Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
James Inhofe, probably the single craziest person in the U.S. Senate, has a list of 700 "prominent scientists" who oppose global warming. Like the Discovery Institute's similar list involving evolution, there are some real laughers on the list. Like this one:
One of the listed prominent scientists is Chris Allen, who holds no college degree, believes in creationism and belongs to a Southern Baptist church.Allen is a weatherman at the FOX-affiliated TV station in Bowling Green, Ky.
Wait. It gets better.
On pages 227-228 of the report, Inhofe identified Allen as a meteorologist and quoted from his "scientific writing"--a blog--about global warming."[J]ust because major environmental groups, big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," wrote Allen. "All of this (global warming alarmism) is designed to get your money and then guilt you in to how you live your life."
Inhofe doesn't quote other segments from Allen's blog, however.
"My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture," he wrote on Feb. 7, 2007.
"It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus ... did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do--rid the mere mention of God in any context," wrote Allen.
"What these environmentalists are actually saying is 'we know more than God-- we're bigger than God--God is just a fantasy--science is real ... He isn't ... listen to US!' I have a huge problem with that," said Allen, a member of Hillvue Heights Church, whose pastor is a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an adjunct faculty member of Campbellsville University, a Kentucky Baptist university.
The list also includes a retired professor with no training in climate science who says that the earth "couldn't be more than 10,000 years old." And these names were listed as "prominent scientists" in an actual Senate report.
Politics
Comments
Well, that is the Christian take on Genesis last time I checked, that through one man sin entered into a perfect world. Good call there, Chris.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 22, 2009 9:24 AM
Well, technically, the weather goob has something right. We're not all that likely to destroy the Earth. Make it nearly uninhabitable by humans, sure. But destroy? That is a bit tougher.
Posted by: Ranson | April 22, 2009 9:40 AM
I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do--rid the mere mention of God in any context," wrote Allen.
Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to rid the mere mention of God in any context? Seriously dude? Whooaaaaaaaooaaaa...
Posted by: tweetybird386sx | April 22, 2009 9:41 AM
Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created?
Well, so far, he's allowed us to destroy a good bit of it, with no let-up in sight. Oh, and does this cracker have any idea of the other atrocious things God has allowed humans to do for the past few thousand-odd years?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 22, 2009 9:51 AM
Posted by: Taz | April 22, 2009 10:06 AM
Hmmm...the KJV Gen 1:28 "...and replenish the earth...", which as I was taught in my RCC school years meant to take care of what god gave you...
I know, I know....I keep expecting fundies to actually read what they claim to quote. Silly me.
Posted by: Pineyman | April 22, 2009 10:07 AM
In Britain, TV weatherpeople are usually qualified meteorologists. I take it this isn't the case in the US.
Posted by: Philbert | April 22, 2009 10:09 AM
Philbert, No in the US, williard Scott, David Letterman, and numerous females chosen only for their attractiveness have all made a living as weatherpeople
Posted by: Kevin | April 22, 2009 10:28 AM
Posted by: Dave | April 22, 2009 10:29 AM
Has anybody seen a number for people that meet all of the following criteria that signed this petition:
1) PhD in a relevant field
2) Currently practicing in a relevant field
3) Currently publishing peer-reviewed articles in a relevant field
4) Publishing findings in peer-reviewed articles that argues against either warming or AGW. (In case they have a Behe like guy in their midst.)
5) Whose peer-reviewed published findings have not been instantly and easily falsified.
Anyone at all meet that criteria? I didn't add the following criteria to my list above given my point number 5 should catch it, but it should we would also want to consider: signer's research was funded by an interest group who considers warming and/or AGW a threat to their business model.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 22, 2009 10:48 AM
I believe this is taking the "I slept at a Holiday Inn Express" a bit too far...
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 22, 2009 10:58 AM
A nice roundup of links on Inhofes two other incarnations of this same list can be found HERE. I suspect this version is every bit as accurate. He seems to think that if he adds more irrelevant names and misstatements, that that makes his assertion better.
