A solid argument. I have a short, and perhaps rude retort. When those who state this is a dire situation start behaving like it is a dire situation, I will consider the argument. If Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, et. al. are going to be held up as paragons of truth, who bring the message to the masses, then they damn well better live by their rules. If they won't or can't, then I won't consider this to be a serious threat, and that those who say it is are only mewling to control our way of life.

Mod this up for the MF truth.

Mod this guy up!

Amazing how the kind submitter was unable to place this in the fine summary, and that as of this posting - yours is the first comment to remark upon his behavior.

I guess the submitter did not read the actual question posed in the poll: “The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”(page 172) The confidence in “people running these institutions” was being measured, not “Science”.

Mod this up. This is what conservatives are distrustful about - how the results were obtained.

But those points are not mathematics - those are data interpretations. Is statistics a math? Yes. The interpretations? No. A salient point, nonetheless.

Don't ask me - ask California - instead of just teaching, they are adding in teaching WITH sexual orientation requirements.

I wonder if they are able to name the great LGBT scientists, or explain how evil Western Culture is today, or demonstrate how to properly apply a condom to a banana. I understand this is an article bemoaning the fate of the UK - but it is coming to the States, and we happily grease the tracks for the train.

You were right! He's already been 'scrubbed' from the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page! Those evil deniers are so sneaky!

http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml

It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

I did not know that the actual scientists were one monolithic bloc. Thanks for that. Oh - this is where you tell me anyone who disagrees is funded by the BIG Oil, PHARMA, Koch Brothers, et cetera ... right?

Quote from the very same HuufPo article you link to:

See that part where he solicited and received additional materials directly? Try that with your local financial institution. Try that with an insurance company.

Dan Rather was up front in what he was proffering to the public. Gleick didn't break this story with his name attached from the start. Rather put his career on the line; Gleick hid behind his 'courageous whistle-blowing.'

The memo is the document that purports the Heartland Institute is going to 'bad things' to the Environment. All the other documents are sourced and authentic. They also reveal personal information about employees and donors. To blithely dismiss it as "one memo" is to be disingenuous, ignorant, or deceptive.