Canadian Journalist, Donna Laframboise, who penned The Delinquent Teenager - an exposee of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has contrasted the Wall Street Journal piece with a piece in the Alarmist UK newspaper The Guardian.
Exhibit B is, therefore, a case study in bullying. It is a disturbing example of medical professionals targeting those who express opinions contrary to their own.
According to these people (none of whom appears to have participated in hands-on, hard-core climate research), climate change is "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century." How do they know this? Because, back in 2009, one of the publications they happen to be in charge of - Richard Horton's The Lancet - said so.
How's that for circular reasoning? A proposition is true because my own publication has declared it to be true. But it gets worse. Here's what these people say next:In one case we have scientists discussing from their field of expertise, climate science.
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.
They insist that this science is not clear-cut, that profound uncertainties remain.
Should we believe them? Or should the views of people who are expert in a totally different field - that of medicine - prevail?
Read Donna's post here.