What An Honor

(Ed. - Seamus points out that I am mixing up my Lamberts, referring to this global warming disciple when I mean this global warming disciple. I will reflect the correct name below as it would be a real shame if the wrong Lambert were credited with these idiotic statements.)

Brian Lambert continues his crusade to silence scientists who disagree with his partisan position that global warming is a settled issue. In the last installment he referred to the "crackpot" movie "Global Warming is a Fraud," leading some, including myself to surmise he had not seen the "Great Global Warming Swindle," since he could not even name it. Which was ironic since he was chastising Chad the Elder for not having seen "No Inconvenient Context."

In the latest installment, Lambert highlights me and other "usual suspects" and claims to have seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Although he may have watched it since his original post (I have my doubts), I don't believe for a second he had seen it at the time he was unable to even name it.

Here are some of the more idiotic statements by Lambert in the latest post:

As I've said before elsewhere, this "debate" over whether global climate change is occurring is a settled issue, at least for those who value science over the gamesmanship of partisan rhetoric.

See. You either agree with the "science" of global warming or you don't value science at all.

I'm guessing the mere presence of Al Gore was sufficient to light up the usual right-wing echo chamber/spin machine that supplies so many of these "correspondents" with their templated sources, talking points and arguments.

Um, actually global warming has been a hoax long before Al Gore started treating the fever by using 20 times the energy of an average family. But Lambert's theory is just simple minded enough to have come from Tim Lambert.

...what I've been asking of the legitimate press is this: "When does the science and gravity of this particular issue -- not to mention the common sense of it -- rise sufficiently high so as to obviate the "requirement" of equal, opposite "balance"?

There is absolutely nothing "common sense" about global warming theory. What sounds more like common sense: That the earth goes through periods of warm and cold and those periods are proven? Or that an almost inconsequential extra amount of a naturally occuring greenhouse gas is causing catastrophic climate change?

Only someone who is unable to argue a position would recommend that all other positions be stricken. Hey Tim, if opposing theries are so "crackpot" and "wingnut" what are you worried about? They should be easy to dispel.

But Brian spends no time doing that. No, no. Instead he blasts the director of "The Great Global Warming Swindle," and manages to find one scientist out of the many who took part (though unacknowledged by Lambert who refers only to "one professor in Winnipeg") who is unhappy with his portrayal. Whether or not he was "duped" is in dispute.

Back to Brian's idiocy:

I'm not going to "debate" my commenters, because it really is important to marginalize them into insignificance.

Famous words of someone who has nothing to offer. (Sigh) Is there anything more boring than an elitist who claims to be right but won't test his conclusions? How trasnsparent.

By the way, Lambert never mentions Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, Professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, Professor Philip Stott, of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, Nigel Calder, scientist Henrik Svensmark, or any other of the growing number of scientists who doubt global warming theory.

That would have ruined Lambert's theory that it is just a couple of "crackpots" who don't care about science.

What a dolt.