Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Viking Coder]

threat: a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course

Your choice of words does not show you to be cognizant and capable of critical, independent thought; rather, it shows a pridefully ignorant ideologue who values juvenile insults & word play, cherry-picking sophistry and “I’m not touching you” style threats over rational, primary resource based discussion. Yes, “people who reference the peer-review published & independently validated research should be put to death” is a threat.

Brian H wrote: asking for highly inflammatory and divisive flamewars

Why is that any different than opening threads on evolution through natural selection on a discussion board frequented by a creationist?

The strength of your belief & indignation does not transform a field of science into a hoax.

Brian H wrote: see Climategate

How do sliced and diced comments taken out of context show that 150 years worth of published & independently validated scientific research is nothing but a vast conspiracy?

Scientific consensus is reached through accumulation of peer-reviewed research. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. A scientific consensus is overturned when new research or new interpretations of old research that better fits the observations is presented. It is not refuted by calling it a political consensus and conjuring vast conspiracy notions to explain it without acknowledging the accumulated research.