Watching the Screamers

Walter knows deliberate falsehoods. He's told them, here on this blog. His editor and the reader representative had to tell him to knock it off.

See Ad Astrum for the details.

Just say you're sorry, Walter.

"Much of this is about continually educating people and, yes, confronting deliberate falsehoods."

Agreed. I still find myself puzzled at the motivation that the denier folks have for claiming that there's some "conspiracy" amongst scientists to concoct this global warming / climate change theory, particularly in the fact of empirical evidence that does nothing but support theories of anthropogenic climate change.

Enjoy the damned book Walter!

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/7920

As for Lawrence Solomon himself, the man who presents us with ten -- no nine -- people he, and few others, describe as "Deniers" -- and all of whom, he now admits, recognize global warming as being anthropogenic in nature, thus blowing up his entire series, is what, exactly? The man whose polemical articles begin with such minute attention to the "credentials" and scientific training, as he sees it, of his Ten -- no make that Nine, no make that in the end none -- of his Deniers, is described as follows:

"Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation."

Look in to the "Urban Renaissance Institute" and the "Consumer Policy Institute" which are "divisions" of the "Energy Probe Research Foundation," and see what you turn up. Go ahead -- it will be a useful exercise.

This kind of nonsense, already out-of-date, already exposed to ridicule should not be put up, any more should some paper from 2004 or 1997, without the poster quite realizing that the paper in question has already been discredited, and frequently the author has already distanced himself from his own findings.

Christ on a crutch. How much time must people at this point have to spend rebutting or refuting this kind of stuff? If you just look on the web, you find that the author has had to swallow almost everything he charges. Two of his ten authors demand that they be recharacterized entirely, as supporters of anthropogenic climate change. The others demand that they not be called "deniers" and furthermore, do not deny, as Solomon has them denying, global warming. Contrary to popular and sentimental belief, all men are not created equal, and more importantly, not all are entitled to have their opinions taken equally seriously on all issues. Anthropogenic climate change is not something that should be put to popular vote, especially not with such tendentious and tricky polemicists -- whose tricks need to be held up for inspection, I suppose -- as Solomon on the loose. Were a world-wide referendum to be given on whether or not one "believed" in anthropogenic climate change, no doubt the Voice of the People, if heard in the land, would echo those few "Deniers" (as Solomon calls them).

"Have the "reasonable" skeptic/denier provide the following information:
1. Testable hypotheses
2. Data
3. Body of scientific work
4. Equations
5. Models
6. Analyses of own data"

OK.

Read the damn book "The Deniers", written for narrow minded people such as you.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Lawrence+Solomon+Deniers&x=9&y=22

"The author, Lawrence Solomon, comes from an "environmentalist" background having worked as an activist against nuclear power expansion and world rain forest protection, and as a journalist or the National Post of Toronto. This book stems from a series of newspaper articles on individual scientists that disagreed in some way with the "conventional wisdom" or "political correctness" of Global Warming, specifically, man's role in Global Warming. It is evident at the conclusion of the book that Mr. Solomon has considerable respect for the 30+ scientists which he has interviewed for the book. There is little question that in Mr. Solomon's words the question of man's role in Global Warming is not settled science."

You talk about wanting scientific and technical information, but nothing in your academic or work history indicates that you can analyze it successfully.

Your continued use of the word deniers to stigmatize people who disagree with your views is an insult to the Holocaust survivors and victims from whom you stole it.