In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:04:36 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Pete Snell wrote:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rs-to-climate-
contrarian-nonsense

Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. I think I'll pass.

Yes, let's continue to rely on the WSJ editorial page for a balanced
presentation.

Umm. The WSJ Editorials Page does not claim to be anything but opinion.

In the pecking order of scientific journals, the Royal Society is very
high, and Scientific American doesn't even place.

Joe Gwinn