Lawrence Solomon series in National Post

The following are links to a recent series by Lawrence Solomon in Canada’s National Post:

The series

Statistics needed — The Deniers Part I
Warming is real — and has benefits — The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science — The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice — The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold — The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change — The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? — The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability — The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming — The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 — the Deniers Part X

The first one is particularly interesting as it describes Edward Wegman and his independent investigation into the Hockey Stick and mentions Wegman’s vindication of Steve and Ross’ work.

The series name “The Deniers” is a disgraceful perjorative and insulting label given by people who have no shame. I have protested to Solomon about this use of the term to no avail.


  1. cytochrome_sea
    Posted Feb 8, 2007 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

    Nir Shaviv has a couple of complaints here: Link

  2. T J Olson
    Posted Feb 8, 2007 at 7:19 PM | Permalink


    Then “skeptics” or “critics” is acceptable to you?

    Your point above is true. But then how do we reverse the limping implication of “ignorant”?

  3. MarkW
    Posted Feb 8, 2007 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

    How big is the electric field generated by all of the earth’s power grid compared to the earth’s own magnetic field?

    Could this field add to the earth’s field, helping to shield the earth from cosmic radiation?

  4. Posted Feb 8, 2007 at 7:44 PM | Permalink

    How big is the electric field generated by all of the earth’s power grid compared to the earth’s own magnetic field?

    Could this field add to the earth’s field, helping to shield the earth from cosmic radiation?

    It is mostly AC which should have no net effect since the magnetic fields reverse 50-60 times a second.


  5. John Baltutis
    Posted Feb 8, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

    Re: #4

    Hmmm! I seem to recall that most of the US’s long-distance trasportation grid is DC until it gets to the substation.

  6. John G. Bell
    Posted Feb 8, 2007 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    This strange theory that man rereleased CO2 will be the doom of the world is so radical, wreckless and wrong that its promotion will be studied for generations after it falls. It would be nice if reporters would spend the time to better understand the issues. Lawrence Solomon sort of gets it in the way that you’d expect a journalism major to sort of get it. No insult intended! Any nonscience majors that get it can pat themselves on the back.

    I am glad to see so many scientists blog and respond to posts. They are filling an area the traditional media just don’t have the will or ability to cover well.

    John A., Eleven deniers in one post. I hope that stays a record.

  7. Roger Dueck
    Posted Feb 8, 2007 at 11:21 PM | Permalink

    John A
    Your offence at the perjorative term “deniers” is intended, I believe, by the perpetrators of the myth. I do not think it is insignificant that the antonym, “believers”, has significant, positive religeous connotation. The use of perjorative and derisive attacks on the person has been the hallmark of religeous campaigns since Adam. I can only take comfort in the fact that Copernicus and Galileo were also “deniers”! We are in good company.

  8. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Feb 8, 2007 at 11:32 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for this thread John A. I had referred to this in post 62 in “SPM Released” last week. In today’s Winnipeg Sun there is a good letter to the editor at:
    This person says **Sean Ledwich’s letter Stop denying reality (Feb. 7) speaks of “global warming deniers.” Actually I, and others like me, should be more rightly labelled global warming “questioners.”**
    So, I make a motion that we sign off as “A questioner” when we make a comment. Most of us cannot do an audit as ably Steve M can, but we can ask pointed questions.

  9. Roger Dueck
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 12:15 AM | Permalink

    Michael Shermer, author of “Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown” and editor of “Skeptic” does a good job of articulating the need of people to believe wierd things. It’s worth a visit and convinced me that the term “Skeptic” is anything but perjorative.

  10. Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 1:36 AM | Permalink

    Unfortunately Shermer managed to lump global warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers on one occasion. All I can say is he’d better not do it anywhere near me.

  11. Johan i Kanada
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 2:56 AM | Permalink

    Solomon’s use of “denier” is done intentionally in an ironic manner, thus mocking the Kyoto-holics’ tendency to defame their critics.

