> RUSSELL! you know very well that GW is very OT.

No. I certainly do not know that.
Look at the site.
Look at the nature of the articles/papers and the science 
involved.
It is always possible to take ANY scientific subject and 
arbitrarily deem it untalkable about. This may almost 
(almost) be acceptable if the treatement is non scientific 
and not 'an truth' [tm] (ie mishandling science), but when 
the content is aiming, with the best abilities of the 
informed and competent proponents, to deal with the subject 
scientifically then hopefully we haven't fallen to that 
level yet. But, maybe we have.

What other fully & truly scientifically TREATABLE subject 
when truly and fully scientifically TREATED is disallowed 
for discussion here. Note that the one other which I can 
think of which could qualify is claimed not to be scientific 
by the holders of the 'other position' in both cases so is 
reasonably well (only reasonably well) disqualified.

Note that this is simply a request for rational and 
reasonable treatment of a rational and reasonable and often 
very badly treated subject.

Did you look at the article re Norman Borlaug - hardly 
related to GW. per se. Do you know who he is? Do you know 
what he did? Do you know why he got the Nobel Peace prize 
way back in 1970 and why the Nobel committee said he had 
saved the lives of 1 million people with his hardest of hard 
science? Is that verboten?



        Russell


Apptech wrote:
> Anyone with a genuine interest in 'Global Warming' should
> have a good look at the material on this site.
>
>         http://www.icecap.us/index.php
>

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist