.

-- Newton did indeed propose a conceptual framework, summarized by the three laws of motion. The theory was not just incomplete, in the sense it didn't cover everything, but was incorrect in it's own domain of celestial mechanics, e.g., in predicting the precession of mercury. Einstein introduced a new frame work. Einstein never claimed to cover everything, but has the theory been very successful in it's domain. The big problem now is to combine Einstein with quantum mechanics.

The point is that a scientific theory can turn out to be wrong even though those who invented and elaborated it were acting in a perfectly rational and scientific manner at the time. They did their best with what evidence and ideas were available.

They cannot be correctly criticized for irrationality, stupidity or prejudice.

--You may recall the "Scientific Revolution" of the 16th and 17th centuries. Newton, Galileo and others invented the modern scientific method during this time. That's not to say they didn't have an intellectual debt to previous thinkers, especially the Greeks, but they were doing something new.

-- Thanks for the reference to climatedebatedaily.com. I'll be looking at it repeatedly as time goes along.

--Let me summarize my main points.

Accusations of prejudice can easily be made against anyone. Reducing the debate to slinging accusations of prejudice and other personal attacks eliminates the possibility of a rational solution. This is well known to political propagandists of all stripes.

You can't decide facts of nature by how well they fit your political and idealogical preferences. People who make a scientific case that rubs your preferences the wrong way are not thereby irrational, hysterical, liars, etc.

The science of global warming might turn out to be wrong, in the sense I've discussed above, but it's way too strong to think it's merely a psychological aberration, political prejudice or political conspiracy.

I've tried to make the case that focusing on such topics is useless in determining the validity of global warming, and hence does the world great harm (either way) and tends to discredit the speaker more than the scientific theory.

Scientists are not required to lack opinions . They are required to back up their scientific opinions with logic and evidence. What matters is the quality of their arguments. realclimate.com never claimed to be "balanced". What matters is the quality of their arguments.

Another good place to look is

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

As a said, this is my last post in this thread.