We introduce a new (nearly) daily global warming except from “The Deniers”
May 6th, 2008, 11:33 am · 10 Comments · posted by Mark Landsbaum
We’d like to bring to your attention “The Deniers, The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warmign hysteria, political persecution and fraud” a book we find worthwhile by Lawrence Solomon.
Solomon’s not on Exxon’s payroll. He’s not a right-wing wing-nut, as our critics so often claim about global warming skeptics. Indeed, Solomon’s an eminent environmentalist and environmental activist, who often has found himself at odds with those Exxon-ites and alleged wing-nuts.
Guess what he found out. “…on every headline global warming issue, not only were there serious scientists who dissented, consistently the dissenters were by far the more accomplished and eminent scientists.”
Oops. And you thought “the science is settled”? You thought only crooks, kooks and fringe players denied the idea that global warming is real, caused primarily by humans and will lead to catastophe?
Well, think again.
Today, we introduce you to Mr. Solomon. In coming days, we’ll introduce you to what he says shocked him to find out: “. . . that many of the greatest experts in the field are deeply skeptical of Gore & co. who, unable to answer these great scientists, resort to slandering them or even denying their existence.”
In the meantime, check out Solomon’s affiliation and his book on your own.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Sorry, but no dice. Mr. Solomon and his several Institutes and other organizations are well known in Canada, where they’re based, as shills for corporate, petroleum and other anti-environmental organizations. They’re more subtle than most - putting on environmentalist airs and so on - but their right-wing and corporate bias shows through pretty easily. The Energy Probe website speaks of the Institute’s devotion to property rights (an interesting thing for an environmental group) and other causes. In fact, a book titled Cloak of green specifically takes the group and Mr. Solomon to task for its pro-industry biases, which extend back over 25 years. Bring all the quotes from Mr. Solomon you like, he’s still a very tainted source.
It took me like 10 minutes to find this, which tells me (again) you either don’t check your sources or you don’t care, so long as the citation supports your a priori opinions. I ask again: what level of evidence would you need to change your mind, even a little bit, on this issue? Anyone who reads your constant posting on this already knows the answer (nothing), but it’d be fun to see you dance around that point. I also await some evidence of a nuanced opinion on this from you (perhaps something from one of the “hangers on who once may have had a good idea” (remember that line of yours?) ), but I don’t hold my breath on that one either.
The old United Negro College Fund ads said a mind is a terrible thing to waste. I would suggest to you a slightly different version, and urge you to ponder it: a closed mind is already a waste.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
[…] We introduce a new (nearly) daily global warming except from ?The … By Mark Landsbaum He?s not a right-wing wing-nut, as our critics so often claim about global warming skeptics. Indeed, Solomon?s an eminent environmentalist and environmental activist, who often has found himself at odds with those Exxon-ites and alleged … Orange Punch - http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com This as-it-happens Alert is brought to you by . […]
May 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
[…] Mark Landsbaum wrote an interesting post today on We introduce a new (nearly) daily global warming except from â
May 6th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Mr. rhl’s incredible indictment is that one can’t be environmentally concerned if one respects property rights? Huh?
There’s such a logical disconnect there that Mr. rhl reveals his bias, not Mr. Solomon’s - and doesn’t even realize it.
And of course, once again, ad hominem. Not a word about the merits. Talk about predictable.
By the way, what are Mr. rhl’s credentials and affiliations? Oh, that’s right. He refuses to say. Hm. That certainly doesn’t raise any questions does it? Ha.
At your service in Christ . . .
Mark Landsbaum
May 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
As Jack Nicholson once said in the movie “Reds,” I think I struck a nerve . ..
Let’s go point by point (to the extent there are points in Mr. Landsbaums’s latest wounded buffalo howl):
1. You’re right, I phrased the sentence about property rights on the Energy Probe website poorly (the wages of doing things so fast). The point of that citation is that it’s among a list of philosophical positions the Institute espouses - antipathy to governmental regulation, skepticism about second hand smoke, etc. - that are characteristic of a group not scientifically based but politically motivated. Anyone familiar with this newspaper knows that the term “property rights” is a shorthand for a welter of right wing/libertarian positions antipathetic to a great many things in today’s society - antipathy that is political and philosohical in nature, and not based on scientific analysis (indeed, those positions seem to involve a lot of cherrypicking from science to gin up selective support for those political positions) . Those positions are also held with remarkable consistentcy by virtually eveyone Mr. Landsbaum cites in support of his stance on cliamte change. Now, if you like those positions, be my guest - espouse away. But please, dont then pretend that your positions are based on disinterested science rather than your politico-philosophical bent. It’s an insult to people’s intelligence.
2. I’ve stated my biases in these blogs (to the extent they exist) many times and don’t shy from them. I wonder about at least some of the extreme predictions of immiment disaster coming from climate change Cassandras, and have questions about the real significance of the facts and statistics flung about. I also harbor major skepticism about global warming being the nose of one-world totalitarianism under our collective tent. In this ambivalence, I suspect I share the opinion of many people in this country if not around the world. Science is so arcane today that a large picture understanding is difficult if not impossible to obtain, All the more reason for those who occupy a position to shape that public opinion to do so in a measured, nuanced and open minded way - to foster an inbtelligent dialogue, instead of smugly proclaiming absolute truth. I’m extremely biased in my desire for that sort of reporting and opinion offering, and extremely biased against close minded one-note trumpetings such as those characteristic of Mr. Landsbaum’s postings. They insult the intelligence of readers; they are poorly researched; they are reckelessly culled from any source, regardless of its reliability, that suports his views; and they are breathtakingly condescending to anyone with the temerity to even question his opinion. That’s my bias, and I’m sticking to it, thanks.
