[Strontium]

I think that for you to suddenly hark about the "shortfallings" of science after we berrated David Bellamy for talking a load "pop science" non-sense is hypocritical to say the least. And now you talk of dancing around semantics, I dont think so, you tried to convince us that we should listen to non experts who express their thoughts in public - and no it was the Times that published it, you mean to tell me you cant look back in the same thread and find that out for yourself - (thread bating?) post number 26..Times online! Free speech you see is very overrated, which is why science is peer reviewed, and no one said there was no shortfall in science, isnt that the POINT in doing more science, make better judgement about nature, get up to date understanding of the world.

Your argument lies in a different place, about the press, and is not centered on the global warming debate - but about how there is exaggeration of the global warming issue. You say that its good to have a broad opinion, and we should allow anyone's discussion, on the basis that there is much exaggerated press. On what reasoning should this be so? because there are jobs and reputations, careers, in the balance? I dont think that holds any water either, I wouldnt buy a substandard service in anything just because someone needs to be paid for their ineffectual skills. Much less if there is far too much fat on the land, and there is still plenty of money to be made if you can convince people that there IS a plentifull environment that will support you.