Translate

Dec 14, 2009

Bjorn Lomborg: Climate Change and 'Climategate'

 

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/12/137_57240.html

   12-14-2009 
Climate Change and 'Climategate'



By Bjorn Lomborg

COPENHAGEN ― Thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, and environmental activists have gathered in Copenhagen for the COP15 global climate summit with all the bravado ― and self-regard ― of a group of commandos who are convinced that they are about to save the world. 

And, although the political differences between them remain huge, delegates are nonetheless congratulating themselves for having the answers to global warming. 

The blustery language and ostentatious self-confidence that fill the Bella Center here remind me of a similar scene: Kyoto, 1997. 

There, world leaders actually signed a legally binding deal to cut carbon emissions ― something that will elude the Copenhagen summit-goers. But what did the Kyoto Protocol accomplish? So far, at least, virtually nothing. 

To be sure, Europe has made some progress toward reducing its carbon-dioxide emissions. But, of the 15 European Union countries represented at the Kyoto summit, 10 have still not meet the targets agreed there. Neither will Japan or Canada. 

And the United States never even ratified the agreement. In all, we are likely to achieve barely 5 percent of the promised Kyoto reduction. 

To put it another way, let's say we index 1990 global emissions at 100. If there were no Kyoto at all, the 2010 level would have been 142.7. 

With full Kyoto implementation, it would have been 133. In fact, the actual outcome of Kyoto is likely to be a 2010 level of 142.2 ― virtually the same as if we had done nothing at all. Given 12 years of continuous talks and praise for Kyoto, this is not much of an accomplishment. 

The Kyoto Protocol did not fail because any one nation let the rest of the world down. It failed because making quick, drastic cuts in carbon emissions is extremely expensive.

Whether or not Copenhagen is declared a political victory, that inescapable fact of economic life will once again prevail ― and grand promises will once again go unfulfilled. 

This is why I advocate abandoning the pointless strategy of trying to make governments promise to cut carbon emissions. Instead, the world should be focusing its efforts on making non-polluting energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels. 

We should be negotiating an international agreement to increase radically spending on green-energy research and development ― to a total of 0.2 percent of global GDP, or $100 billion a year. Without this kind of concerted effort, alternative technologies simply will not be ready to take up the slack from fossil fuels. 

Unfortunately, the COP15 delegates seem to have little appetite for such realism. On the first day of the conference, United Nations climate change chief Yvo de Boer declared how optimistic he was about continuing the Kyoto approach: ``Almost every day, countries announce new targets or plans of action to cut emissions," he said. 

Such statements ignore the fact that most of these promises are almost entirely empty. Either the targets are unachievable or the numbers are fudged. 

For example, Japan's pledge of a 25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 sounds incredible ― because it is. There is no way the Japanese could actually deliver on such an ambitious promise. 

China, meanwhile, drew plaudits just before the Copenhagen summit by promising to cut its carbon intensity (the amount of CO2 emitted for each dollar of GDP) over the next 10 years to just 40-45 percent of its level in 2005. 

Based on figures from the International Energy Agency, China was already expected to reduce its carbon intensity by 40 percent without any new policies. As its economy develops, China will inevitably shift to less carbon-intensive industries. 

In other words, China took what was universally expected to happen and, with some creative spin, dressed it up as a new and ambitious policy initiative. 

Then again, spin always trumps substance at gatherings like this. Consider how quick the Copenhagen delegates were to dismiss the scandal now known as ``Climategate" ― the outcry over the release of thousands of disturbing emails and other documents hacked from the computers of a prestigious British climate-research center. 

It would be a mistake not to learn lessons from this mess. Climategate exposed a side of the scientific community most people never get to see. It was not a pretty picture. 

What the stolen emails revealed was a group of the world's most influential climatologists arguing, brainstorming, and plotting together to enforce what amounts to a party line on climate change. 

Data that didn't support their assumptions about global warming were fudged. Experts who disagreed with their conclusions were denigrated as ``idiots" and ``garbage."

Peer-reviewed journals that dared to publish contrarian articles were threatened with boycotts. Dissent was stifled, facts were suppressed, scrutiny was blocked, and the free flow of information was choked off. 

Predictably, the text of the more than 3,000 purloined emails have been seized on by skeptics of manmade climate change as ``proof" that global warming is nothing more than a hoax cooked up by a bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals. And this is the real tragedy of ``Climategate." Global warming is not a hoax, but at a time when opinion polls reveal rising public skepticism about climate change, this unsavory glimpse of scientists trying to cook the data could be just the excuse too many people are waiting for to tune it all out. 

What seems to have motivated the scientists involved in Climategate was the arrogant belief that the way to save the world was to conceal or misrepresent ambiguous and contradictory findings about global warming that might ``confuse" the public. But substituting spin for scientific rigor is a terrible strategy. 

So, too, is continuing to embrace a response to global warming that has failed for nearly two decades. 

