- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Scientists are constantly harassed by non-scientists, such as yourself, SailFree, with pop arguments that don't adequately consider either the theory or the data. It's obvious to an actual scientist that you aren't even familiar with the basics of the science you are claiming to criticize. Your constant, loudly expressed, willful ignorance has proved that, many times.
Discourse between scientists is entirely different from loudly expressed ignorance. If you took some time to actually read up on the subject, you'd show it in the sorts of arguments you would make. Your arguments are all based on private think tanks that only criticize others, and don't even do that very well, since even I can see the obvious flaws in their non-scientific puff pieces.
I've explained to you, twice now, why your principal arguments are formed from a false premise. You've seized on a misinterpretation of the data, and held that up as proof that a theory you don't understand is incorrect, and in the process shown yourself to be ignorant and irrational.
Start talking like a scientist, ask questions rather than assuming you know the theory, and you'll be treated as a scientist. Make wild claims, then claim that they're mainstream and it's a legit scientific disagreement, with lousy evidence, and others will respond as I have.
