No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports the supposed Mayan notion that the world is going to end on December 21, 2012. You're mixing up fantasy and reality again jjf3. Facts and opinions are completely different things.
Well, I'm not so sure about that... the difference between predicting doom through anthropogenic climate change and predicting doom due to Rapture or the Mayan calendar or tea leaves is that ACG is supported through evidence.
I can give you plenty of evidence for the Mayan Calendar and the Rapture. Although it's not very "scientific." I can also give you evidence of other end of the world scenarios just like what people here are doing with Peak Oil and Global Warming. The only difference here is that the scientists are doing what they are told, and not studying other reasons why this could be happening. If there really was a consensus among the scientists i don't see why they wouldn't let people go off and do their own little experiments.
I don't know why peer reviewed research is seen as the norm now. It wasn't for most of history! Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Gregor Mendel, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Issac Newton were all laughed at for some of their insights and alternative thinking ideas.
There is evidence that elevated levels of carbon dioxide lead to warmer overall temperatures.
There might be evidence of this, but that doesn't mean the world will get destroyed. It's a bit of a stretch to go from "elevated levels of C02 effects temperature" to Global Warming is going to kill us all in 20 years!!!!! Run for the Hills!!!!
If you think there's as much evidence supporting climate change as there is supporting a religion that's been dead for hundreds of years, you're already hopeless.
Do you honestly not trust peer review? Then you're a fucking idiot. Sorry for the ad hominem, but that's true. Every piece of technology you use is based off of peer review. All of it. All of your examples are utterly stupid because they either underwent peer review or they didn't even invent anything or it doesn't apply to them. Because you probably don't get it, I'll spell it out for you:
Steve Jobs - CEO of Apple. Everything Apple does is based off of computer science that was peer reviewed.
Edison - Definitely peer reviewed.
Mendel - Definitely peer reviewed.
da Vince - Didn't actually invent anything. Came up with conceptual models for modern inventions. If his thoughts actually underwent peer review, then they would be shown to be incorrect. None of his machines would've worked.
Newton - Definitely peer reviewed. If you're counting the mathematics, then yeah, also peer reviewed.
How do you think science works? Some just comes up with something and then the whole community accepts it without even trying to verify it? I reiterate, you're a fucking idiot.
And one last thing, I'm going to keep saying this until you get it: Religion has its conclusions WITHOUT any proof to back it up. It is human speculation. Science gathers proof AND THEN AFTERWARD makes the conclusion based on reality.
jjf3, what psychological phenomena prevents you from understanding this last point? It is absolutely crucial that you understand that there is an objective reality and the best way to learn about it is through the scientific method, NOT whatever interests you or what you would like it to be.