  12. Larry Huldén
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 5:31 AM | Permalink

    I checked the word ‘perjorative’ in dictionaries because the same word is used in Swedish but it is spelled ‘pejorativ’.
    I observed that it is often wrongly spelled in English, it should be
    This is, however, off the topic. Still the word denier was used as a pejorative.

  13. Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

    I thought the “deniers” in the title was a kind of joke. I can’t imagine how a sane journalist could use this childish label eleven times, especially if the articles make it clear that the “deniers”, at least some of them, know very well what they’re doing.

  14. Jean S
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    Larry, do you have some personal experiences to share what happens if you are an outspoken “denier”? I mean, your commentary about IPCC (TAR) is one of the very few critical comments about IPCC published in Finnish journals. Now, when even our prime minister has stated that “one is not allowed to belittle climate change” and this has been echod throughout the newspapers, I’m wondering if you have been pressured somehow?

  15. BradH
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 7:34 AM | Permalink

    Who has ever successfully predicted the future?

    Not just in climate, but in anything?

    Sure, occasionally people guess something correctly, but they have extreme difficulty in replicating it.

    The primary argument for climate scientists is that, “The trend is your friend.” The Earth is warming, it’s due to CO2 and both of these trends will continue in a more or less linear fashion, moving forward.

    This sounds, to me, like a once-in-a-lifetime, money-making opportunity. One of the key principles of investing is that you identify a trend before anyone else and invest in those companies before everyone catches on. So, I would invest in: air conditioning companies in countries which are destined to be hotter; and short (ie. bet on declining prices) in companies which supply heaters to traditionally cold countries.

    In a world which is unquestionably warming up, I have struck upon something which has never occurred in the entire history of stock investing: a guaranteed, sure thing. If I bet in favour of AC companies and against heating companies, I will make a fortune over my remaining lifetime.

    There is just one, small problem with this…no-one has yet invented a “future machine”.

    Humanity has a long and ignominous history of extrapolating current trends in a linear manner, into the future.

    When I was 14 years old, I looked at how many inches I had grown since I was 13 and predicted I would end up over six feet tall (result: 3 inches short). I have invested in numerous stocks wherein I’ve extrapolated the past six months’ gains (or losses) into the future and have sold or bought more, based on my linear expectations – only occasionally have they followed the linear prediction.

    Five years ago, AGW’ers were timid and uncertain about their future predictions – they had “theories” and “possible” scenarios. Today, we have “facts ignored for too long” and “inevitable consequences”.

    What are these people talking about? They are talking about a certain outcome (no longer a possible or probable outcome), in 25, 50 or 100 years, based on a linear extrapolation of the past.

    They are talking about a “Future Machine”.

    They speak with the same level of certainty that people speak of the Sun rising in the morning. In fact, some of them speak in terms of it already being too late – the future has been written; we can’t stop catastrophic warming; all we can do is try and adapt.

    All of these people fall into the same trap: linear extrapolation of the future.

    There has never been a future machine: not in science, nor in investing, not in sociology, nor politics…well, you get the point.

    Next year, the US Government will spend over $9 Billion on “climate science”. I would estimate that well over 50% of those funds will be directed towards predicting the future.

    Meanwhile, basic maths and science courses struggle for numbers.

    So, where are we now?

    Voodoo [ie. those who predict the future and their programs]: $billions
    Science [ie. those who try and explain the present and the past]: crumbs

    As John Brignell would say, “Alas, poor science!”

  16. Larry Huldén
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 7:47 AM | Permalink

    Two comments.
    I am withdrawing my statement about Solomon’s use of denier. It is critically used against those who thinks “science is settled”. I printed out all ten descriptions about “deniers”. I think it is well focused reading.

    Repl. to Jean S. People know I am not silent because of such events.
    And there are others who have written critical comments.
    I have several scientific results in pipeline which don’t agree with main stream science. I have over and over again rechecked details, and I am sure about them now. They can’t be published in peer censored literature but I am sure something will happen soon.

