> I second the motion.

Of course you do. Never in doubt.

The idea of proper scientific discussion on a scientific 
subject that is largely being treated elsewhere by media 
circus is abhorrent to some. I thought about saying  " ... 
to some of the circus clowns." but that would be unfair. 
You have ongoingly shown that you are an intelligent person 
and capable of complex and rational thought.

Why the blind spot for one area of scientific endeavour and 
*apparent* shilling to the media circus is puzzling. And why 
reasonable discussion on a vexed subject is not felt 
permissible is also puzzling. The treatment of this subject 
comes exceeding close to the "Where they are burning books, 
soon they will be burning men" of another era. Already we 
have the (stupid) label "Global warming denier" and people's 
careers are damaged if they don't follow the party line. Big 
financial interests are undeniably at work. Saving the 
planet can be a very profitable business if you sing the 
right tune.

As I said:

What other fully & truly scientifically TREATABLE subject
when truly and fully scientifically TREATED is disallowed
for discussion here?

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 treatment 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.

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

Let the book burning commence / continue ?



        Russell


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