Posted by: Dave S. | April 22, 2009 11:17 AM
This would be a good time to mention project steve where over 1000 scientists named steve signed up to state:
Posted by: yoshi | April 22, 2009 11:20 AM
Ummm .... you wrote:
'700 "prominent scientists" who oppose global warming'
I thought we all opposed global warming.
Did you mean "'prominent scientists' who don't believe the globe is warming"?
Posted by: Bruce | April 22, 2009 11:37 AM
They oppose global warming?
Er ....... are we in favor it around here then?
Posted by: Nigel | April 22, 2009 11:40 AM
There's an attempt to evaluate each of the names on Inhofe's list at 650list.blogspot.com. Worth checking out.
Michael Heath: not to my knowledge, and I kind of obsess over this stuff. If you finnd one, please let me know!
Posted by: Brian D | April 22, 2009 11:43 AM
On ABCNews, they speak about "Solar Katrina"!! This summer will be Hell! The similar on "Oprah" where Aimee Lee Ball speak poles which melt! (30 % of ice in + in Antartique), the islands which make shipwrecks!!
Where this? Where this??!
Whoooâârght!
Posted by: humorix | April 22, 2009 11:53 AM
I'm in favor of global warming when it's snowing, but not when it's 100 degrees.
Posted by: ??? | April 22, 2009 12:42 PM
Michael Heath - theres about 4 or 5 people that meet your criteria that I can think of who have been active on the denialist circuit. People like LIndzen and Singer.
The actual paper thingy is such a mess that I'm amazed anyone can work out who has signed what.
Posted by: guthrie | April 22, 2009 1:08 PM
Re guthrie
The trouble with Prof. Fred Singer is that he has a history of denialism. In the past, he has denied the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and the link between CFCs and ozone depletion (when he doesn't deny ozone depletion). Since he has been wrong before, he hasn't much credibility in this instance.
Posted by: SLC | April 22, 2009 2:14 PM
Another Behe? Prof. William Happer, Princeton
Posted by: David Greenwood | April 22, 2009 3:24 PM
"All of this (global warming alarmism) is designed to get your money and then guilt you in to how you live your life."
That's an awfully brave card for a Christian to be playing.
Posted by: gir | April 22, 2009 5:20 PM
I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do--rid the mere mention of God in any context," wrote Allen.
No. The whole point of science is to describe reality. Science has made more progress doing that in 500 years than religion has in 5000. (And yes, all religions are pretty much the same.)
Besides, has it ever occurred to these people how things would be if they did not try to force everybody else to mention god in every context?
And I agree with gir's post above.
Posted by: Blue Nine | April 22, 2009 6:28 PM
Global warming actually makes winters colder in many regions. Not very intuitive, but the math works out.
Posted by: Brandon | April 22, 2009 6:59 PM
Inhofe's not crazy. He's pandering. Never look at the storyteller. Always look at the audience.
Posted by: Frank Wilhoit | April 22, 2009 8:00 PM
Most scientists do not believe that activities by humans threaten the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 prominent scientists have already signed a petition that states that “there is no convincing evidence that humans release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s climate.” This petition is circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is available for public viewing at www.oism.org
That's interesting. Is Ed going to go through all 17,000 one by one to rove a poltical point?
Posted by: right wing extremist | April 22, 2009 10:25 PM
The whole point of science is to describe reality. Science has made more progress doing that in 500 years than religion has in 5000.
----------------
That's not true. if it were not for Christianity, science today would not exist as it does. Isaac Newton used science to explore God's world. If it were not for his faith, he would have not had the motivation to explore things the way he did. That goes for manuy others as well. A young earth creationist invented the MRI. Read about others in the book called Men of Science, Men of God. Science owes Christianity. Sorry for the update, but real history trumps post 1960 remanufactured history.
Posted by: right wing extremist | April 22, 2009 10:30 PM
Yeah, science was fine so long as it supported Christianity.
The funny thing is, how many people have said, "yes, I did [x] because of bible verse [y]."
Give me a break.
Not to mention how many of those scientists are climatologists?
Is this like how there are many engineers who think that evolution is wrong?
