A Few Scientists Who Won't Deny Being Deniers

We can now count the dead and the imaginary among the shrinking number of scientists in the Heartland Institute list of 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

“Bond, G., Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory;” “Bradbury, J. Pratt, USGS;” and “Keeling, Charles D., Scripps Institute of Oceanography” are all deceased and therefore unable to join the chorus of legitimate scientists who are demanding that their names be removed from the list.

“Jull, B. L. K., Physical Research Lab., Ahmedabad, India” is also unlikely to complain as he appears not to exist. There is a Tim Jull from the University of Arizona (who probably doesn't want to be on the list) and a BLK Somajahulu, now retired from the Physical Research Lab in Ahmedabad who likely ALSO doesn't want to be on this list.

We can't say whether Avery is sloppy in his transcription or that he just throws in the odd imaginary character to flesh out his “argument.” But if there is a third potential explanation, we'll be happy to hear about it.


From Page Van Der Linden: Another scientist who can't object to his inclusion on a list of deniers is the late astrologer and amateur climatologist Theodor Landscheidt. Of course, you might well ask what Landsheidt was doing on a list of “scientists” in the first place, but that's a question for list maker Dennis Avery , a man whose liberal standards or evidence seem ever more apparent.


Likely he had hoped no one would notice while also giving the appearance that the “usual suspects” (i.e. Singer et al.) are not the only ones still doubting AGW.

It gives the illusion that the so-called “science” they are conducting is still new and evolving and being taken seriously by other scientists (who don’t have a controversial reputation).

It is also the power in numbers argument - try to give the impression that there are a lot of people out there with authority who doubt AGW when in fact there are only a handful.

It seems a pretty desperate act and one would hope is a sign that the denial machine is crumbling fast - however, unfortunately the ridiculous antics of the denialists are nothing new.

You guys do live in a fun little dream world don’t you?

Would that hand full be any smaller than the 51 on the IPCC that signed off on the AGW Lie?
I mean Hypothysis.

After discovering Bolshevist plots from cereal flakes, our inactivist trolls go on to discover non-AGW “climate scientists” using the tried-and-proven method of necromancy.

Too bad he can’t ward off the impending lawsuits with his ostrich tactics.

http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

The word is not correctly used here, but in any case, if we are going to convince the public that the current science is all wrong, we have to start by spelling it right: “hypothesis”.

So… as time passes and real evidence mounts that your “computer models” are off/incorrect, you must be worried about your funding sources drying up. No matter how hard you beat he old AGW/climate change… drum the topic is becoming quieter and quieter as time passes. Nice try

Worried about funding sources drying up? Not even close to big oil’s and big coal’s megaprofits tanking. Worried about your inactivist funding drying up, Fade to Shoe Goo?

to their credit, heartland did resist the urge to add drs hugh jarse and i p freely to their list….


Perhaps it’s me just having missed something, but has Dennis Avery or the Heartland Institute actually explained precisely how a dead scientist can Dennis become a co-author? Surely being a co-author implies some degree of active involvement, which would seem precluded somewhat by ‘co-authors’ being dead.

For a start, why did he not also include other famous scientists like Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Galileo Galilei, Aristotle,..,? The list is effectively almost endless.

Of course a competent author would have needed to consider carefully the facts and chronology of the discovery of climate change, but bearing in mind Avery’s apparent strong tendency to display a Crightonesque approach to science, so perhaps not.

So is it an honest mistake? - Clearly no.
Is it deliberate dishonesty? - It definitely looks like it. Dennis Avery’s apparent dishonesty, says a great deal about the accuracy of the ‘science’ that he was trumpeting.

From the Dictionary of Mendacity
Definition of ‘Crightonesque
A cavalier disregarding of facts in the utter determination to prove an ideologically predetermined conclusion that is entirely unsupported by any available or cited peer-reviewed scientific evidence.. Often involves citing as evidence, scientists’ work that does not support the proposition.

[Origin eponymous – after Michael Crichton, author of popular low fiction, often using pseudo-scientific and fallacy-ridden arguments to disseminate the author’s political views, with a view to misleading the public into believing that climate science has been subverted by a world-wide conspiracy. The facts reveal there is a documented conspiracy to undermine climate science, but the evidence available shows that it is funded by the fossil fuel industry through think-tanks and intermediaries, who expect to lose-out through carbon taxes and diminishing sales.]

Well the title deserves to the article,Yes they have to be honest atleast at accepting at their denails,Well not only scientists do even the politicians ,Tiffany Johnson and the celebrites do that.I dont know what is going to harm them if they accpe their denail better than lying.

I was looking for these things and here I found it.This kind of clever work and exposure! Keep up the wonderful works guys I’ve included you guys to my blogroll.Essay writing