Accepted, my error, however, it would seem, still, to support the case that any anti-global warming paper is attacked, instantly, without waiting for a peer review.
The original paper quoted and the authors were attacked, individually, ethically and professionally.
The second Danish paper and the authors have been attacked in the same manner.
The professor pointing out the link has been attacked in the same manner.
I point out that the US Senate notices a trend of ad hominem attacks and a trend of anti-global warming articles trying to equate them to anti-holocaust articles etc, the result is an attack on the oil companies, neocons, Christian organisations and the Republican party.
And they say irony is dead....
Meanwhile, slim-slag throws in a great trick, (I almost missed it.
You seriously think the oil companies and neocons would ignore your Professor if he had anything? They'd be throwing so much money at him to disprove the CO2 theory that he wouldn't be able to spend it.
So, if he doesn't get funded by the oil companies, he is obvious incompetent. But if he does accept funding, obviously he would be a pawn of the oil companies? Good trick
As to the tactics of those who support the current global warming position, I offer a quote from their own ranks...
"In 1989, global-warming enthusiast Stephen Schneider, one of the anti-Lomborg attackers in Scientific American, confessed "We are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."