But I do live my life as scientfically as possible. The most fundamental principle behind scientific inquiry, to my mind, is that in order to see a thing clearly you need to remove all visual obstructions first. In science we call this process 'falsification,' though a stone-cutter would refer to his version of the same fundamental process as 'chipping.' Blow after blow from the stone-cutter's hammer removes extraneous material until the final product is revealed. This product is strong, durable, and usually takes a slightly different final form than what was initially envisioned -- just like a scientific theory.
An expert, on the other hand, works in precisely the opposite manner.
An expert builds a position much more like a sculptor who uses clay, lumping more and more material (supporting evidence) together while massaging the object until it eventually looks coherent and rational. Then, when the clay is shaped to the sculptor's satisfaction, it's placed on a pedestal for all to see, admire, and appreciate -- however, one must refrain from touching this delicate object for fear of damaging it, along with the sculptor's ego.
Not so for the stone-cutter's work.
It has *always* boggled me that at least half of the people in the climate change discussion genuinely fail to see that the only people applying the scientific method are those who don't just swallow the alarmist line -- fittingly, these hesitant people are called 'skeptics' by fair-minded people, and 'deniers' by the less charitable. The skeptics are the ones pointing out often glaring inconsistencies in modeling projections, the lack of solar cycle inclusion in equations, albedo's role in planetary temperatures, or any of the other dozen headlining points of objection raised by the skeptic community.
It's rightly a hot button issue, but we *have* to do better than we have, as a species/society, in discussing this particular subject. SSI seems as good a place as any to take a few swings at doing just that.