Posted by: Bachalon | April 22, 2009 10:56 PM
RWE: there are not 17,000 prominent scientists in the entire world. The whole point of prominence is that you're well-known. Even if we break it down by fields, there aren't that many.
I just went and looked at the web site, and, hey, whoopee. So what if a lot of these people have MD or DVM degrees, or bachelors degrees in science? None of that makes them automatically qualified to hold a meaningful opinion on the matter. The opinions of the climate scientists matter a lot more than the opinions of the atomic physicists on this one. And the climate scientists are nearly unanimous.
Posted by: Dave | April 22, 2009 10:57 PM
What about the dispute between global cooling and global warming. Every two decades we seem to switch sides. In the 1970s, we were worried about the imminent ice age. Now, it's the warming that's going to burn us alive. Last night I heard that scientists are now rethinking global cooling again. When you people make up your minds, let us conservatives know so that we will know what to believe.
Posted by: right wing extremist | April 22, 2009 11:03 PM
When conservatives decide to support science even when it doesn't support their ideology, we'll be ready to talk.
Hint: it's not a matter of "belief."
Posted by: Bachalon | April 22, 2009 11:08 PM
right wing extremist,
Isaac Newton lived in a time when questioning the existence of your, and his, favorite deity could well have meant imprisonment or death. Still his religious views were probably not what you might hope.
He didn't believe in the trinity and was a follower of an obscure sect called Arianism after an heretical Christian pries, Arius, who lived in the third and fourth century.
Also I find it odd that you would choose to attack a current orthodoxy, AGW, by appealing to an older one Christianity.
Posted by: Lance | April 22, 2009 11:09 PM
On April 22, 2009 10:30 PM, right wing extremist posted:
Science owes Christianity. Sorry for the update, but real history trumps post 1960 remanufactured history.
Well, you have not exactly refuted my point. I still say that science is describing reality and religion is not. The bible told me that if I sought god with all my heart I would find him. But all I found is that he does not exist, and he is just an idea people make up to feel good about themselves. So the bible cannot even describe itself, so why should I trust religion?
Sorry for the update, but it looks like the child is overtaking its old, senile parent.
Actually, I am not the least bit sorry for the update. I am happy to spread the good news. Let freedom ring.
On April 22, 2009 11:03 PM, right wing extremist posted:
When you people make up your minds, let us conservatives know so that we will know what to believe.
So a self-described right wing extremist needs to be told what to believe. No shock there.
Posted by: Blue Nine | April 22, 2009 11:14 PM
Dave,
And the climate scientists are nearly unanimous.
On what? That the earth has warmed and green house gases produced by humans burning fossils fuels are partially responsible?
Beyond that rather bland statement you would have a hard time showing anything near "unanimity".
Posted by: Lance | April 22, 2009 11:20 PM
Posted by: right wing extremist | April 22, 2009 10:30 PM: A young earth creationist invented the MRI.
You know what's funny? That young earth creationism has been demonstrated to be wrong through the very same scientific methods that this young earth creationist used to invent MRI.
Well, I think it's funny.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 22, 2009 11:58 PM
"Science owes Christianity." historical contingencies aside, I have trouble deciphering what this could possibly mean. Do you mean to say that science should lie to itself and the public by pretending that YEC, the flood, the tower of babel, and other such nonsense is possible, simply because many good scientists have also been Christians? This seems to be almost instantly self-defeating--you would require science to be unscientific, thereby losing all the authority that you'd hoped to gain by co-opting it in the first place.
Incidentally, I think your history is also untenable. The church certainly hasn't been uniformly kind to science. Moreover I think you commit yourself to a deeply problematic claim that science would not have arisen without Christianity. Remember that before the renaissance the vast majority of science was Islamic and or Chinese, not to mention that philosophers were doing things akin to science before Christianity was ever thought of.