Instead of papering over the flaws in the Kyoto approach and pretending that grand promises translate into real action, we need to acknowledge that saving the world requires a smarter strategy than the one being pursued so dogmatically in Copenhagen. 

Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of ``Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." For more stories, visit Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org). The views expressed in the above article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial policy of The Korea Times.


--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares “traditional” and “revisionist” views on the “The Holocaust.”

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled “deniers,” who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe’s Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as “Holocaust deniers” are routinely and harshly punished for their “blasphemy,” and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized “Holocaust” narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of “Thomas Dalton,” is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

A POST SCRIPT-RE: Giuseppe Furioso on Holocaust survivor ''Yitzhak Ganon''

 

POST SCRIPT

PS: He was the 201st man sent to the gas chambers one morning - but it was full after 200. 'That saved my life,' he said. 'I was then sent back to the camp.' Do you think that the the alleged gas chambers had ''occupancy limits'' like elevators...''occupancy by more than 200 people is dangerous'' and this is what saved his life? --joe

SEE COMMENTS--MIND BOGGLING

Mengele stole my kidney: Auschwitz survivor reveals why he avoided doctors for 64 years

By ALAN HALL
Last updated at 4:53 PM on 11th December 2009



Read COMMENTShttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1235014/Mengele-stole-kidney-Auschwitz-survivor-reveals-avoided-doctors-64-years.html#ixzz0ZjLjzfOc


From: giuseppefurioso@aol.com

To: letters@nytimes.com
Sent: Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:16 am
Subject: '' Yitzhak Ganon ''

To The Editor,
                     Let me see if I understand the article that appeared in today's Times about  Holocaust survivor Yitzhak Ganon's aversion to doctors. ( ''Heart Treated, Old Wound Opened'' :  NY Times , Dec. 13, 2009 ). According to the article Yitzhak was so traumatized by having his kidney removed by the infamous Dr. Mengele without anesthesia some 65 years ago while an inmate at Auschwitz that he refused to ever visit a doctor again. '' Mr. Ganon was tied down on a table, and without anesthesia was cut open by Dr. Mengele, who then removed a kidney. '' I saw the kidney pulsating in his hand and cried like a crazy man '' Mr. Ganon said.'' 
      
Although expected when dealing with claims of Holocaust survivors, it is still astonishing that, that the America's so-called ''newspaper of record ''   would put aside accepted practices and procedures of journalism and not challenge such an outrageous assertion. For one thing , a '' removed kidney would not pulsate '' but more importantly a kidney removal without anesthesia would have most certainly killed him. To it's credit the Times story omitted another claim reported by some of the wire service versions of the story that he was sent back to work within days of the operation. Neither did the Times include the claim that the reason he survived was  that he was # 201 on the line for the gas chamber whose capacity was 200. (  Shouldn't he then have been the first to go with the next batch of 200? )
 
giuseppe furiosoS


--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com



__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

PoW swapped uniforms to sneak IN to Auschwitz

 




--

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

IB-Times: The arguments of 'Climategate'

 

The arguments of 'Climategate'

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091214/copenhagen-climate-challenge-geothermal-climategate-cru-global-warming_all.htm

Skeptics of climate change have been given a fresh round of ammunition in the wake of recently exposed emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), dubbed the "climategate" scandal.

The practices of climate researchers are being called into question as emails show how scientists worked together to quiet dissidents, suppress information, and collaborate to advocate  preconceived conclusions.

While nothing in the leaked email episode indicate global warming is a hoax, it gives weight to what skeptics have long called politically motivated and biased science.

The following are major arguments against climate change that come from the climategate documents.

The data used is not good, and has been manipulated, therefore all conclusions are not to be believed

Scientists, led by Dr. Phil Jones at the CRU, are charged with reconstructing the earth's climate profile deep into the past, when no measurements of the weather are actually to be found. The discipline, called paleoclimatology, uses proxy data to estimate temperatures when instrumental data was not available. This means, instead of reading a measurement off a thermometer, they used the sizes of tree-rings instead to estimate what the temperature must have been.

But where the tree-ring data and instrumental data overlapped from 1960 and on, the proxy data showed a decline in temperatures, while instrumental data showed an increase. This is where the infamous "trick" was deployed  to "hide the declines."

In fact, some computer code the researchers used even print reminders that the data has been manipulated:

Data4alps.pro: '"IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this 'decline' has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures."

mxdgrid2ascii.pro: '"NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004). [sic] '

If the relationship between proxy and actual instrumental data  breaks down at a certain point, it would be difficult to justify if the relationship was sound before that date.

It's not just the CRU, but climate model institutions have colluded together to falsify data

The CRU isn't the only institution that analyses and builds historical climate models.

CRU teams with the Hadley Center for Forecasting at the UK Meteorological Office to produce its findings, while NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies works with NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, in the US to generate another set.

Proponents of manmade global warming say even if there was a chance that CRU data was compromised, the data from the other institutions arrive at similar institutions, and therefore the science behind the IPCC reports remains sound.

