He told me that if TEC were in the habit of advancing theologically
rigorous arguments like those offered by orthodox (and gay) theologian Eugene Rogers in Sexuality and the Christian Body, he'd still be in the denomination — «part of the loyal opposition» but still in communion, he said.
Imagine if you will, someone
like me arguing evidence for AGW coming to CFACT and citing an article from, not a top - tier journal, nor even a second - tier, but more
like a third - tier journal
like the Asia - Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (which people generally publish in when they can't pass the more
rigorous peer review of the more reputable journals), and if that paper were written by a person who's work has had to be corrected by others, not once, not twice, but FOUR times to my knowledge, and every correction takes it back in the opposite direction of what that person was arguing, and if the paper I was citing was this guy making the same old tired
argument he's been corrected on before, and if this paper already had evidence of data tampering to get it's conclusions... just imagine the uproar from the usual crowd here.
Stefan - As much as I
like to engage in abstract philosphical
arguments about dice they are unnecessary when we have a good quantitative, scientifically
rigorous, empirically - based literature on climate impacts.