Posted by: GBM | April 23, 2009 12:43 AM
right wing extremist wrote:
This is one of those statements that makes one absolutely certain that they're dealing with an ignoramus who has credulously swallowed a load of bullshit. There aren't 17,000 scientists in the entire world with any specialty in climatology or meteorology, much less 17,000 that disagree with global warming. I have a simple rule: I don't take anyone seriously on global warming unless they've read the actual scientific reports on it and are capable of understanding it. That means I don't listen to practically anyone who blathers on about it, whether pro or con. And that includes myself, which is why I don't make bold statements on the subject. That's what an intellectually honest person does.
Another bit of absolute bullshit you've swallowed. This has been utterly disproven. In the 1970s, the scientific literature was still dominated by global warming. Denialists have seized on a couple of popular articles as if they represented the work of scientists.
None of which does anything at all to disprove global warming or to make creationism any less idiotic.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 23, 2009 12:52 AM
Don't scare right wing extremist off! He hasn't even gotten to the bit about proving AGW is a racist liberal myth designed to keep developing nations down and make Al Gore fat! That's my favourite one.
Posted by: tincture | April 23, 2009 1:11 AM
Since you mentioned the weatherman guy, I was immediately reminded of a moment in the UGA student center TV lounge, about 20 years ago, when the weather report was on and someone opined to me, "all you have to do to be a member of AMS is to apply." I never got around to researching the truth about that but the memory has stuck with me all this time.
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 23, 2009 1:48 AM
One more thought: the ebb-and-flow of warming and cooling periods in Earth history really isn't relevant to the fact that it's only in the last 200 years that mankind has developed an industrial civilization. Sure, the Greenland of 1000 years ago was warm enough to farm on a good scale, and then cooled enough to move the Vikings to largely abandon it, but today you can go there and see visual evidence of receding ice. Haven't the deniers been asking for such observable proof?
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 23, 2009 2:00 AM
Jon Lester wrote:
Don't underestimate the denier tactics. "There's no evidence" is just one of the first steps, right after "it's not happening". The next step is "it's not a problem", followed by "we can't stop it anyway" (which is where the resistance against accepting a human cause comes from).Posted by: Deen | April 23, 2009 4:05 AM
Re Lance
Relative to Newtons Arian beliefs, had they become known while he was in charge of the Mint, he could have lost his job and even been tried for heresy.
Re right wing extremist
The three most important scientists who have lived in the Common Era were Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. Newton, as Mr. Lance has pointed out was a heretic, Darwin started out as a devout Anglican but became an agnostic after the death of his daughter, and Einstein was, at best, a Deist. The fact is that religious belief in the scientific community has been steadily diminishing to the point where now only some 14% of the members of the US National Academy of Sciences profess a belief in an intervening deity.
Posted by: SLC | April 23, 2009 7:05 AM
Ranson Said:
True... We're clearly just not trying hard enough!
I'm still trying to finish my Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator, hopefully it will be done soon.
;)
Posted by: Zetetic | April 23, 2009 8:19 AM
...if it were not for Christianity, science today would not exist as it does.
Rational, disciplined scientific inquiry began with the polytheistic ancient Greeks, long before Christ was born; and continued with the Muslims while Christian Europe was a cultural backwater and Christian bigots were desperately trying to destroy every non-Christian culture they could touch. Ever heard of "algebra?" That's a Ay-rab word, 'cause the Ay-rabs invented it. Ever wonder why the numbers we use today are called "Arabic" numbers?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 23, 2009 9:14 AM
What about the dispute between global cooling and global warming.
As Ed has shown in a previous post, there never was a concensus about "global cooling." That's just another fake controversy made up by denialists, just like that "controversy" the creationists want us to teach our children.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 23, 2009 9:17 AM
Ever heard of projection?
Do you honestly think God would allow humans to destroy lives he created? Certainly this thing called murder is a complete illusion. Also, why would God actually expect us to take any responsibility to protect Earth? It's not like he expects us to take responsibility for any of other actions, since he can just swoop in and stop it from having consequences. God won't let anything bad happen to my marriage, so I can cheat on my husband and God will fix the marriage before I can completely destroy it, right?
That's funny. I always thought meteorologists had to have an education in, you know, meteorology. I guess Fox has lower standards (big surprise).
