I'll raise the BS flag on this one. This article makes much of the opinions of a psychologist and a philosopher. OK, so what? Let's stipulate that what they say is true. Does an aberrant psychological profile invalidate a scientific conclusion? Conversely, does a "normal" psychological profile mean your argument is valid, regardless of its technical merits? This smells like an ad hominem attack dressed up as a scientific conclusion.

What if I dug up some crazy study that showed that warmists, when shown pictures of Al Gore, secreted the same hormone as lemmings when they were headed for the cliff? You'd rightly call me out as off target.

The OP was about the email scandal at CRU. Since that post was written the Australian senate has torpedoed a proposed cap and trade scheme that their PM had hoped to take to Copenhagen. Today, Mr Gore announced that he was bailing on the Copenhagen conference. I'll predict here that the president has something come up and can't go at the last minute.

What if the warmists are exactly right? Don't you think the secrecy and corruption exposed by the emails are hurting the cause?

WW