Jed Wrote:
>I expect the researchers are guilty of suppressing opposing points of view >through the peer-review system, but the other accusations are silly. Yeah, a real minor thing, that. Nick Palmer has zero credibility on this particular issue as he has openly advocated on this forum that it should be ILLEGAL to voice opposition to the theories of global warming! Suck on that, you intellectually inferior First Amendment huggers. To actually achieve that would be the ultimate expression of the inherently vicious suppressive intent of such people, the nature of which has been exposed not only by those emails, but right here as well by Mr. Palmer's previous comments. "Just say No to Democracy and Diversity" should be their slogan. I've also noted a corresponding increase in the calls to criminalize opposition to the current US administration's policies as well. There must not be the slightest doubt that such laws, if they ever are implemented in the US, will end in tears and probably bloodshed, whether it's the "left" or the "right" who succeeds in that goal. This is a very serious matter, and not all the frogs in this pot are oblivious to the rising temperature of the water (NPI). Now I doubt that those advocating and attempting such suppression in either the GW or political categories will ultimately be successful, I think too many people see it for what it is. But it will happen without active participation and effort by those who oppose such shenanigans. Our most grievous error would be believing that it can't happen here: it is happening now. You leave it to a few who find themselves virtually unopposed in writing their own agenda, and tyranny happens - it's human nature. That's why we have systems with checks and balances, and that's why you see those opposed to democracy and diversity of ideas constantly engaged in an effort to dismantle those very checks and balances. They know exactly what stands in the way of their goals. - R.
