"DSK" wrote in message
...
Sometimes comfort trumps everything else. There's absolutely nothing you
can do about it.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
That's unfair. Locking out a scientist of the discussion because he
believes differently is the whole issue - not so much what he believes
or doesn't believe.


Nobody "locked a scientist out of the discussion."

If that MIT guy wanted to discuss his scientific observations which
indicate that either global warming is not happening, or is totally
unconnected to man's activities, that would have been fine. I would have
been quite interested to read them, because I've been asking for such info
a long time.

But he had no scienctific statements to offer at all. That op-ed piece was
a fact-free (actually a fact-contradictory) screed that would have been
right at home on the Rush Limbaugh show. "Let's pretend liberals are still
in charge and whine about how they're f&^&ing everything up."

The guy even complained about being "intimidated" by Al Gore, who had to
hire a woman to coach him on being an alpha male!

When you present some science, I'll be glad to read it. When you (or Bert
Robbins, whose posts I alomost never read) present some BS right-wing
blah-blah then you can expect it to get the reception it deserves.

Regards
Doug King


It's part of the culture of academia debates. When some PhD presents a
paper outlining a particular theory, it is usually attacked with vengeance
by he's or her peers. The critics are not required to prove otherwise or
offer an opposing theory, but just to identify the flaws in the publisher's
theory or method of investigation, thus negating it's value. Crazy, but it
is a self-policing system that works in their circles.

RCE