From an article by Lawrence Solomon, who is himself not a climatologist, nor any sort of scientist, published after his polemical series (a method of which polemics deserve and will receive examination):

"In writing about these 10 ["Deniers" as Solomon tendentiously called them], I have inadvertently added to their anguish. None among the 10 welcome the term "denier" -- a hateful word that I used ironically, but perhaps illadvisedly. Tol denies being a denier, as does Nigel Weiss, astrophysicist at Cambridge University, who called my portrayal of him a "slanderous fabrication." The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what's called "the scientific method" and lauded.

Most of the 10 especially object to being called "deniers" because they do not at all deny the existence of global warming, only what they see as erroneous and even outlandish claims from climate change alarmists. "Me? A 'dyed-in-the-wool disbeliever in [human caused] climate change'?," protested Tol. "I published one of the first papers [in 1993] that showed that warming was likely caused by greenhouse-gas emissions." Tol believes that the IPCC bureaucracy is forcing out many of the best who once were part of the IPCC process, and he is also scathingly critical of work he considers bereft of integrity, such as the U.K. government's highly publicized Stern review, which last year painted alarmingly dire scenarios. "The Stern review does not contribute to this cause. It is so badly researched and argued, and so full of hyperbole, that it is bound to backfire," Tol argued. Although he continues his involvement with the IPCC, those who don't find him pure enough call him a denier still.

Although most of the 10 deniers see little or no evidence from their own work that humans harm the climate, most nevertheless blame humans for global warming, on the basis of research conducted by others. In effect, most of these scientists are saying: "Don't call me a denier --I'm sure the research by others is sound. It's just that, in my own area of research, I have found nothing of concern."

At least one of Lawrence Solomon's so-called "Deniers" (a word seldom if ever used by Climatologists, who prefer the word "skeptics"  -- which far from being pejorative, as the word "Deniers" in Solomon's highly tendentious account -- he claims such a word is designed to evoke the phrase "Holocaust Deniers" -- not only was furious at his misrepresentation of his own views, but furthermore, demanded that the newspaper issue a formal retraction.

And so it did:

"Apology to Dr. Nigel Weiss

Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it. He has held these views for several years. Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2. The National Post withdraws any allegation that Dr. Weiss is a global warming "denier" and regrets the embarrassment caused him by the Feb. 2 column and a further column on Feb. 9."

As for Lawrence Solomon himself, the man who presents us with ten -- no nine -- people he, and few others, describe as "Deniers" -- and all of whom, he now admits, recognize global warming as being anthropogenic in nature, thus blowing up his entire series, is what, exactly? The man whose polemical articles begin with such minute attention to the "credentials" and scientific training, as he sees it, of his Ten -- no make that Nine, no  make that in the end none -- of his Deniers, is described as follows:

"Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation."

Look in to the "Urban Renaissance Institute" and the "Consumer Policy Institute" which are "divisions" of the "Energy Probe Research Foundation," and see what you turn up. Go ahead -- it will be a useful exercise.

This kind of nonsense, already out-of-date, already exposed to ridicule should not be put up, any more should some paper from 2004 or 1997, without the poster quite realizing that the paper in question has already been discredited, and frequently the author has already distanced himself from his own findings.

Christ on a crutch. How much time must people at this point have to spend rebutting or refuting this kind of stuff? If you just look on the web, you find that the author has had to swallow almost everything he charges. Two of his ten authors demand that they be recharacterized entirely, as supporters of anthropogenic climate change. The others demand that they not be called "deniers" and furthermore, do not deny, as Solomon has them denying, global warming. Contrary to popular and sentimental belief, all men are not created equal, and more importantly, not all are entitled to have their opinions taken equally seriously on all issues. Anthropogenic climate change is not something that should be put to popular vote, especially not with such tendentious and tricky polemicists -- whose tricks need to be held up for inspection, I suppose -- as Solomon on the loose. Were a world-wide referendum to be given on whether or not one "believed" in anthropogenic climate change, no doubt the Voice of the People, if heard in the land, would echo those few "Deniers" (as Solomon calls them).

So what? The Populus (which includes Senator Imhofe and a great many other politicians) has its uses, but should not, I think, determine what is to be believed, and what is to be done, in this matter.