  17. Jeff Norman
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

    In my limited experience in… discussing the… relative merits of the AGW hypothesis, I have asked proponents (of the hypothesis) to describe the evidence that they find particularly compelling, the evidence that convinced them that GW caused by A is a real threat that requires an immediate response.

    Far too frequently, the response I get is one of: go read the IPCC report (SAR/TAR/AR4); or there is a consensus of scientists who believe and therefore I do too (and a reference to the Naomi Oreskes paper). In most of the exchanges that I have participated in (I won’t say all) the proponents were unable to describe a scientific framework that supported their beliefs nor were they able to counter the scientific arguments I submitted regardless of how tenuous they might be. I confess to having suggested downright silly arguments to see if the proponent was paying attention or knowledgable.

    In my experience there are people who believe simply because they do. In this case the appellation “believer” is just descriptive and is not pejorative.

    In my limited experience in discussing the relative merits of the AGW hypothesis I have come across people who do in fact deny that the concentration of CO2 is increasing or that the increase is contributed to by humans or that temperatures have increased during the last 100+ years. These people could be called deniers. I don’t think I’ve actually seen one in about five years.

    I like the term questioners suggested by Gerald Machnee in #8 because it is pretty descriptive of what I do.

    Perhaps Lubos Modl in #13 is correct by thinking the term “denier” WAS a joke. I think that you would have to be pretty naive to think that it is still only a joke. There are dark connotations associated with calling someone a denier. I was recently called a denier by someone who overheard me agreeing with someone else. I found it somewhat disturbing.

    To label someone a denier is to dismiss any and all arguments they might have.

    I found Lawrence Solomon’s series to be interesting. He set it up by describing how people who are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis are being called deniers. He then says, if skeptics are deniers then let’s see who these “deniers” are.

    It is an interesting debating tactic, to twist the opponents definition back on itself to illustrate the weakness of the definition and by association the opponent.

    At first I was somewhat taken aback by cytochrome_sea’s link in #1 where Nir Shaviv crticizes the article that includes him. I guess Lawrence Solomon did not do his homework very well, but then he is just a journalist and if I’m not mistaken, not even a “science writer”. I must say that my respect for Nir Shaviv has increased because he is actually paying attention to what is being written about him and taking the time to correct any mistakes. Regardless, I do not believe the criticism from Nir Shaviv undermines Lawrences Solomon’s thesis in the article or the series.

    I wish that other scientists looked critically at some of the things presented to the public in press releases and newspaper articles and blog up the real story in a timely manner. Perhaps the consensus wouldn’t be seen in quite the same light if they did.

  18. Francois Ouellette
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 8:03 AM | Permalink


    Solomon’s is an interesting piece, but rather lazy in terms of journalism. He didn’t interview Shaviv, and as far as i can tell, didn’t interview most of the people he’s talking about. Being familiar with what those people have said and published, I could recognize the quotes, and some of them are pretty much out of date.

  19. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

    It appears Lawrence Solomon used the term as a healdline catcher. It would have been better to be more accurate as some of the lines may be quoted by “warmers”. But we can give him credit for doing an article as some newspapers have been reluctant to print the other side to IPCC. In addition the cold spell in Canada seems to have cooled the panic letters to the editor at this time. But I can see what will happen as soon as we get a warm spell or a forest fire. In addition read Licia Corbella’s column in yesterday’s Calgary Sun.

  20. george h.
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    The piece on Christopher Landsea (Part III) is sad and illustrates quite well what happens when the IPCC’s political AGW dogma and real science collide — “shutup” “the science is settled” I can’t help but wonder about what Judith Curry might have to say regarding the Landsea–IPCC fiasco given that it is happening in her field. And why aren’t other scientists shouting from the rooftops in protest?

