A tip of the hat to AccuWeather for recommending “Climate Change Deniers: “But They Are Scientists!” in thier post Alarmist and Denier Scientists.
A possible wag of the finger …
Since they also recommended Lindzin’s Climate of Fear I attempted to comment suggesting that these three commentaries were pertinent:
* “Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm” Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog,12 Oct 06
* Lindzen: Point by point Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, RealClimate, 13 April 2006
* Open Thread on Lindzen Op-Ed in WSJ Group, RealClimate, 12 April 2006
The comment never appeared although the posting seemed to go fine and comments by other users did subsequently appear. I tried again, adding this debunking of David Evans in response to a comment by Patrick Henry and I would have liked to respond to Pericles comment by drawing everyone’s attention to:
* Politicizing Climate Science Werner Aeschbach-Hertig, Reality Check, 04 October 2008
* Lindzen Diatribe Michael Tobis, Only In It For The Gold, September 23, 2008
but this comment also never appeared. I then sent an email saying I had been trying to comment and enquiring if the comments had been registered, and if so why they had not appeared. I have not heard back although that was 2 days ago.
If the problem is some sort of technical glitch then all I can say is ‘been there, done that, shit happens’.
If, however, pertinent polite commentary is being withheld without good reason then I am afraid …
bad accuweather
Which is too bad as there are some comments I would like to respond to, noting first that it is Interesting that they would not comment here where they might get an answer.
Mary: “So I am not too sure what the Greenfyre blog is hoping to accomplish by classifying scientists as believers or deniers. Is he hoping to drum up enough support from the real scientific community to somehow *silence* them or send them to Dr. Moreaus island or something?”
Fair enough in the sense that one loses track of what points have been made in any given blog. The missing element is the curious fact that despite their repeated claims to have a scientific basis for their position, the search for same comes up dry “Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds.” In the absence of this key point it is true that the post seems to be indulging in a Bulverism. Thank you for drawing this to my attention, I only wish someone had spotted that sooner.
That having been said, I think the point is made that the mere say so of someone who is not offering any evidence, particularly legitimate science, is worth no more than anyone else’s despite their having credentials as “a scientist”
janama: I checked out Greenfyre’s links to his deniers myths etc on the right that he goes on and on about. On the page on McKitrick and McIntyre and Manns hockey stick the name Edward Wegman doesn’t even appear. So much for refuting a myth!
“The link”? the link? There are a dozen links each of which go to many more. I never suggested all of the Denier dreck would be debunked in a single mouse click. Had you been less eager to be dissmissive and more interested in fact you would have found Followup to the ‘Hockeystick’ Hearings and The missing piece at the Wegman hearing So much for the the Myth.
Randy: “When I read this kind of crap, it reminds me of situations…”
If you read it then you would realize that I do not suggest all elderly members of a Dept or Faculty are ‘past it’, but rather that in some cases that is the explanation for specific individuals incompetence.
PHOTO CREDIT:
angry boy at the movies Photo by .leila http://flickr.com/photos/songtuyuri/823568871/
Greenfyre's 
Leave a Reply