Posted by: catgirl | April 23, 2009 12:30 PM
I've been listening to this nut for years, and even wrote about his god v. global warming stance back in 2007. He's my local weatherman, or at least he was before he was "seemingly" demoted. He was our ABC affiliate's main weatherman, but now he mostly only appears on AM Kentucky. I didn't realize he was on Fox now, but then again, both channels are under the same ownership so the lines blur a bit. But the website still lists him as Weater Director; he's just no longer the primetime weatherman.
However I'm guessing it wasn't just because of this "god wouldn't allow global warming" stuff that his profile suddenly lowered on WBKO. No, time timing suggests it was the OTHER scandal. Oh, I know you've heard about it. You've probably even seen him -- he's the weatherman famous for "fooling around" with the green screen graphic for Breast Milk Awareness.
That's Chris Allen for ya. "Honk, honk!" indeed!
Posted by: bjooks | April 23, 2009 3:48 PM
Actually that horrible anti-American magazine NewsWEAK had an article about global cooling and a coming ice age back in 1975. It was called "The Cooling World".
TIME Magazine released their JUne issue back on June 24, 1974 with an article called "Another Ice Age".
Look it up for yourself people.
Read it and weep.
Make up your minds. Are we cooling or warming? NewsWEAK certainly is no legitimate source of accurate information, but they did issue an article about global cooling, hence proving my point.
Posted by: right wing extremist | April 23, 2009 7:29 PM
right wing extremist| April 23, 2009 7:29 PM:
Personally, I wouldn't trust either Time or Newsweek to report real news very accurately. I certainly wouldn't get my information about science from those sources.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 23, 2009 7:39 PM
Yeah, when I think of "science reporting" I think of NewsWeek.
Idiot.
Posted by: Bachalon | April 23, 2009 7:46 PM
RWE likes to quote those well-known scientific journals Newsweek and Time. In fact, the Global Cooling worry was limited to only a few scientists, which the media happily hyped. The "Science Establishment" didn't buy it, as Ed noted earlier.
A very useful review of all that can be found in the Sept 2008 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, which I think is available publicly (well, at least the abstract is). See
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1
Posted by: Richard Ray | April 23, 2009 8:01 PM
To: Right Wing Extremist
First off, as someone pointed out, the scientific opinion of climate change never endorsed "global cooling" as much as the anti-science right-wing crowd likes to think.
But even if it did, this would not be a bad thing. When looking at the world from a scientific point of view, you have to go where the evidence leads. Perhaps some scientists DID think the earth was cooling. Now the evidence overwhelmingly points the other way.
When someone asked John Maynard Keynes why he changed his views on monetary policy during the Great Depression, he replied, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Right Wing Extremist, on the other hand, seems to be one of those people who needs to try to fit reality into their preconceptions. (These people, at least in the USA, do seem to be conservative and/or religious.) The fact that you bad-mouth NewsWeek while simultaneously using it to prove your point is an example of this. Read your own posts and weep, chief.
Posted by: Blue Nine | April 23, 2009 8:02 PM
Ed writes:
And what is "right wing extremist"'s brilliant response? He cites Time and Newsweek articles from the 1970s! This has got to be a poe.Posted by: Taz | April 23, 2009 8:42 PM
On April 23, 2009 8:42 PM, Taz posted:
And what is "right wing extremist"'s brilliant response? He cites Time and Newsweek articles from the 1970s! This has got to be a poe.
Without a smiley or some other emoticon, how can you tell the difference between a spoof of fundamentalism and the real thing?
Or should that be: how can you tell the difference between a spoof of fundamentalism and Real Americans? :PPPPPP
Posted by: Blue Nine | April 23, 2009 9:05 PM
Not much different from citing The Day After Tomorrow, is it?
Wasn't that film based on The Coming Global Superstorm by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber? Seems I remember even those gentlemen were unhappy with how the adaptation turned out.
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 23, 2009 9:10 PM
Posted by: Taz | April 23, 2009 8:42 PM: This has got to be a poe.