  21. Bill F
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

    I tend to agree with those who saw the use of “denier” as a journalistic tactic and not an insult. Setting aside whether the journalism was sloppy in using old quotes or perhaps not clearing stating some of the views of his subjects, I felt the series as a whole did a great job of pointing out that the “deniers” were not a bunch of whack jobs out in left field, but serious, well educated, experienced, and in most cases highly thought of in their respective fields of expertise. To me, the impact of the series was to once again emphasize that there is no bullet-proof consensus on AGW.

  22. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    RE: #6 – The present times may be quite anologous to the period 200 – 400AD. What comes next ….. 😦

  23. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    Posts not being posted (?)

  24. Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    Dear everyone,

    I am convinced that Solomon meant the word “denier” as a joke, to make his articles more interesting, and they’re good articles. More importantly, he hasn’t invented the label “denier”. It’s been used by people like Al Gore for quite some time. I think it is not reasonable to criticize Solomon for this word because his articles mostly show why the label is vacuous and rationally unjustifiable.


  25. Joe B
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    I posted this in the Unthreaded section, but maybe I should have posted it here. Speaking
    of “deniers,” today’s Boston Globe has an article that compares skeptics to Holocaust Deniers.

  26. Richard deSousa
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

    Re: #5 – The electrical power distribution system in the US is primarily AC.

  27. Jeff Norman
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    Re: #19, Gerald Machnee said:

    In addition the cold spell in Canada seems to have cooled the panic letters to the editor at this time.

    In Toronto, the longest stretch of days when the daily maximum temperature did not rise to 0°C was:

    46 days – 1977 – Dec 26 to Feb 9
    46 days – 1978 – Jan 27 to Mar 13 – I remember freezing my buns off waiting for the GO Train
    35 days – 1985 – Jan 7 to Feb 10
    28 days – 1966 – Jan 11 to Feb 7
    27 days – 1945 – Jan 13 to Feb 8
    23 days – 1979 – Jan 29 to Feb 20
    22 days – 1980 – Jan 23 to Feb 13
    22 days – 1948 – Jan 22 to Feb 12
    21 days – 2003 – Jan 10 to Jan 30
    20 days – 1981 – Dec 30 to Jan 18

    These are as measured at Pearson, uncorrected for UHI effects resulting from the massive development in and around the airport.

    How does 2007 compare?

    27+ days – Jan 20 to Feb 15+ (includes the six day forecast). The weather guru here is forecasting below normal temperatures to the end of Feb which would extend this out to 40 days.

    1978 was the third coolest year between 1938 and 2006. 1972 was the coolest and 1940 was the second coolest.

    All of the years listed above had annual temperatures which below the average of all the years except for 2003. 2003 was the coolest year in the last ten years.

    Meanwhile Icelanders are worried about polar bears and reindeer are starving in Finland.

    Interesting weather.

  28. Jaye Bass
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    Solomon’s use of “denier” is done intentionally in an ironic manner, thus mocking the Kyoto-holics’ tendency to defame their critics.

    That’s the way I read it.

  29. TommyS
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    I agree with Motl here. I also think the articles are brilliant in mocking the consensus concept and the deniers/sceptics/contrarian labels often put on the questioners. This is one of the most facinating sides of the topic; how it all became this unbalanced. It is magic to me, and 100% irrational. This tells me that even, or perhaps even specially, a typical scientist have problems with accepting irrational sides of humans. The article makes a fine contrast between the “deniers” and the CV’s of each person / subject portraited. Really interesting. Amusing article. Keep up the good work!

  30. Reid
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    I agree with Lubos that Solomon is mocking his opponents.

    Here is a link to a wonderful mockery of the IPCC on a British blog titled “The debate is over, let the trials begin.”

  31. Ron Cram
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

    I was impressed with one of the skeptics, Nigel Weiss, in the article “Will the Sun cool us?” Unfortunately, Solomon has embarrassed himself. Weiss comments on his webpage that the article is misleading. Read it here.

    I had added Weiss to the wikipedia article “List of scientists opposing global warming consensus.” I had to remove him after I read his website.

