Pseudo--scientists and Man-made Global Warming

Dear Readers,
This is a very long essay, but I think it is extremely important in the context of man-made global warming and our societal beliefs in general. I encourage you to at least scan the quotations of Dr. Schaffersman.
I had been reading about Dr. Walter McCrone's study on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Dr. McCrone was an expert chemical microscopist. The Shroud of Turin is said to be the burial cloth of Christ.
With clear scientific data, Dr. McCrone proved that the Shroud of Turin is a fake and that the cloth and its image were prepared at least 1300 years after the death of Christ. However, a multitude of people had such a strong emotional attachment to the Shroud as the original burial cloth, that they were unable to accept the scientific proof.
Dr. McCrone made strong attempts to carry his scientific arguments to the nonbelievers, but ultimately failed. In one of his efforts to gain support for his scientific findings, he contacted Dr. Steven Schaffersman, a micropaleontologist from the Department of geology, Miami University. The basic question was whether a person named Max Frei had unwittingly or deceptively presented false information concerning pollen granules on the Shroud. However, Dr. Schaffersman also deviated somewhat to discuss pseudoscience, which is our main interest here.
Various pertinent quotations from Dr. Schaffersman's letter to McCrone are as follows:

"Since the case is an excellent example of both pseudoscience and of the typical response of scientists and intelligent lay persons to pseudoscientific claims, I shall examine the problem in detail". He then mentions how a third person, named Kubik, was willing to accept the Frei data. Schaffersman then said, "When presented with "scientific data", this would be the common response of most scientists or informed persons and for good reason: Through history, scientists have acquired a well-deserved reputation for high integrity in the gathering and presentation of basic data; the scientific method requires at least this. In my [previous] presentation about the nature of pseudoscience, I apparently did not emphasize the fact that pseudoscientists attempt to gain credibility for themselves and acceptance of their particular claims by using their affected position as scientists, since the public, voters, and consumers all [have] been conditioned by decades of scientific success to respect and believe scientists (this explains why pseudoscience is markedly a 20th-century phenomenon). Posing as good scientists, pseudoscientists have presented both bad data and bad conclusions to uninformed individuals, apparently in the hope that those who do not immediately buy the often incredible pseudoscientific conclusions will still fall prey to the misinformation in the data. Such false data may eventually cause the recipients to doubt legitimate science enough to make them, at some future date, susceptible to the false conclusions. This arcane practice of propagating misinformation and thus planting seeds of doubt has been utilized for 20 years by the "scientific" creationists. Again and again, I have found scientific distortions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods in the [literature]. Many people have been misled by such misinformation, since they read the pseudoscientific literature, accept the data as valid (since it is well-documented and presented by "scientists" or "scholars" who have PhD's or other academic credentials), and then may or may not accept the conclusions. Since they have no independent means of checking the veracity of the basic data these people tend to rely on their respect for the authority and credibility of scientists (and the written word!) and accept the data without question."
"I believe that one of the basic rules of investigating pseudoscience is to be skeptical of everything including the data, until independently examined. This is a rule I have followed in my investigation of "shroud science", including the claims of Max Frei. No one is born with such skepticism--it must be deliberately adopted as a working method. Credulity  is a well-known human behavioral characteristic which needs to be restrained when doing scientific work (credulity is pervasive among humans [for several reasons of survival]. Of course, there must be a balance between skepticism and credulity. We can't doubt everything. But a healthy skepticism is surely appropriate when investigating fantastic or incredible claims involving natural materials."
""There is always another possibility to examine (if we overlook the possibility of incompetence, of course): the possibility of fraud. This possibility is frequently overlooked in science and [many] probably consider the possibility of human deception in science to be unmentionable or too insulting to contemplate; nevertheless I believe that the possibility of fraud must be considered in any investigation of any pseudoscientific topic. We have innumerable examples today of such frauds and deceptions perpetrated upon an innocent public and scientists, and such deception is no doubt occurring right now. Those who are familiar with pseudoscience will understand the frequent necessity of concluding that deliberate human fraud or deception is at the bottom of most pseudoscientific claims. This characteristic of pseudoscience cuts across such things as the scientific integrity or personal reputation of any individual. In fact, pseudoscience exists as a subset of human deceit because of two peculiar consequences of recent origin: the prestige of science in the modern world and the almost laughable readiness of individuals, especially scientists, to accept without question the veracity of data presented in a scientific context. Of course, although we should not be blind to the possibility of deception in basic scientific data, especially in a pseudoscience, we must nevertheless first examine the data objectively without bias."
"The truthfulness of neither philosophical nor scientific knowledge is predicated upon proof. Proof is used only in metaphysical discipline such as mathematics and logic, in which constraints and possibilities are defined. In the real world, anything, including a miracle is possible but in the realm of science we limit the possibility by the use of the highly collaborated working hypothesis of materialism, naturalism and actualism. We would say that all empirical evidence agrees with the hypothesis (that is, the hypothesis is always corroborated and never falsified) that the material universe exists, therefore its existence in fact is the most reasonable explanation. Invariably, the most reasonable explanations are those which agree with most or all of the data and which do not contradict (falsify) other highly corroborated hypotheses or theories. This latter qualification is important; attributing [an artifact or a phenomenon] to a miracle, is a possible explanation which will account for all of the empirical evidence; however, it is not the most reasonable explanation because it conflicts with the highly-corroborated hypothesis of naturalism."
"Attacks on pseudoscientists by other scientists are becoming increasingly common. Scientists are becoming aware that scientific truth is a fragile thing and that it does not propagate throughout society on its own accord due to its intrinsic value. Scientific truth, or any type of truth must be advocated and taught by men of reason, intelligence, and goodwill. Truth is spread by education by individuals who believe in it. Pseudoscientific misinformation and claims are the antithesis of scientific truth (facts and theories) and thus stand in the way of any scientist's best efforts. Scientists have ignored such claims and misinformation in the past, but modern communication, media assistance, and the current cultural temperament make such pseudoscience more available, more believable, and more successful than ever before, so scientists are now fighting back. In today's world of Religious New Right, anti-intellectualism and popular pseudoscience, I am motivated to speak out against them. Whatever their purposes, I feel they are a danger to our civilization and must be opposed by others in our democratic system."

I have previously proposed that there is no significant connection between carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and global warming. This is based on the known properties of heat transfer through the various atmospheric gases, and the concentrations of each gas in the atmosphere. Up to now, no scientist has challenged this proposal with other legitimate scientific evidence.