Originally Posted by mlyonsd
“Is there anything more anti-scientific than scientific truths being determined by petition and demonstration?”
No worse than thinking they are determined by public debate among lay people.
>99% of the population doesn't understand enough of the basic science to even have an informed opinion on anthropogenic climate change, and I'm pretty sure that the 99% includes Charles Krauthammer. What are his qualifications for being granted space in the Washington Post to air his views on science? Why should anyone care what he thinks about something that he has no training in and hasn't spent enough time to come to a high level of understanding?