Anarchoblogs

This is a great debate:An actor takes on the Fox news lies machine and gives them some! Great stuff. This is how we need to take the denialist shills on; this is not an academic debate any more - the nutters won't let it be - 'cos they'd loose on facts. Nope; it about taking the idiot-fuckwit-neo-con pricks down. Hard. (The Fox news presenter was not expecting to be taken to the cleaners!!)

It's would seem so. For some time now there have been strong links between climate change denial and evolution denial(aka creationism). The same right-wing creed that promotes the anti-science ideas of creationism also seems to be at work with evolution. The same legal attempts to force educators to promote creationism, is also being used to promote climate change denial; see here and here.

Climate change deniers like to complain about the rack of 'real science' and 'real debate' on the issue - yet when it happens, they seem to avoid it? Could it be that a 'debate' as a media spectacle where at least they stand a small chance gaining ground is of more interest that the scientific world where they simply have no traction. It's spin over substance.One of the deniers, Anthony Watts

The guardian is apparently going to stop calling climate change deniers, deniers but will instead call them 'climate change sceptics'. Bad move people - you need to call it like it is. I have argued why deniers are deniers several times here. That still stands. However there are a couple of people that I would be happy to call a sceptic. Here's the critera to be included...Be a Relevant

There is an interesting mini-row developing around the statement by the Institute of Physics in response to another row over the hacking of emails. The first statement, which as seized upon of the denailopshere as proof of their claims, was then followed by a second statement that clarified that the Institute of Physics was not doubting the science of global warming. This then followed with

This is a great article on the issue of climate change and I'd recommended reading the whole thing. Here's a few selected quotes...On the nature of denial;The climate deniers come with a few built-in advantages. ... Their success can be credited significantly to the way they tap into the main currents of our politics of the moment with far more savvy and power than most environmentalists can

More on how pundits deny climate change despite admitting they don't understand the science. If you watch this video:You see an interesting debate between two people about climate change. What is most interesting is the comment by right-wing pundit Bill O'Reilly at the end; "I'd fail both your grad classes." He's saying, "I don't understand what either of you are saying." Which is fine, but

I am constantly gob-smacked about how denialists are elevated to the level of Uber-expert when it happens that their view coincides with the denialists one. You see this trick over and over, a selected repetition of the accolades of the pet denialist to add gravatas and authority to what ever they say next. Take the example of Nils-Axel Mörner who is introduced as...Sadly, the media is not

Under the guise of an article about a few annoyed people on Richard Dawkins's website, Murdoch paper The Times moves in to try to protect it's reports from scrutiny with a staggeringly one sided assault on those who understand and communicate the real science of climate change. One of their targets is Tim Lambert, aka Deltiod, who recently demolished Lord Fonk-Monkton in a debate (via a quote

A bunch of total dickheads Republicans have got together in South Dakota where they hold sway to pass a law decrying the politicisation of climate science and insisting on real science being used. Sounds ok, but here is the text of the declaration:NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring