On 4/13/2011 7:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I think it's more controversial what to do about it. And at least
> there's something that remotely *sounds* controversial about it, if you
> actually read the original source stuff.
>
Yeah. That about sums it up. The controversy is in "what to do", but 
like with every other science wackos don't like, or those seeking to 
simply profit without consequence, failing to absolutely sure about any 
part of it means they can claim you are uncertain about *all* of it, 
given the right spin, a lot of hand waving, plenty of misinformation, 
and a dose of total incomprehension (or refusal to comprehend/accept the 
conclusions). It definitely helps when you can buy think tanks to create 
your misinformation for you too, and those groups have done things in 
the past that "appear" to be positive, and on the up and up.

Post a reply to this message