“… Clearly it is unproductive and incredibly time consuming to answer all negative reviews or statements about what I say or believe, but when facts are overtly wrong, it might be useful to judge the credibility of the research skills of the accuser by showing the facts. …

… I am very specific in Science as a Contact sport on the difference I see between a real skeptic—all good scientists—and a denier—one who denies the preponderance of evidence by clinging to small point or believes that any unknown aspect of a complex systems problem somehow overpowers a strong preponderance—it doesn’t—that is the false god of falsification, which is not the way systems science is done. Here is some of what I said about that in the book, page 205:

‘When I give a public talk on aspects of climate change, I alwaystake the time to explain the difference between climate deniers and skeptics. All good scientists are skeptics—we should challenge everything. I was a big-time climate skeptic, changing from cooling to warming and nuclear winter to nuclear fall when that is where the preponderance of available evidence led. As more solid evidence of anthropogenic global warming accumulates, the numbers of such legitimate climate skeptics are declining. Climate deniers, however, are not true skeptics, but simply ignore the preponderance of evidence presented. Skeptics should question everything but not deny where the preponderance of evidence leads. The latter is, at best, bad science or, at worst, dishonesty.’”

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/SAACS/saacs_objectors_2.htm

“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis

You point to a link from March. Since then, discussion of the falsehood and fallacies has happened.

Leake was plain wrong on the facts. That’s not an opinion. The facts got checked, belatedly.

Consider what else Brandeis warned of–corporate power. Consider that he said “if there be time … to avert the evil” then more speech is the cure. Consider the “refudiation” meant to delay, delay, delay, until it’s too late to take action.

That’s a line Brandeis drew.

In related news:

“… how is anyone supposed to engage with Stormfront?

Here is perhaps an issue that ought to concern people sceptical of human-induced climate change.

… Doesn’t the climate of abuse overshadow the real issues that sceptics are flagging up, and reduce the chances of “sceptical” science being taken seriously?”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

Maybe libel laws are different in the USA, but in the UK Abrahams would be at this point, looking to settle in my opinion.

Monckton has threatened to sue a rather large number of people, and has yet to follow through even once.

Someone called Abraham, rebutted a Monckton presentation,
called him a climate denair, and circulated it on the web…

Monckton has responded (in a way that looks like a precursor to a libel suite)

We shall, perhaps see, who is the good, the bad and the ugly..

Abrahams response was pretty ugly, and an attack on the person.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/

The response is long and detailed, with expect a libel court in mind.. Ie he gave Abrahams a month to deal with it, before, presiumably now going public, as no response.
I expect the university to cave in to the requests, for a full apology, retraction and a donation to a charity.  Rather than try to defend it in court at the risk of the CAGW misinformation being analysed in court.

The response is long and detailed, and in my mind, demonstrates Abrahams deliberate misrepresentaion of  Monckton’s presentation.  As it was circulated to all the ‘pro’ CAGW blogs/media.  Including George Monbiot who was ‘crowing’ about it. It’s intents was surely to ‘damage’ his Monckton’s reputation, which he responds to clearly factually and in detail, with a little humour..

I’ll be seeing George Monbiot tomorrow, might ask him a question about it

small extract:
Damage to my reputation
4: Do you accept that your talk was calculated to do very great harm to my reputation?

5: Do you accept that your assertion that you are “a scientist” (2),and the fact that you have used the time, facilities, and imprint of your university in preparing and circulating your talk, and the failure of the University to take down you talk from its servers upon request, are likely to amplify the very great harm that your widely-circulated talk was calculated to do to my reputation?

6: Did you fail to tell me of your proposed rebuttal of my speech in good time in the hope that your very lengthy talk would be circulated as widely as possible before I could circulate a detailed refutation?

How can their be a civilised debate, if the ‘establishment side’ play foul