Yours truly in the Telegraph

I have a letter in the Telegraph today. Nothing new for regular readers here, but welcome nevertheless.

(H/T Jonathan in the comments)

Comments

[P Gosselin]

I'm a big believer in letters to the editor. A well written letter can sway opinion.

[dearieme]

OT, but I was amused by this quotation which I've just come across - it exemplifies, perhaps, what an American such as Mann might mean by "contain".

""Their briefs and public statements are signs of an emerging consensus on the right that the criminal justice system is an aspect of big government that must be contained. ... 'It's a remarkable phenomenon,' said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [NACDL]. "

I almost wrote "like Mann" but then realised that even an American Criminal Defence Lawyer might take it amiss to be compared to Mann.

[GCooper]

That was a remarkable response to Booker's article from the Royal Society bod. It having been clearly established that the warmists have routinely blocked dissenters from publishing in peer reviewed journals, he then proceeds to attack them for publishing on blogs. What does he expect them to do?

Are these people outright crooks or just deeply, tragically, stupid?

[Frugal Dougal]

Nice one!

[wilbert robichaud]

Dr Paul Williams
Royal Society Research Fellow
University of Reading, Reading
" carbon dioxide causes acidification of rain and oceans"
.
it is a bizarre argument but it makes it sound worse but that is the PR game that is too much modern science. It is only acidic when it gets below 7. Also look at all those millennia when atmospheric CO2 was 8 and 10 times higher than today yet the ocean remained alkaline as the chalk and limestone deposits attest.

[dearieme]

Young science postdocs are often pompous, silly fellows, but in Dr Williams case you should also remember that the existence of a future career for him probably depends on the AGW fraud prospering.

[James Pickett]

Well said, your grace. I was also pleased to see a contribution from a fellow caulkhead at the the top of the column...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Isle_of_Wight#Caulkheads_and_other_Island_terms

[Slevdi]

The Royal society bod got his fellowship a couple of months ago:

Dr Paul Williams - University of Reading, Department of Meteorology
"Improving predictive climate models through stochastic parameterization"

http://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=4294968085

[Skeptical Chymist]

The Royal Society Research Fellow writes "... the underpinning consensus provided by expert peer review." Peer review is merely the least-worst method of deciding what gets into scientific journals, and should concern itself only with whether the results presented in a manuscript are internally consistent and support the conclusions drawn by its authors. Scientific discovery has little or nothing to do with consensus.

[slayer]

Keep up the hard work! Great site, BTW! I visit here every day. Don't give up - it's sites like yours that keep the liars on the defensive. The longer climategate stays out there, the more people see it and begin to ask questions. I google climategate every day.

[chucke]

I'm sorry. Lurker here. I can't find the letter you submitted. Do you use another name. I have been following you CA, AV, WUWT. I apreciate you all so much. Could you give me some guidance regarding the letter.

[Jonathan]

You can find our host's name on the cover of his book:right hand column, near the first comment.

[Andrew Duffin]

It's a nice bit of page layout by the Daily Warmograph's editors: in your letter, you ask for a Royal Society statement, and immediately below your letter we indeed have the Royal Society statement, which is a mixture of ad-hominen attacks and appeals to authority, ie the peer review process.

Does the old buffer who wrote it really not understand that part of the problem here - perhaps most of the problem - is that the peer-review process has itself been hi-jacked by one vested interest and thereby utterly devalued? Can they really not see the irony in this?

[Sceptical of sceptics]

"Young science postdocs are often pompous, silly fellows, but in Dr Williams case you should also remember that the existence of a future career for him probably depends on the AGW fraud prospering."

Yes -- and Andrew Montford has no vested interest whatsoever in whipping up hysteria, has he? Remind us when your book's going on sale again, Andrew?

[Bishop Hill]

That is why I try to maintain a moderate tone in my writings.

[Sceptical of sceptics]

Can Andrew Duffin see the irony in accusing the Royal Society author of "ad-hominen [sic] attacks", then calling him an "old buffer" in the next sentence?