The obfuscation of opposing views is better done by fact than by gross mischaracterization of those views. When one does not have objective rebuttals, name calling must suffice. Methods prevalent at The Daily Koss, not in a forum of free exchange worthy of LGF. When one has opposite findings in the scientific world, one has to look at the basis for those findings. Objectivity has been sorely lacking on both sides, but the truth is that one cannot base facts on assumptions (which is what makes science different from religion). Also, in science, the data speaks for itself and needs no biased interpretation (no elitist priests or mullahs to explain it to the common folk). Ignoring the chemistry of the entire controversy benefits no one. I am a scientist (chemist), believe in evolution (DNA essentially proves it), and will remain skeptical that puny humankind is responsible for any weather change we are seeing, when our misdeeds are only one of thousands of variables that affect the issue. I am not so elitist that I will not listen to opposing views, but please do not confuse either of the government reports that characterize six innocuous chemical compounds as the primary cause of any climate change as real science. Anyone who passed freshman chemistry can understand that you cannot base science on assumptions.