Re: First Amendment vs. Science ?

To the contrary, many climate scientists DO vigorously debate many parts of the global warming theories: Specifically, how much influence the increasing trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere have on global temperatures. Also, whether humans can make an appreciable or worthwhile difference even with radical measures. Given the extraordinary complexity of climate, there are also difficulties accurately modeling future temperature readings. That is a scientific and political debate that I believe, in the spirit of both scientific and political freedom, should not be censored and silenced.

 I am no science authority. But I just passed the Christian Science Monitor science literacy test - " with flying colors " as they say. Reading  Brian Wilder's letter, "  Journal reckless in publishing dissenting views on global warming " and  the editor's note  ( hardly irrational from the perspective of open democratic debate ) that the issue  is" worthy of vigorous debate "  - I wonder if we have a Science vs. Democracy crisis on your editorial page.   Both the press and the scientific establishment-both fundamentally elitist- must do more to help the average voter understand the scientific method. To be sure, truth in science is not established by majority vote.  It is established by rigid standards of inquiry.   A democratic tyranny is impossible in science. Only Truth is sovereign here. And of course that truth is never absolute or unquestionable but relative and good enough for practical purposes - or just further inquiry.
             It is inevitable that your editorial page promote " vigorous debate " on global warming. But like creationism, this is not a debate within Science.