You said you were confused about the point of the article. I believe I have explained the purpose of op-eds.
Now I believe you are trying get into a discussion about global warming. My suggestion is that if you are still confused, the topic of your confusion should be "why op-eds about my pet causes bother my sensibilities"
I'm afraid I do not have an answer to that question. I'm not trying to be a flip with you, it just seems your initial post was not as clear as it could have been. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would like to argue global warming with you. I am not one of them.
The only "pet cause" that I have, is to debunk the notion that outsider opinions in science should be given consideration because they are in the minority.
I'm sorry if you were confused by my use of rhetoric. However, it gave you a chance to lecture me on the properties of science ("models and experiments"), so perhaps it wasn't time wasted?
Now I believe you are trying get into a discussion about global warming. My suggestion is that if you are still confused, the topic of your confusion should be "why op-eds about my pet causes bother my sensibilities"
I'm afraid I do not have an answer to that question. I'm not trying to be a flip with you, it just seems your initial post was not as clear as it could have been. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would like to argue global warming with you. I am not one of them.