  32. John G. Bell
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    Solomon’s “denier” series is well done. It is better than 95% of the reporting out there. A definite positive contribution to the public’s understanding of the debate.

  33. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink


    It may or may not. Pelosi is already calling for mandatory cuts in “greenhouse emissions”. Pelosi backs restrictions.

    Note the 4 climate experts that were in the meeting. All AGW proponents, including Trenberth, who I think was at the center of the Landsea controversy.


  34. Mark T.
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    I do have problems with politicians and journalists entering the climate fray and more so those that are attempting to argue from my POV, since so frequently they get the story and facts wrong or argue from positions that I would not think legitimate or rational.

    Unfortunately, such folks are merely going with what they think the tide is in an attempt to either gain votes (politicians), or uncover the next big story (journalists). Manufacturing a crisis seems a popular concept in both arenas, IMO… i.e. “wag the dog.”


  35. Follow the Money
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 4:26 PM | Permalink

    Unfortunately Shermer managed to lump global warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers on one occasion. All I can say is he’d better not do it anywhere near me.

    The talking point “denier” was specifically chosen for its proximity to “holocaust denier.”

    These terms don’t come out of nowhere. The PR firms managing the shock and awe campaign to force though carbon trading in the US government chose the term “denier” very well.

    I’d like to see the National Post have a series of stories on the economic interests behind AGW and carbon credit trading a.k.a. “cap and trade.”

  36. K
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    #5, 22, 26, 27

    The power grid is AC. But many have read about DC high-voltage replacing it. The main advantage, as I recall, is higher voltage which means less power loss. The DC grid has been worked on for at least forty years and hasn’t quite happened.

    Cyrogenic cooling to allow transmission through superconductors hasn’t really panned out either. I haven’t followed either subject for a long time but it persists in popular literature.

    As to what happens next. The Roman Empire will definitely fall. My son, obviously a denier, took a Latin minor in college.

    How about this for a spin? AGW favors big capitalism.


    Because the biggest corporations and capital markets have less to gain from unfettered competition. They already have dominance and some will welcome strict world regulation that limits what newer, smaller, competitors can do. The massive regulation that seems to be coming to handle AGW will pleasantly free them from rapid change and risk.

  37. paminator
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

    re #46-

    The power grid is dominated by AC transmission and distribution because transformers that can step voltage up or down have been around for a century, and rotating machines naturally generate AC electricity. DC transmission can be less lossy, not because of higher voltage, but because of no AC reactive losses and no skin effect in the current carrying conductors.

    The biggest reason why DC is not used more often in the power grid is the huge expense of converting between AC and DC. It is sometimes done to allow precise control of power flow between different parts of the power grid, because it allows two regions of the grid to operate at different phase angles or even frequencies, yet allow power to be transferred between them in a precisely controlled manner.

  38. JScott
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 9:01 PM | Permalink

    Denial what a crappy term.

    “refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge)”

    So whose in denial, the believers of global warming or the skeptics. Me thinks it’s the alarmists!

  39. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 9:12 PM | Permalink

    I’ve not been babysitting posts, but conspiracy discussions are not appropriate here and I’ve deleted a bunch of posts.

  40. Posted Feb 9, 2007 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    If you want to see a brilliant denier who is a politician, read the climate part of an interview with the Czech president:

    Và¡clav Klaus has been an economics professor, with dozens of honorary degrees etc.

  41. PHE
    Posted Feb 10, 2007 at 3:06 AM | Permalink

    That interview with the Czech president is so refreshing. I copy some of the best bits here

    Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?
    A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is unfair to refer to the U.N. panel. It’s not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a kind of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who come there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided task. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond in such a serious way to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.
    Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right …
    A: …I am right…
    Q: Isn’t there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?
    It’s such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.
    Q:Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?
    A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Only Mr Al Gore may be saying such a thing: a sane person can’t. I don’t see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don’t think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing.

