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.
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.
[...] Mark Landsbaum wrote an interesting post today on We introduce a new (nearly) daily global warming except from â
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
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.
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
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
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