I don't have an "alternative", all I'm doing is pointing out how a "layman", such as myself, would view these arguments.
"This scientific journal is better than that one and the peer reviews on this one are valid but not valid in that one."
So tell me Ton, how are layman, like myself, supposed to know what is "truth" and what is "bullshyte"?
Nobody has an alternative. There isn't anything better, which isn't a problem with the process. It's a human problem. The number of different biases categorized numbers in the multiples of tens. Peer review, when it's done well minimizes the contributions our biases make. But it will never be perfect. Even if it were perfect, that is still no guarantee that all the findings will be correct. Science is performed in a messy world where things aren't perfect.
Likewise, any suggestion I have for you will never be perfect. All I can tell you is if you care about the subject, read about it. Lots of people are experts, some call themselves experts, so read from lots of experts. For example when I was a teenager, I was interested in this subject and wanted to know more. I read some books. Then the internet became more active, people started blogging, including scientists and skeptics. So I read those as well. Ultimately, if you don't educate yourself to the point that you know a lot of the background and principles of a subject, then you're going to have to place trust in institutions. People generally do this all the time. I mean do you take any medications? If so how much do you research yourself, versus trusting the advice of a doctor?
You yourself are an expert. You have a trade ( HVAC if I'm not mistaken?) and you've probably had customers that weren't second guessing or challenging you on everything you say. You probably have also had some that did, and wanted to compare quotes to others. Lots of people with trades that I know rely on word of mouth. What I'm getting at, is that if you want to look into it, you can find out which of the scientists are performing good work, and which aren't. If you don't want to look, then you're not left with much else but to place trust in someone, whether it's someone you know, a source of information you like, or 'experts'.
Anyways, on the subject of Willie Soon, I don't really care that he has been getting his money from outside sources, his employment situation required it. Lots of people do work for money, in fact most of us do. I do care that his work has been bad, and that some people don't care enough to check, but do care enough to make grand claims about other scientists.
