This story is legitimately tragic, but it's far from the first case of climate change delusion. Have they never heard of Benny Peiser? Larry Solomon? Tim Ball? The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? Bob Carter?
Of course, these guys may not be delusional. They may just be lying. But that would involve a judgment rather than a diagnosis …. Either way, a certain sort of sickness abounds.
The breathless debate spawned by U.K. endocrinologist Dr. Klaus-Martin Shulte offers a perfect case study in how NOT to debate serious scientific issues.
Shulte - motivated, we are led to believe, by a desire to ease the minds of defenceless children who are worried about climate change - has launched what can fairly be described as an effort to repudiate the work of Dr. Naomi Oreskes.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