During the birfer storm I realized that I just can't tell any more.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 23, 2009 9:42 PM
News flash: Newsweek is not, and never has been, a scientific publication; therefore its articles do not prove any consensus among scientists about "global cooling."
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 23, 2009 10:38 PM
Proving what point? That the "global cooling" nonsense just consists of right wing morons making a big deal out of a couple of popular articles from the 70's which have nothing to do with the actual science?
That was Ed's point, not yours. Fucking idiot.
Posted by: Wes | April 24, 2009 3:31 PM
Preliminary comment: This is in no way a defense of the comments made by rwe.
I agree the point about Newsweek/Time/etc being primarily entertainment, but we need to accept the unfortunate fact that it is precisely these types of outlets many, if not a majority, of Americans turn to for general information, and if these "science" articles are in them, that is the common reference point for scientific knowledge.
I also realize that print media is going out of style, and web-based "information" is becoming more the norm: that will only diminish the amount of well-written science to which people are exposed. "Garbage in, garbage out" applies.
Posted by: dean | April 24, 2009 4:14 PM
Hi, I was looking around for some informative posts concerning shredders and I found yours. Hope to get some more valuable knowledge like this one. I run a plastic and glass industry and need shredders for my industry.
Posted by: Paper Shredders for Sale | May 4, 2009 3:35 AM
Hi, I was looking around for some informative posts concerning shredders and I found yours. Hope to get some more valuable knowledge like this one. I run a plastic and glass industry and need shredders for my industry.
Posted by: Paper Shredders for Sale | May 5, 2009 2:55 AM
You've just lost a supporter. I would have thought that a blogger (otherwise) intelligent enough to see through phony emergencies like the "drug crisis" would similarly see through the equally made-up "environmental crisis", which is really nothing more than anti-industrial Communism in a new disguise.
The "precautionary principle" we all SHOULD be following is (with apologies to David Hume): Extraordinary demands on other people require extraordinary proof. And demanding we stop driving or stop eating meat definitely qualify.
Posted by: John David Galt | May 10, 2009 11:12 PM
COMPLETE BULLSHTI.
ONLY CLIMATOLOGISTS ALLOWED TO VOICE AN OPINION.
ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH EXPERIENCE IN PEER REVIEW AUDITS MAY COMMENT.
THOSE FEW OF 700, YOU CAN FIND FAULT WITH? THAT IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO?
THE WHOLE MANN, A CHART OF BS. REQUITES US TO IGNORE THE WORLD WIDE
YES FOOLS
WORLD WIDE EFFECTS OF THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD.
WOW DID THE MONGOLS RISE TO POWER WITH BAD WEATHER IN THE NORTH STEPPS.
HOW DID THE EXTREME SOUTHERN AMERICAN TRIBES RISE TO SUCH NUMBERS WITHOUT M.W.P.
TRY THINKING OUT OF THE BOX
CROSS DISCIPLINARY DATA USE.
Posted by: E. SCOTT PICKENS | July 18, 2009 12:04 AM
Well, I'm convinced!
Posted by: Squiddhartha | July 18, 2009 3:55 AM
ALL CAPS!!!
Who needs evidence or all that boring 'scientifiky' stuff when you've got...
ALL CAPS !!! - DJ
PS: Messieurs Galt and Picking really need to read some basic scientific papers on climate and climate change written by people who actually are knowledgeable in the field, instead of relying on junk science of AGW deniers and right-wing talking points of ditto-heads, they might find it enlightening.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 18, 2009 8:05 AM
Dingojack - I have repeatedly sent denialists scientific papers which have achieved peer-acceptance such as the IPCC reports or more recently, the Stockholm report.
It's been my personal observation that their zealotry causes a deep glaze across the pupil preventing them from reading an actual science publication, let along becoming cognizant of what science has both empirically discovered and now understands with strong confidence or near certainty. This is a condition common within conservatism along with many other extreme forms of ideology that depend on dogma, eager submission to rhetorical fallacies in support of such dogma, and claims of divine revelation rather than using the near-infinitely more stringent standards of understanding via scientific methodology.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 18, 2009 9:17 AM