yes, that’s exactly what I meant. The curry-rape analogy is a perfect example for that
 

That’s really nice of your to say so. I like the spice metaphor, too. I think Daniel Abraham made a comment/blog post about using rape in a novel is also like adding curry powder into a meal. It dominates the meal and suddenly it is curry you’re cooking; a book with rape in it is suddenly overpowered by that, and the book is now about rape. Something like that – I’m paraphrasing now!

thank you for sharing your reflections with us. 

At first the whole gritty/brutal/”realistic” aspect of more modern
fantasy novels fascinated me, because I wasn’t used to it in this genre.
But the sensation wore off quickly, and in the end bored me. I still
embrace grittyness, but I think it should be used like a potent spice,
so it doesn’t overlap the other ingredients. And I think that you kept
the balance well throughout the series.
I enjoyed following your progession as a writer during “Legends of the Red Sun”, and I am looking forward for the final volume and also how it’ll will differ maturity/stylewise from the others

Regards

Sebastian

I’m not sure that video actually counts as proof. Heartland have been laughable in their dealing of this debacle; I don’t think Gleik has admitted it yet. 

“Database of published research, primarily against environmentalist regulation’.” Doesn’t that even sound wrong to you? Think about it – if it is balanced science, then it is neither for nor against anything. Science is science, apolitical. Having a corporation pay millions of dollars to influence public debate is anti-democratic. To have the economic decision makers become political decision makers – and that smacks of the USSR. 

A denier, to me, is someone who cares to deny the tens of thousands of published climate papers that point to anthropogenic global warming. If that’s what you deny, then sure, that’s a denier. I’m truly sorry if you don’t like the word – but that’s what it is!

“Demanding charges be brought is angry vindictiveness” – no, the charges ought to be against those who are willingly obscuring the truth, which does – whether you like it or not – affect millions of lives. 

“again emotive stuff and not provable, particularly as you are talking about the future.”

Unfortunately, it’s true and happening now, not just in the future, according to the World Health Organisation (who I’m inclined to trust on matters of health!): http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/

“I guess you didn’t hear the science is settled and the debate is over. How can you debate something with people who insist that the subject is settled?” Just because you accept the laws of physics hold true doesn’t mean you don’t apply them to other areas of science. 

“As I’ve mentioned before Mark, we (humanity) are not as tough as we think we are. We impact on the environment sure, but doing catastrophic irreparable damage to the Earth?” Humans continually do that. But this time, and I don’t believe I’ve misled on this, it’s about human lives not the planet. Climate change affects – and is proven to affect – everything, from health issues to the availability of food and water. The basic fundamentals. Climate change is a humanitarian – and an economic issue, the costs of which have been explained by Nicholas Stern, the former head of the World Bank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

“I don’t consider peer review valid in the scientific process” – does that mean you do not accept that smoking can cause cancer, or that HIV is connected to AIDS? Which are, of course, all part of the same peer reviewed process.