Who could argue with a fair and open-minded approach to life and learning; however, on the narrow issue of whether all sides of a forced debate — such as on anthropogenic global warming — are at least in part honest, is there always an element of truth even in the most wrong-headed view of reality? Generally, the temptation is to think so or there wouldn’t be a debate.

Even so, shouldn’t we at least modify our rules about fairness and open-mindedness when we are presented with a hoax? Otherwise, after we sift through all of the claims and reconcile them with the larger body of knowledge, what’s left?

What valuable knowledge did we learn from the Piltdown Man Hoax concerning man’s ascent from the jungle? Wasn’t the lesson learned wholly outside the claims that were made by the scientists that perpetrated that fraud? What was learned about is scientists can be fraudulent and deceitful and also fooled by charlatans and their own preconceived notions.

And, where is the accountability. It took fifty years to run the Piltdown Man hoax to ground and another fifty years to discern who all that were in on the hoax. We are all too aware of those who have fomented and facilitated the global warming hoax and engaged in scare tactics to deceive the public. Shouldn’t the victims of the AGW sting at least have the satisfaction of knowing that truth was brought to light from the dark shadows of Plato’s cave despite the intentional deception and fear and superstition and shouldn’t the charlatans be branded as liars?