I put "attack" in quotes because those are his own words. Again, I re-iterate my point, he sees them as an "attack". I do not believe people who dismiss his ide

I put "attack" in quotes because those are his own words. Again, I re-iterate my point, he sees them as an "attack". I do not believe people who dismiss his ideas set out to "attack" him. > The people who claim to be on the side of science should be above playing these kinds of political games, and need to be very cautious about even the appearance of impropriety. You are setting a high bar for them, and that's fine. But doesn't that mean the author of this article should also meet that high bar? He's accusing people who disagree with him as playing politics, but his article does not provide proof. In essence, he is playing politics himself. I don't think that's fair. You are right about the "one data point" part. This article is just another baseless data point for climate change deniers. And that's a problem. Actually, I went back to research the article a bit more clearly. He really should not have used that wikileak email as evidence. It really discredits him more than anything: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19569 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19569