Originally Posted by D

Again, I'm really not here to argue the point.

For all I know, you may be right on the peer-reviewed thing. Money makes the world go 'round.

But even if that's the case, I think the peer-reviewed system is _still_ the best thing we have going to figure out scientific truth. In the peer-reviewed community, "reputation" _is_ their money - or it's, at least, supposed to be.

Since you mentioned it: as far as what global warming means and what we can do about it, hell if I know...
I didn't go there - you did after calling me a "tool" for saying essentially what you're now 'not disagreeing' with, right? :-P

Or maybe I took it all wrong? Wouldn't be the first time.

If not that reason, though, then how am I "a tool?"

(NOTE: people that know me personally are asked to please stay out of answering this question )