It's different and can be coeridnsed more powerful as too much .I personally find it slow and full of features that i usually never use anyway De gustibus non est disputandum i still like better Flexigrid :)

Forgive me for saying so, but the claim you made above (the one I qtneuioesd) was not that "Roger argues ...that the scientific ideal doesn't exist." Your claim was that "a lot of the criticism Roger receives comes from people who think the world ought to work differently than it actually does." (who believe that the ideal does exist?)I can't see that the few examples you show prove (or even come close to proving) such a general statement.With regard to my remark above, I would suggest that you read the actual testimony from the Congressional hearing to understand what I refer to. The recent hearing is not an example of "where the bad guys have used Pielke Jr.'s work to support their arguments" per se (not directly, at least), but it is a case in which some Republicans in Congress have used Pielke's words (in this case testimony at a hearing that they had personally invited him to) to deflect criticism (essentially excuse) some of the more extreme politicization of science that the Bush admin has engaged in over the past few years. I do not deny that both sides engage in politicization of science, as Pielke pointed out, but I do question his making that point (and the particular way that he made it) at a hearing whose specific purpose it was to look into serious charges of politicization by the Bush admin.The evidence that the Bush admin has engaged in significant politicization of science that merits examination is hardly comes from a number of legitimate sources (in many cases scientists within the government).