Muehlenberg recently gave a very good example of how he operates. He tells a load of lies, and then somebody comes along with the inconvenient truth and a load of evidence to prove Bill wrong - and he censors and silences them.
It's the same old story with old Bill. On his blog he frequently throws out the accusation that the "other side" in the "war" he is "fighting" present no evidence and rely solely on "mud-slinging". But then, as I frequently document on this blog, Bill Muehlenberg is a liar and a hypocrite.
As it happens his latest assault on truth couldn't have happened at a worse time for him. He penned a piece called "Rebutting the Climate Alarmism Idealogues" in which he denies that man-made climate change is actually happening, almost immediately after two major scientific bodies, The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences have issues a joint paper on the evidence for climate change!
I posted a comment stating that the two scientific bodies had recently presented the evidence for climate change and included a link to it. Bill's answer? Yep, same old censorship tactic: my comment "awaited moderation" for a week before quietly disappearing.
So much for Muehlenberg wanting "open" and "honest debate". So much for his moans that "the other side" (that's us, BTW) don't present evidence to rebut his crazy arguments. When the evidence is presented to him, he runs a mile because he knows that he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Of course there's nothing new about science ignoramuses like Muehlenberg and his religious buddies having the arrogance to dismiss a priori evidence for matters like climate change. Just as Richard Dawkins has said about Ray Comfort's attempts to discredit evolution: if a genuine challenge to Darwin will ever be found, it will come from a scientist and not from an idiot. The same is true of Muehlenberg's empty posturing and denial. When uncomfortable facts that don't fit his worldview are clearly presented, he runs a mile, because his opinions on the subject are solely that.
Here's a screengrab to my comment which fell foul of Bill's scrupulous "rules":
And here's a link to the Royal Society's statement that Bill has no answer to: