Steven , one of the best topics for some time.
Agronomist is right of course (don’t faint) in this instance. His methodology is sound.
However Steven the question is how does the LAY person decide? The internet is a double edged sword in that there is as much misinformation there as real. Therefore we’re back to the original question.

In truth often the most accessible (to the majority of the net users) information is often the least reliable. The recent show on the truth about the Mary Celeste indicated that clearly the mystery was created by a person’s persistent ego and the later sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Lawyers have a technique in some cases called the “paper blizzard” where the pertinent facts are hidden in a mountain of irrelevant distracting documents.
The practical issue then becomes:
• Who has the ability to make the investigation let alone understand it? Most people would be scratching to know what “Nature” was.
• Who has the time to research all topics and issues the average citizen faces on a day to day basis?
Realistically there is a conflict between the ‘reasonable man’ test and the business maxim ‘caveat emptor’. Facts can vary depending on the ‘interest’ or perspective of the person interpreting them.
I as a matter of course tend to look for the ‘interest’ and then factor that in when examining an issue. In the case of obvious bias etc I question more strenuously their assertions. This doesn’t mean they are wrong but in commercial issues this hyper scepticism has proven more than helpful.
As a manager when hiring staff I was also interested in ‘negative’ reference verification. This often gave me real insights into potential problems. Not that necessarily stopped me from hiring but fore warned is fore armed.What is a problem to some maybe manageable or even an advantage to me.

Richie10 writes

'Knowledge is doubling every 5 years if you are not constantly up grading you are becoming obselite .'

It is good to continue to gain knowledge although truth never changes. Jesus words are shown to be true thousands of years after they have been penned. Many seek knowledge that only puffs up with pride. The heart of man has not changed and the answer for humanities problems remain the same. Jesus Christ is the source of all true knowledge

Simple answer.Follow the money trail.Self interest sways both perception and analysis.In the complex realm of climate,you can justify anything in the noble persuit of saving the planet and lining your own pocket.

Since 1990 $50 billion has been given to the scientific community for research.Would they dare destroy the fear and trepidation that the UN has now established as a yoke by which we are now controlled?

Naturally..I sit on the sidelines of this great discussion with a bit smirk on my dial...musing over the 'objective' nature of that which is called upon to destroy 'religious' faith in such things as Creation:)

AAAAhh.. *SCIENCE*... It is sooo objective :)

Agronomist,

A search revealed that the CSIRO book received quite a bit of coverage in Nature. However we are in substantial agreement anyway.

Examinator

Glad you like the thread.

Arjay,

"Follow the money trail" is always sound advice but it is not a magic bullet. Often ALL protagonists to a dispute have huge sums of money at stake. Here are two cases in point.

Case 1.

Curbing greenhouse gas emissions benefits suppliers of alternative energy generating systems such as manufacturers of wind turbines and geothermal energy systems.

Refraining from curbing greenhouse gas emissions benefits the oil industry.

You cannot decide who is right in this dispute simply by following the money.

Case 2.

The trucking magnate, Lindsey Fox, has criticised the dredging of Port Phillip Bay to deepen the shipping channel. He favours expanding Western Port Bay instead.

Fox owns land around Western Port Bay and would make a bundle if the government follows his advice. But does that make it wrong? There are many people who argue that deepening the shipping channel in Port Phillip Bay is at best a short term solution and that Western Port Bay is a better option.

In fact I would guess that Fox bought the land because he figured it would be needed for a port one day.

Again this dispute cannot be assessed simply by following the money.

Polycarp,

The scientific enterprise is self-correcting. This dispute will be settled eventually and it will be settled OBJECTIVELY.

For what it's worth I think we'll find there are no one size fits all diets. Instead, as the science of genomics advances, nutritionists will be able to tailor diets to individuals.

Certainly science beats trying to find answers to scientific questions in the koran or bible.

Steven says .. "It sure beats trying to find scientific answer in the Quran and Bible"...

I rather agree. There are some interesting and noteworthy glimpses in the Bible "Circle of the earth" in Isaiah being one of them....but re Creation..it is all 'big picture' stuff..not micro.

But you say science is self correcting? :) hmmmmmmmm if that were so...then why is there massive disagreement between the parties you mention? well of course it's...funding..reputation..money... etc.

I suggest the best that will occur is that they will agree to disagree.
Of course the truth is 'out there'....but there are those 'out there' also who want a particular brand of truth for financial or reputational reward.

What I see is that facts are presented.. attacks/rebuttals made..and it's left up to the public to decide.

I always say "follow the money" to find out which side is telling more truth.

TRUTH is directly and inversely proportional to the degree of reward involved :)