Like I said, I believe in climate change. Did you actually read what I wrote? I'm sure their arguments are invalid; the point is, the rebuttal letter did not actually rebut any of the arguments, it just ignored them. No wonder the WSJ didn't bother printing it; I wonder why Science did. We would all have been better served by a letter that actually deigned to debate the issues, one that proved the point. Right?

^^ this
For proof, I submit my oldest daughter, who I have seen on multiple occasions engaged in discussions with friends simultaneously on: twitter/facebook/SMS/Skype/ and not one but *two* phones, both held in front of her so the people on each phone could hear each other, her, and the Skype session on her netbook...

She seems very popular, gets along with just about everyone no matter what the age, does very well in school. She is also dating a very handsome young man atm, who is capable of carrying on communications with her on at least 3 channels at a time =.=

Um, I don't know what you are reading into his message, but I didn't see anywhere that he was still dwelling on high school. Remembering != dwelling, and remembering that many other people's idea of normal social tendencies in HS was adolescent cliques and follow-the-leader posturing does not comment on *his* social tendencies, then or now.

I read the rebuttal letter, it was printed in Science magazine. It wasn't a "comparable" letter, it probably was scientifically accurate, but it only stated claims, no actual arguments. The letter in the WSJ actually gave arguments. All the letter in Science did was rely on the weight of the names behind it. What they should have done was stated some facts and then drawn conclusions. I am a little confused as to why the letter was such a poor rebuttal (I believe in climate change, personally). Maybe next time they could show a little science. At least the original letter gave the reasons *why* they thought climate change was overblown, the rebuttal letter should have done the same, told *why* they believed in climate change. Instead, they basically just said "there's 255 of us and you better believe us or bad things will happen!"

Why does this bring back vague memories of that John Brunner classic, "The Shockwave Rider"? It's been about 30 years since I read it, so I can't recall if the protagonist wrote a "worm" that infected another worm, or just destroyed it/replaced it or something.