2011-03-20 19:08:14100 Reasons Why Climate Change is Natural
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.20.55

Just came across this blog post:

http://preventdisease.com/news/09/121609_100_reasons_climate_change_natural.shtml

Basically goes through the list of standard myths listed at http://sks.to/args. In fact, we've just gone past 150 rebuttals so if he's only got 100, he's obviously not trying hard enough to misinform :-)

2011-03-21 00:41:26
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Geez, I only read the first 3 and they aren't even reasons.

Who published the list?

2011-03-21 00:53:31
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

http://preventdisease.com/home/terms_conditions.shtml#copyright

"3. We will not change the content of articles unless the problem is evident to a layman (such as gratuitous profanity, clerical or grammatical errors). In particular, it is useless to send us scientific or historical arguments by email that quote institutional, regulatory or government agencies. A large majority of our content is based on a combination of scientific, empirical and factual information. This typically opposes mainstream institutional, regulatory, government, and conventional practices for disease prevention, which are often biased and frequently based on fraudulent science or junk science. Basing your argument on the research, statements or policies of such agencies is futile and we strongly recommend you examine both mainstream and alternative sources before launching your complaint."

It reminds me of Canada Freepress.

If you read a lot of the terms and conditions, they spend a lot of time saying to everyone that they are not responsible for anything, but also give detailed and specific rules about linking to them. I question just how much of their terms and conditions actually is relevant to legislation and law. I doubt if much of it stands up in court.

2011-03-21 15:04:42
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I am not sure who started this garbage.  I've traced it back to two sources, one from the European Foundation, Monday, December 14 2009, and the other the Daily Express, Tuesday, December 15 2009.

The first is not the list PreventDisease published.  However, it is very likely the list being referred to in the Express article, just modified to fit with the fantasies of the even more incompetent deniers.  The EF list is garbage too.

If one was going to issue a correction to PreventDisease (where'd they get their name from - DDT, vaccines?), this would be the one way they might actually listen, as there does not seem to be a list published by the EF aside from the above one.  In other words, they're copying from a copy that didn't even legitimately copy.  "Clerical" error, anyone?

If one was going to issue a rebuttal though, then obviously such a trifling objection wouldn't suffice to any respectable degree.

Of course, this article of theirs is over a year old.  Do we really want to bring this "Goliath" from the dead just so we can play David, and risk them getting traffic they clearly don't deserve?  Each of the points is refutable anyways (if it is actually an argument) and we have rebuttals, I'm guessing, for each one.

2011-03-21 16:13:28No, don't bring any attention to it
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.20.55

Just bringing it up because it was funny to see a skeptic numbered list, a la http://sks.to/args :-)