J T wrote:I might be more prone to agree with you if your concern was over pseudosciene rather than science (pseudoscience uses scientific jargon, but lacks the rigor of well-tested science) and alternative medicine rather than medicine (alternative medicine, by definition, is medicine that either has not yet been proven to work, or has been proven not to work).
I disagree with calling climatologists alarmist. They are just presenting their data, and making the logical conclusion that their data should lead to alarm. Calling them alarmist is like getting mad at your fire detector for being so loud when your house is actually on fire.
Actual science, medicine, and climatology are all intelligent.
I get your concern about violent and destructive methods of protest though.
I don't have issue with science or climatologists, just like I don't have an issue with save the whales types, but both run the spectrum from being logical, calm, and instructive, then you have the other end which are trolls, fear mongers, alarmist and other cranks who say more than what is reasonable to screaming in peoples faces and causing actual damage to make a point (ie: eco-terrorists.) As maru said, with medicine there's a mix of usefulness and not so it gets tricky calling out all of it crap.