To: Sinner6
Worse than that. Scientific American, which was the basis of the Danish charges against him, refused to allow Lomborg the opportunity to rebut their articles. They basically said "He's wrong because we say so."
6 posted on
12/18/2003 6:02:57 AM PST by
jalisco555
(Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.)
To: jalisco555
...refused to allow Lomborg the opportunity... False. Lomborg published a rebuttal in the May 2002 issue of Scientific American.
8 posted on
12/18/2003 6:24:14 AM PST by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: jalisco555
" Worse than that. Scientific American, which was the basis of the Danish charges against him, refused to allow Lomborg the opportunity to rebut their articles. They basically said "He's wrong because we say so." Oh no, couldn't be. SA is always completely professional (</sarc.)
11 posted on
12/18/2003 6:48:49 AM PST by
cookcounty
(Howard Dean, mayor of a picturesque small town in New England.)
To: jalisco555; Pan_Yan
But the scientists determine what is true science, and are highly political.
Anyone who comes up with a hypothesis and then proof, that shakes the Holy Grail of "scientific fact" are either ignored or intimidated by the "true academics". They don't want the boat to be rocked.
A cabal.
17 posted on
12/19/2003 10:17:14 PM PST by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Submitting approval for the CAIR COROLLARY to GODWIN'S LAW.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson