The editors of the British Medical Journal and The Lancet have choice words for deniers.
In a letter to the left-leaning Guardian (who else would publish such rubbish?), the editors and others write,
Science is by its nature sceptical: scientists interrogate information and only on repeated investigation does data become science. The science of climate change has been established through numerous high-profile studies (IPCC, NOAA, Nasa) and was even verified by the sceptic-led Best report. In 2009 one of the world’s leading medical journals, the Lancet, declared climate change “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”. Denying the links between greenhouse gas emissions and man-made climate change is akin to denying the links between HIV/Aids and unprotected sex, smoking and lung cancer, or alcohol consumption and liver disease. In each of these cases, well-funded deniers have had to be exposed and confronted before appropriate health-promoting legislation was put in place.
The Climate and Health Council supports Nasa scientist James Hansen as he joins the campaign to uncover secret funders bankrolling climate sceptic Nigel Lawson and his lobbying think-tank (Climate experts back unveiling of Lawson thinktank donor, 23 January). The public may finally discover who is secretly influencing UK climate policy – contrary to scientific consensus – today (27 January), when the Information Rights Tribunal hears this key freedom of information case. Some anti-climate lobbyists routinely misrepresent and cast doubt on the work of climate scientists. Although Lawson and his Global Warming Policy Foundation have been discredited and attacked by numerous scientists and senior politicians, his thinktank continues to receive significant coverage, wrongfully distorting the public and policy debate over climate change.
Perverting the course of evidence-based policy on climate-change adaptation and mitigation damages our health resilience, our economic prosperity and our environmental stability. Transparency around climate-sceptic funders is essential. We support freedom of information to reveal those deliberately preventing the UK’s sustainable future.
Dr Fiona Godlee Editor-in-chief, British Medical Journal
Dr. Richard Horton Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet
Professor Ian Roberts Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health
Professor Hugh Montgomery Professor of Intensive Care Medicine
Professor Anthony Costello Professor of International Child Health
Rachel Stancliffe Director, Centre for Sustainable Healthcare
Dr. Robin Stott Co-chair, Climate and Health Council
Maya Tickell-Painter Director, Medsin Healthy Planet Campaign
No “denial” is possible, because there IS, NO, man-caused global-warming. Lancet, imo, could be bought–or threatened…by the British Govt.-Media-Complex, who HAVE to support the fiction of global-warming, so their move towards the Fascist EU can advance, and the govt.-regs can continue to eat-up, the substance of British business & Industry,–at least, what remains. Think, now, if you’re a Globalist, in British politics and your constituency is aware you’re killing them with taxation, keep pointing-at/expounding-on those taxes, while the govt. gets bigger, through the stealth-device of: TAXATION THROUGH REGULATION! There’s NO correlation between smokers/drinkers/druggies and denying. I Know the dangers of those, and I don’t do them, but I ALLOW others to choose to do those or not. I do, proudly, Deny increases of CO2 is bad–IF CO2 is up(-disputed), or, if CO2 is UP, that the increase is man-caused, or that it’s a “worry” if it was up. PS.–Shooter: Correct!
Ack!!! My post keeps getting ate 🙁
If people deny that CO2 causes global warming or that man has increased CO2 then of course they are deniers. The issue is a lot bigger than that though.
“…wrongfully distorting the public and policy debate over climate change.” Oh, the irony. I wonder if these Brits know that the IPCC is corrupt and James Hansen is a pathetic excuse for a “scientist”.
Uh…what?
Um. Just what.