So in other words, if you happen to be a disagree with the prevailing scientific orthodoxy - regardless of your credentials, your reasoning, or the science involved - you are treated like a medieval heretic and burned at the stake.
An informative look into the state of scientific inquiry, especially in light of some of the threads on FR.
I'm fascinated by the whole global warming / climate change debate. It represents an issue where science, politics and religion all converge. No wonder that people get so heated when their scientific arguments are responded to with a religious answer, or vice versa. Anyway... Science has a great deal to say about the issue. These are six points that science can speak to regarding the whole issue. All are open to debate, but are still answerable, IMHO.
1) That global warming was actually happening.
2) That it was the result of human activity (not just normal cyclical natural variations).
3) That the degree of human-caused global warming would cause significant harmful consequences.
4) That these consequences could be reversed by taking certain actions.
5) That any such proposed action (such as the Kyoto treaty) would actually be effective in preventing/reversing the harm.
6) That any such proposed action wouldn't cause worse harm than it prevented (i.e., that the "cure" wouldn't be worse than the "disease").