Christopher Monckton on Scientific American‘s Defense of Climate Alarmism
By David J. Theroux • Monday December 28, 2009 12:29 AM PST •
In an editorial article in its December 2009 issue, “Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense,” the popular-science magazine Scientific American claims that the Climategate revelations and the findings from an increasing number of scientists who question climate alarmism are ignorant, irrational and unfounded. The magazine lists and then attempts to refute what it claims are the seven major arguments being made by climate skeptics, and implies that Senator James Inhofe and others who question global-warming alarmism are akin to those who believe “in ghosts, astrology, creationism and homeopathy.” The magazine further states that:
Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists. Not everyone who questions climate change science fits that description, of course—some people are genuinely unaware of the facts or honestly disagree about their interpretation. What distinguishes the true naysayers is an unwavering dedication to denying the need for action on the problem, often with weak and long-disproved arguments about supposed weaknesses in the science behind global warming.
In a step-by-step reply, “Scientific American’s Climate Lies,” Viscount Christopher Monckton shows that each and every “straw man” point by the magazine is fundamentally flawed and deceptively so. Indeed, Monckton shows that on at least this issue, the magazine has become unscientific, vitriolic, politicized, and deeply biased.
Tags: climate skeptics, climategate, CO2, Corruption, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, hockey stick, Integrity, IPCC, James Inhofe, Politics, Propaganda, Science, Scientific American, Technology, Transparency, United Nations