as the technical aspects are over my head.
No, they aren't. You understand y=mx+b is different from y=nx+c right (m!=n and b!=c)? Then the issue of the CCS isn't over your head. And I wasn't discussing technical aspects anyway, I was pointing out 'social problems' with the behavior of CF scientists.
Only thing I took exception with is the term "bad scientist". Maybe from your perspective they are, because they mostly brush you off, but there is probably something that better describes their actions than that. So mine was not a rebuke, or warning, nor does it change my opinion...carry on.
Well, first off, you left off the quote marks I used around 'bad' (and later 'good'), These are value-laden terms and are based on a somewhat arbitrary scale. The primary scale point though is the one that was expressed well by Feynman when he said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Fooling yourself is avoided by 'scientific integrity', i.e., "It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty— a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it" which also means you should consider carefully criticisms, not get irritated at them and throw them in the trash. So, not considering criticisms = lack of honesty = fooling yourself = 'bad'. I documented several cases of that, and those that do that are 'bad' scientists on this scale. The other term is 'pathological', and the point is that 'bad' or 'pathological' science should not be treated seriously. That doesn't mean that making a mistake is 'bad'. What is 'bad' is not fessing up and holding to your position in the face of all contrary evidence. If you read Langmuir's description of pathological science, that is primarily what he is describing. Note that everyone is enamored of their ideas at the beginning, right or wrong. It is how they self-examine in the light of criticism that defines 'bad' and 'good' on this particular scale. Note further that this is only what we are talking about. No other aspect of these people is under discussion.
I contend Shane, that what I presented in the prior post should change your mind. It seems to me you are doing exactly what I was trying to point out was 'bad' a la science. But you can do what you like, just as the CFers do. I have no authority over you.