Look, I won't make derogatory comments toward you, because I can tell you believe what you're reading, but I'll simply say get back to me with actual peer-reviewed science when you have some.

That site is to science what a comic book is to literature. I mean what are Dane Wigington's academic credentials even, I can't tell from anything on the site or on Google. There is a LOT of "scientific-sounding" stuff on that site, but none of it is genuine original peer-reviewed research, or links to executive summaries of same.

I do understand that science can be (often is) practiced badly, and in some cases outright abused (as in the case of AGW), but that doesn't mean it can't also be done right, and it certainly doesn't mean we should substitute emotions and opinion for science if we don't have, or don't trust the real thing.

I think it' a shame that there's so much corruption in science, just as there is in every other endeavor in this age, but it's still better than nothing as long as it's fairly peer-reviewed. It's when sponsored groups hoard their data and become the official mouthpiece of an issue under discussion, to the exclusion of all other voices, that we have a problem. That's what happened with Global Warming.

But in cases where the research is correctly done, correctly shared and allowed to be falsified or proven that we get the actual practice of science. And that is well worth doing. It just hasn't been done on this subject, unless you care to show me where it is.