>>>>I don't think I said "no dissent"; I did say "no controversy."
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>I missed that distinction earlier. My apologies.
>>
>>Yep. It certainly changes the entire meaning.
>>
>>Controversy: A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views
>>
>>There certainly is none of that because Tamar said so.
>
>What I said is that the study shows that there is on controversy _in the scientific community_. IMO, the reason that there's controversy in the broader community is the media acting as if there's scientific controversy.
>
>Tamar
What do you consider the 'scientific community?' Climatologists?
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.americandailyreview.com/home-features-articles-blog/2009/6/1/the-corruption-of-science.html
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"
