I am personally not a fan of this style of rebuttal on the climate-state-sponsored-religion. While I have plenty of reservations against the current state, inst

I am personally not a fan of this style of rebuttal on the climate-state-sponsored-religion. While I have plenty of reservations against the current state, institutional vested interests and science itself on this topic (conceptual and/or particular), I do not think that logic in this document is solid, and conclusions presented do not follow from it. Prof. Linzden has a unique ability to discuss this topic on a higher plane of understanding, and it is not displayed in this kind of document. Since climate-science is now a fully political topic/domain where facts are only sought after only so far they support predetermined conclusions, and discussions are entirely of a moral character (only outward form of discussion are followed but fundamental assumptions are never allowed to be questioned/examined). Under these conditions, this document has exactly zero value to people with invested emotional currency in this topic, on either side of the fence. Of cause this is not new for civilizations: from crusades, witch-hunts, to malthusians and then eugenics, this is just another of these 'ideas' turning into government sponsored terror over some segments of populations (even on different continents/countries can be the cause of perceived 'risk' to the enlightened) who are in 'sin'.