3. I believe the prejudice of the author Mr. Landsbaum cites to be readily apparent from any even brief look into his background and that of the Institute he heads. This is no surprise; it’s typical of his methods (recall the fellow who claimed to be a Nobel peace Prize winner, about whom Mr. Landsbaum glowingly reported a couple of weeks ago - well, briefly, anyway). And when I noted last week that the study he was flogging then as proof positive he was right in fact undercut one of his favorite points, not a word - just what I’ll charitably characterize as a grumble. Not discussing merits, indeed.
4. We seem to have a difference as to what constitutes an ad hominem attack. I don’t claim Mr. Landsbaum beats his wife, or molests children, or has bad breath. I do regard his method of argument, his logic, his blindness to anything outside his own irrevocably held opinions (note that my challenge about what might make him reconsider his opinion on this issue remains, after being made at least twice, unanswered); and his contempt for dissenters from his self-proclaimed holy writ; as unworthy of serious consideration by a thinking public. Mr. Landsbaum makes his living reporting and offering opinions. He thus, in my view anyway, makes the quality of those opinions and the reasoning that underlies them fair game. If that attack on his methods and reasoning be ad hominem, so be it.
5. Regarding my “credentials and affiliations,” let me first turn the tables: what are Mr. Landsbaum’s? Is he a climatologist, a meteorologist, a scientist of any sort? What advanced degrees or professional papers has he published to qualify him to be Sir Oracle and tell us without a shred of doubt that the climate change/global warming theory is not just dead, irrevocably, and 100% wrong, but in fact a devious plot by a nameless cabal that seeks to Control (his term) and render us serfs to their tyrannical lusts? He has none. He’s a reporter, a scribbler - yet a member of a profession that is supposed to enlighten, to investigate, to inform the public. Sadly, he does none of these - indeed, his “opinion” pieces here are so shoddy that they’ve been uniformly shot full of holes without much effort (and I’m only a minor player in that). He thus not only lacks qualifications to tell us what’s good or bad about the climate change hypothesis, but his efforts to advocate by forwarding others’ opinions fail the most basic journalistic tests of quality.
But perhaps I made an error even coming into this blog. You see, I didn’t realize that in order to question Mr. Landsbaum, or to participate in this discussion, I had to be anything other than a citizen - a sentient human being. I thought that qualified me well enough. it appears, however, that I was wrong. I didn’t understand that without proper “credentials and affiliations,” my unwashed opinions and concerns had no place here. I failed to grasp that no mere reader may presume to challenge the Great Royal We Landsbaum without being sufficiently elite to be worthy to share his lofty first-person-plural presence.
How uppity of me.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:38 am
See the most efficient way to reduce the global warming is to suggest various measures for the energy conservation. It is us who can save our earth from the future turmoil and devastation.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:14 am
John A. Warden III, a U.S. strategy expert recently posted this about Global Climate Change: Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change. It would be interesting to hear how your readers view his positions and the need to establish the future state of the global climate before embarking on a lots of tactical solutions to a percieved problem.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:54 am
A scribber we confess to being.
But what is rlh? Hm? Does anyone know?
Please do consider the source. That’s fair enough. But when the source is hidden, what’s to consider?
And why is it hidden? Now in that there’s a story, no doubt. Now THAT’s a basic journalistic test.
Notice, nearly every credible news outlet doesn’t permit anonymous sources in news stories when the reporter KNOWS the source. The reason is credibility. And accountability. And full disclosure.
Here we have an anonymous source no one knows. And a self-admittedly uppity one, at that.
But rlh won’t let us pursue that. Gee, we wonder why?
Rlh’s favorite attack is to demean by association. Yet he (or she) allows no one to know his association. Does that sound hypocritical? Does that sound disingenuous?
At your service in Christ . . .
Mark Landsbaum
May 7th, 2008 at 10:39 am
It’s interesting how, whenever substantive answers seems hard to come by, Mr. Landsbaum changes the subject to my anonymity. I guess he doesn’t want to talk about the merits after all.
Let’s review: he posted an enret lauding a book by a supposed eminent environmentalist which attacked global warming. I, based on very cursory research, noted that the author was fr from eminent, was in fact part of a group dedicated to the usual welter of right wing causes (directly contradicting Mr. Landsbaum’s assertions), and had been so recognized for over twenty years in his native Canada. Mr. Lansdbaum’s response (in paraphrase): who the hell are you anyway?
Them’s the merits, mister. Address that.
By the way, on a flier last night I checked out the publisher for the book that Mr. Landsbaum so glowingly cites. It’s called Vigilante Publishing (that alone should clue you in). Its website features as its leading current publications the book of Mr. Landsbaum’s, a book purporting to tell us all from “on the ground” reports how well the war in Iraq is going, books by Laura inraham and Mark Steyn (favorites of this newspaper to be sure, but again of a piece politically), and one I really want to get - a tome explaining what a wonderful guy Joe McCarthy was. I guess he was friendly with dogs or something (he sure wound up being so, on Roy Cohn’s behalf, with David Schine). If you don’t regard such a publishing house as a partisan “right-wing nut” organization (Mr. Landsbaum’s words), well, bless you - maybe I can sell you a bridge.
Finally - who I am doesn’t matter if you can’t answer me, does it? It pretty clearly peeves you not to be able to engage in personal character assassination against me, but you’ll just have tio live with not knowing who or what I am - aside from someone who will hold your posts to logical and intellectual account.. And rest assured: all open minded and intellectually curious readers already know what you are
May 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
By the way, sorry for the typo on my initials - the laptop I’m on today has most of ther key lettering worn off, so typing is real guesswork - especially for a typing moron like me