Well, for one thing, that I am right that viewpoints that should have academics thrown out and banned are tolerated, if not welcomed in the "mainstream" of science and academia.

This was a meeting of a goddam science academy, not some Green Party rally. You know, the "smart ones" we're supposed to defer to in our judgments?

--That science can be used as a political tool like anything else, and scientists are no less venal about things like money, fame and power than anyone else. I guess you must have missed the great Korean Stem Cell flap. Soon to be repeated, if I'm any judge, in California.

--That global warming. IMO, now falls firmly into that category. For people like that screwball, the environment is a means to an end that he would have justified some other way if he had to: the dream of an Earth populated by a glorious elite, with the "scum" either under the firm control of the elite, or in extreme cases like this, wiped away.

I can throw as many papers casting doubt on the "conventional wisdom" of human-caused global warming as you can throw back, and you know it. I tossed just one out there in a previous post showing holes in the ice core data, and how it was "adjusted" to match modern data. Charts of the past half million years (same previous post) show that we are in a long-term pattern of warming and cooling, on a steady 100,000 year sequence, with abrupt warming spikes, and that the one we are in now started when people were still trying to figure out fire.

CO2 and temperature track very closely over long time periods. I can come up with theories on why solar influx might track on a 100,000 year cycle. Can you come up with anything that would drive CO2 that way? Which is likely to be cause, and which effect?