"The clearest evidence is in the emails themselves, which record a continuing conversation between a couple of dozen leading climatologists on both sides of the Atlantic over at least a decade," said Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margret Thatcher.

The emails show the team went out of their way to subvert the release of information and destroy evidence

In 2003, two Canadians, retired engineer Stephen McIntyre and University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick, began to doing their own review of climate science but was met with walls of resistance from the CRU team and their associates.

American scientists -- -Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes -- 5years prior had published a graph in Nature magazine showing a temperature reconstruction between 1000 to 1900 (stick) that was relatively flat, with a sudden rapid incline in temperatures from 1900 to 2000 (blade).

McIntyre and McKitrick questioned the science and eventually requested the raw data and computer code of which Mann's work was based to be released from the CRU. They weren't

Some of emails suggested that the CRU delete emails related to their work on the IPCC process to shield them from FOIA requests  and actually destroy raw data in the face of a successful FOIA requisition.

A 2005 email from Phil Jones reads:

"The two MMs [McIntyre and McKitrick]have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Jones eventually did receive a FOIA request from McIntyre, and a 2008 email from Jones to Ben Santer--a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory--illustrates how the case was treated.

"I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little--if anything at all.

There were doubts on warming, even within the CRU linked scientists, showing even internally there was no 'consensus'

The three American scientists that produced the infamous "hockey stick" graph needed data to produce to work with, and emails show them in discussion with Jones and other CRU scientists to find a solution.

Their discussion led them to CRU scientist Keith Briffa, who carried out a long term tree-ring proxy analysis in the past. He knew what they wanted, but expressed his doubts.

In an email dated September 22 Briffa says:

"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite  so simple. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago "



--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Jewish Press BOASTS: "Jewish lobby wages war on Christmas"

 


Jewish lobby wages war on Christmas trees

Lobby for Jewish values passes out fliers against hotels, restaurants putting up Christmas trees, other Christian symbols ahead of civil New Year, say businesses who do so risk losing kosher certification

Ari Galhar

Published:  12.08.09, 07:51 / Israel Jewish Scene

A new front for religious battles: Hotels and restaurants. The "Lobby for Jewish values" this week began operating against restaurants and hotels that plan to put up Christmas trees and other Christian symbols ahead of Christmas and the civil New Year.

 

According to the lobby's Chairman, Ofer Cohen, they have received backing by the rabbis, "and we are even considering publishing the names of the businesses that put up Christian symbols ahead of the Christian holiday and call for a boycott against them."

 

Fliers and ads distributed among the public read, "The people of Israel have given their soul over the years in order to maintain the values of the Torah of Israel and the Jewish identity.

 

"You should also continue to follow this path of the Jewish people's tradition and not give in to the clownish atmosphere of the end of the civil year. And certainly not help those businesses that sell or put up the foolish symbols of Christianity."


The Jerusalem Rabbinate also works each year to ensure restaurants and hotels receiving kosher certification from the Jerusalem Religious Council do not put up Christian symbols.

 

According to a senior official in the kashrut department, this is done each year consensually, but that businesses which do not meet this requirement may find their kashrut certificate revoked.

 

It should be noted that most of the hotels in Jerusalem and a significant part of the restaurants in the capital receive permanent kosher certification from the city's religious council.




--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Barr is Hitler / Bob Dylan vs. Neil Diamond: Whose Christmas Album Is Right for You?

 



Plastic Shmastic







Limmud NY: Remix Your Judaism

Santa, Shmanta!
Heeb Storytelling with Jackie The Joke Man

Laugh you tuchus off at Heeb Storytelling featuring Jackie "The Joke Man" Martling (Jackie's Joke Hunt, The Howard Stern Show), comedian Jessi Klein, Onion writer Aaron Kheifets, standup comedian DC Benny, writer Peter Hyman (The Reluctant Metrosexual) and more. Plus, the accordion playing of DJ Kool Jew.

Where: Joe's Pub
When: Wednesday, December 23 at 7 p.m.
Click for more Heeb Storytelling information.


Find out why "The Joke Man" agreed to perform for absolutely no money.

And then. . .

Heebonism NY

Get your groove on to The Shondes, DJ Sets from Ohio Party, Balagan, DJ Kool Jew and Cowboy Mark at the mother of all Christmas Eve parties, Heebonism. Free vodka pouring for the first hour, courtesy of 360 Vodka. Plus, Strip Dreidel with KinkyJews.

Where: Fontana's
105 Eldridge Street
New York, NY 10002

When: Thursday, December 24 at 8 p.m.
Get your Heebonism tickets online NOW and skip the line at the door.


Heeb Magazine was brewed in Brooklyn in 2001 as a take-no-prisoners zine for the plugged-in and preached-out. Covering arts, culture and politics in a voice all its own, Heeb has become a multimedia magnet for the young, urban and influential. Heeb Magazine is available at a Barnes & Noble, Borders or indie bookstore near you, or online at Heebmagazine.com.

Join the conspiracy and follow us on Twitter.



--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___