  42. L Nettles
    Posted Feb 10, 2007 at 9:01 AM | Permalink

    Where do I get my “Klaus 2008” bumper sticker

  43. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Feb 10, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    re 42 –

    If only!

    Unfortunately “intellectual” is a dirty word in both British and USA politics. How do we get bright people to take on the job of running countries again?

  44. Ron Cram
    Posted Feb 10, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    re: #16


    Thanks to the post by Jean, I learned of your comments on the IPCC published in Finnish. Is it possible to get an English translation published on the internet? I would like to list you as a scientist who is skeptical of AGW. I have to have an English source to meet the wikipedia requirement of verifiability.


  45. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Feb 10, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    Re # 44 – I also like the tern – “Questioner”.

  46. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Feb 10, 2007 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    I think an earlier post that I made on this thread was pulled as I evidently was involved in a conspiracy discussion without realizing it. I would like to again comment on the Solomon piece and perhaps from a little different perspective.

    As said before, I have trouble when journalists and politicians enter the fray over AGW and primarily because even when they appear to be arguing my side of a particular issue they often do it in a way I find unreasonable and too often pandering to emotions.

    The Solomon article is good from the perspective that he is attempting to reveal the findings and views of respected scientists that do not necessarily agree with the so-called consensus- even though I suspect he may have oversimplified some of them.

    What I do not like is referencing these people as deniers and implying that all or many AGW advocates would use that term in reference to these people. I do not think that is case even though advocates may disagree with their conclusions/views on specific areas of the debate. In the end it makes little difference to the validity of their arguments.

    Using the denier label as though it were coming from advocates seems to put these people in the role of victims and I do not think this advances the discussion one bit. It is too much like the strong AGW advocates who come to CA to post and immediately get all wrapped up in how they think they are being treated here and seem to fall into the victim role which then becomes the focal point of too many of their responses.

  47. Roger Dueck
    Posted Feb 10, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    #12 Larry, I stand corrected. My usual critic (spouse) did not spell-check my post.

  48. Jaye
    Posted Feb 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM | Permalink

    While “denier” is insulting, I think the worst is yet to come soon it will be “heretic”

  49. bender
    Posted Feb 11, 2007 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

    Believer, denier … whatever happened to agnosticism?

  50. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Feb 11, 2007 at 2:26 PM | Permalink


    If you’re not with them, you’re against them.

  51. Bill
    Posted Feb 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    I am proud to wear the label ‘Denier’. I stand with that well known ‘The world is flat denier’ Eratosthenes, and that ‘The earth is the center of the universe denier’ Coprenicus. 🙂

  52. Mememine69
    Posted Oct 3, 2008 at 6:14 AM | Permalink

    -25 years of global warming predictions of doom.
    -we are living longer now than at any time in human history.
    -La Nina is stronger than global warming because it is delaying global warming.
    -a quarter of a century ago this silly theory did not predict that 25 years later we would have the coldest winter in 12 years.
    -waiting for someone else to do your thinking is the first step towards fascism.
    -global warming will be to liberals what WMD’s were to conservatives.
    -global warming is modern day witch burning.
    Fact: history will laugh, and cry at the very fact that humans can melt planets.
    FACT: there is debate.
    Fact: I was accepted as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists so if they take anyone, where is this so-called consensus?
    As a member in good standing of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I have embarked on an extensive study of our climate in crisis.
    Since predictions of crisis began 25 years ago with the birth of this theory of humans melting planets, I have observed:
    -clear blue sky days.
    -trips to Fla. to get warm every winter.
    -I have gone through 2 snow blowers and 25 ski club memberships.
    -3 snowmobiles.
    -increasing longevity of fellow humans.
    Ah, life is good.

  53. Mememine69
    Posted Oct 3, 2008 at 6:18 AM | Permalink

    The largest open forum on global warming is at:

One Trackback

  1. […] Author of a ten-part seriesof articles in the National Post showing some weaknesses in the case for anthroprogenic global warming, later published in book for as The Deniers. […]

%d bloggers like this: