Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
And even then any given experiment has to be repeated by a large cross section of ones peers under the same conditions to confirm the results or ones experiment can be considered spurious.
When you are adding knew knowledge to the records, or contradicting existing knowledge, yes. But if you are developing a knew hypothesis and your data contradicts it, there's not going to be any peer review: you'll rework or discard your hypothesis and start over.

Btw a hypothesis is a preconcieved idea by any other name.
Of course. And when enough evidence has been acquired to prove that the hypothesis is an accurate representation of the real world it becomes a theory. Which means it's a fact in all but name.

(and yes they are still all unconfirmed theories at this point)
If they are unconfirmed they are not theories, they are still hypotheses. It's only after they've become confirmed, through experimentation and observation, that they gain the status of theories.

and yes both sides appear imho to be cherry picking
The problem I have with this statement is that those who are doing the actual research and accumulating the data are, in general, making that data available for all. Yes, there have been some screw-ups in this area, but it's been shown to be a case of poor record keeping rather than malice. Those who are denying global warming tend to be those who are not doing any actual research but are taking those areas of data which seem to agree with their desires and holding it up, saying, "See? I told you so!" An example is those who look at the temperature readings for the last ten years or so and say, "Look, the temperatures have been dropping, so there is no global warming." While the data confirms the temperature drops, it does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. There are many natural cycles involved which cause global temperatures to fluctuate. Are the temperature dropping as low as we would expect? What will happen when they start to go up again? And they will go up again, believe me!

And I wouldnt be too quick to jump the gun and say that if one isnt a "climatoligist" they have no business refuting the findings of a cross/inter disiplinary science.
I'm not saying they have no business refuting the findings. But they should be looked at more critically when working outside of their own discipline. And when their conclusions contradict the accepted theories their data and records have to be much more rigorous. That's the way the scientific method works.