On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 06:00:56 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Dec 9, 12:06*am, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:04:36 -0500, Joseph Gwinn

wrote:
In article , Pete Snell wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-cli...

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.

--
Ned Simmons

You're kidding, right? Just like Fox News is "fair and balanced"

That wasn't kidding, it was sarcasm.

--
Ned Simmons