My original post brought up the issue of a right-wing think tank with ties to the Bush administration allegedly trying to spin the the UN conference with selective funding. I didn't even make a claim as to whether these charges were justified or not, and you were certainly entitled to question my insinuendoes (God! I love that word!).

Your counter-attack neatly sidesteps that issue altogether with lurid tales of academic conspiracies and international manipulations by socialist cabals which put the researcher's motives into question. We are so far away from the original issue (are the scientific conclusions plausible?) that you have to flowchart the arguments to figure out what we're talking about.

I've worked in public policy PR, TB, I recognize a classic smokescreen tactic and misdirection campaign when I see it, and I'm seeing it over and over again from the right on every single issue. Even when they're correct on some question, people are still suspicious of their positions. All they've got left on their side is those who need to believe.

If you really want to be able to influence the dialogue by moderating extreme "left wing" positions, (and believe me, there are some doozies out there and even worse coming up, you're not the only one who can tune his radar so it looks in both directions), you're going to have to give some thought to moderating your tactics. I'm speaking strictly as a propagandist here, not about ideology. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.