Yes, sorry, you're right.
Reading his post back, he's not actually used the word "scientist." I've just been a bit tetchy since the papers started accusing all the climate scientists of being unreasonable and refusing to debate the matter. Sorry, almost got a bit knee-jerk there.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:26, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

I'm not surprised that scientists are refusing to debate the matter
why would you want to discuss it with someone who doesn't understand and won't listen?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:28, Reply)

Well, there is that
Although again, I refute the idea that they're "refusing" to debate - after all, in order to have a proper debate, you have to have a convincing case from the sceptics. And we're still waiting for that one...
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:42, Reply)

sorry, wasn't saying they were
just saying that it was understandable if they did.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:44, Reply)

Oh, well that's fair enough, yes.

(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:48, Reply)

That's not a refutation.
It's a rejection. To refute something means to prove that it's mistaken, which you've not done.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:01, Reply)

Ah.
Ok, in that case I reject the idea.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:06, Reply)