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.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Of course all this is a sideshow by you to distract attention from the fact that GORE STILL REFUSES TO ENGAGE IN AN HONEST DEBATE.
I am making a point. Tell me what a debate between Gore and Monckton would accomplish. Debate over issues of science belong in the peer-reviewed journals amongst scientists.
Hypothesis --- conclusion --- peer review --- publish, repeat as necessary.
"I am making a point."
Really? Sorry, I didn't notice for some reason.
"Tell me what a debate between Gore and Monckton would accomplish."
Why not have one and find out? Or is there something you'd rather not find out?
"Debate over issues of science belong in the peer-reviewed journals amongst scientists."
The debate to which Gore has been challenged, and seems to be afraid to participate is: Is Global Warming a Crisis?.
That is not a scientific debate. That is a political debate. Gore is a politician, and should therefore be fully qualified to defend his position -- Assuming he can.
"Hypothesis --- conclusion --- peer review --- publish, repeat as necessary."
Interestingly, you have omitted a tiny detail which generally comes before "conclusion" -- that would be evidence.
Gore refuses to engage in a "debate" featuring mudslinging and ad hominems against the top climate scientists on the planet.
Eco-H*****, face it. There is no debate. You are wrong.
Of course not. That's where Desmogblog.com comes in.
The DeSmogBlog is attacking the Heartland Institute because they do not engage in sound scientific investigation. They simply engage in public relations campaigns which are intended to create confusion and to prevent the general public from seeing, hearing, and reading the truth, let alone understanding it.
What the Heartland Institute has done in the past (i.e. the 1970s and 1980s) in trying to portray smoking as a safe activity was repulsive. The same applies with climate change. They try to deflect public attention from the real culprit which warms the planet (i.e. CO2 and other greenhouse gases which we are emitting into the atmosphere through industry, transportation, etc.) to things which are having a minimal effect on global temperature fluctuations at best (i.e. solar cycles, volcanism, etc.).
Jeff, the DeSmogBlog is not attacking Joe personally. That is, they are not calling him names like "bastard", etc. They are attacking his motives, agenda, tactics, and lack of objectivity relating to the science of climate change and his apparent ideological blindness.