> [SCI] or [OE] - Any topic whatsoever which has a basis in 
> experimental or
> measurable facts. This explicitly includes cases, like GW, 
> where people
> disagree over what is a fact!

I'll bite, although I should just be biting my tongue at 
this stage.
If you exclude subjects where real scientists are doing real 
science and disagree over facts then you disallow in theory 
everything and in practice many things. In true Science 
there are NO facts - only theories whose predictions match 
observed events more or less closely. In practice there are 
many areas where the fine details are under active debate. 
The generally accepted age of the universe goes up and down 
over time. It's settled down to a fairly stable value for 
several years now and is long over due for the next big 
discovery that will totally change it. The Higg's boson and 
friends are or aren't waiting in the wings to blow away the 
current flavours of relevant reality. Neutrinos may or may 
not be blowing through the earth, changing colour between 3 
hues as they come so that we only see 1/3rd of them in our 
detectors - or the sun may have gone out a while ago and not 
told us. And neutrinos may have rests mass or may have 
imaginary mass or ... . Quantum mechanics never has and is 
never allowed to make sense. So too GW, for wont of a better 
label, is dependent on much science which can be discussed 
rationally and calmly by all those interested saints. And 
somewhat rationally and somewhat calmly by the rest of us. 
For example, the fact that NASA reports based on NASA 
satellite data shows that Antarctic ice melting is at an 
almost 20 year low and at 40% of the 20 year average is 
something which those interested, if any, could discuss the 
implications of. El Nino and La Ninyas and xxx oscillations 
and more could be happily exchanged without venturing too 
too far into the realms of mysticism and religion. The 112 
page peer reviewed report that I tabled that shows that 
there is no known CO2 / greenhouse mechanism known to 
science is a potential lurch towards the edge but, if some 
common sense remains, its merits could be discussed without 
having to set up a new religion or join an old one. 
Arbitrarily tossing out GW because of the inconvenient 
excesses of some smacks of the book burnings of yore.


        Russell




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