>>>I agree with that, but it is NOT what he wrote. Your statement above is nothing close to what he wrote.
>
>Another semantic debate? ;-)
>
>I can see where you're coming from, but just to recap:
>
>>Nobel winners, in particular, have earned that kind of respect, to be disagreed with based on their analyses, not on their conclusions.
>
>Obviously you're not objecting to that. Then he continues:
>
>>> One can disagree with that also, but then one has passed beyond the pale, and genuine discussion on that topic is no longer possible with that person.
>
>I believe he's saying that genuine discussion is not possible with somebody won't accord enough respect to a Nobel prize-winner to debate their analysis rather than contradict their conclusions. Strong words, but true enough on first principles.

Contradicting conclusions based on separate analysis or different/new/additional scientific information is required of any conclusion presented as fact. I still disagree with his statement and I believe you are being overly generous in your understanding, but I will concede that he actually may have intended what you wrote.