Tim W wrote:
In this hypothetical case where disbelievers are _actually_ wrong
(or as close to wrongness as science allows), why should an
interminable _public_ repetition of inaccurate views remain unopposed?
Especially if they keep repeating their nonsense ad nauseum, are
unable to come up with well argued scientific arguments or demonstrate
any technical knowledege -- and persist in misinforming others on a
matter of considerable importance?

When the Director of the Environment Institute, UCL and a Professor of
Meteorology of MIT cannot agree on whether climate change is man made or
not, then it seems premature to claim one viewpoint is fact.

Ahem: "In this hypothetical case". I was trying to avoid a specific
climate-change angle so as to make a point of principle.

And even if we decide to admit the climate-change case, note that
I used the phrase "as close to wrongness as science allows" --
perhaps a little vague, but "the vast majority of scientists have
scientific grounds to consider you wrong" seemed unwieldy.

Lastly, finding three people disagreeing point of view on topix X is
hardly a triumph -- I could probably find more who disagree on the
nature or definition of the Poynting vector, a far less complex subject
than climate. If you could demonstrate that the climate-science
community had no overall & significant majority one way or another,
that would be worth noting.

#Paul