Sure, you post science, but when it happens to be in the area of something you are politically dogmatic about, it just so happens to be the 'science' you post:

1. Shows up all over the internet on 'denialist' blogs (See Also: Intelligent Design)
2. Changes every month or two as the last picked 'cherry' fails to pan out (See also: Intelligent Design)
3. Seems to be transmitted through you as if you were just a rebroadcast node on some network (See Also: Intelligent Design)
4. Doesn't always say what you claim it says, or have the bona-fides you say it has (IE, may have in fact been retracted)

You want to be taken as a serious empirical mind on this issue- act as one. As long as you are sucking from the teat of blogs and posting stuff here straight off someone elses presses without seeming to think about it critically, then anyone armed with google, common sense and a basic knowledge of the actual scientific debate in the community can shoot you down.

Given the sources and (poor) methods you employ in trying to make your case, and the hyperbolic and incessant tone in which you continue to try to make your case (its the closest I've seen you to red-in-the-face since the original discussion about 'should we invade Iraq'... And given how that worked out for you on the correctness scoreboard, you might want to take note of that ), its just a little obvious what you (a) want to be true and (b) have politically/ideologically vested interests about what other people accept to be true. Given that, its really hard to take you seriously or believe for 1 second that you are objective on this matter.

Yeti