Bishop Hill CRU "not especially honest" on MBH98
Nov 25, 2011 Email 1656
date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: "Douglas Maraun" <d.maraun@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk
Dear colleagues,
I'd like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the coffee room:
"Climate science and the media"
After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement. However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially after the "inconvenient truth" case and the Nobel peace prize going to Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called "climatism" appeared also in respectable newspapers. Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the way it should be.
In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:
-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest.
-How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
-What is the difference between a "climate sceptic" and a "climate denier"?
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
-How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
-Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?
If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
interesting, please let me know in advance.
See you later,
Douglas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Douglas Maraun
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Reader Comments (119)
What is the difference between a "climate sceptic" and a "climate denier"?
Isn't a climate sceptic one of those people who examine the evidence and weigh it for truth and verity? You know, I think they were once called scientists.
Isn't a denier a person who see's the evidence , then gets a PR machine to push their particular version of the truth whilst denigrating any person who disagrees with 'our' side?
Either no one went, or he was never seen again...
A man with a concern for the long term view? A balanced view of what society really means?
So what really happened? Him and Paul Dennis playing tiddlywinks for an hour?
What's the difference between "not especially honest" and "not honest?
oh and the scientist shows the data, the working out, and how they came to that particular resolution. If they find inconvenient data they say so and ask for other interpretations. You know just like those scientists who are bamboozled by neutrinos travelling faser than the speed of light.
Scientists dont 'hide the decline', or data.
25 Nov: ABC Australia: Global warming rate could be less than feared
By Science Online’s Genelle Weule, wires (AFP)
High levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have less of an impact on the rate of global warming than feared, a new study suggests…
But more severe estimates that predict temperatures could rise up to an average of 10 degrees Celsius are unlikely, the researchers report in the journal Science…
The new study suggests temperatures will rise on average 2.3 degrees under the same conditions.
“When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last ice age 21,000 years ago – which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum – and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture,” said lead author Andreas Schmittner, from Oregon State University…
Associate Professor Schmittner notes that many previous studies only looked at periods spanning from 1850 to today, thus not taking into account a fully integrated palaeoclimate data on a global scale…
Professor Colin Prentice from Macquarie University says he is not surprised by the results.
Professor Prentice, who was not involved in the study, says the new paper is based on a careful compilation of data and addresses an issue that is “absolutely central”.
“What it means is we can be a bit more sure about the sort of range of temperature changes that will result from the given change in the amount of fossil fuel and CO2 and other greenhouse gases,” he said.
“The key point is that there has been ongoing buzz about the possibility that the climate sensitivity may be way, way higher than in mainstream climate models.
“So for very technical reasons with data just from contemporary observations and observations from the recent historical period, you just haven’t got enough information to really rule out those numbers.
“What [this study] has shown is that those very high values are ruled out…
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-25/global-warming-rate-could-be-less-than-feared/3694896/?site=melbourne
Is this what "Science" has decended to?
"I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest"
A bit like the reaction of the bulk of the German population to the Nurenburg Laws wasn't "especially honest"?
(Or does that invoke Godwin's Law?)
Anyone dropped that little gem about Mann's work into the RC discussion? (I've not even looked at that, if I do, I'm sure I'll be developing road rage, driving along & thinking about it!)
Maurizio has an email, where someone called Edward Cook sums up the state of "climatology" to Briffa with an elegantly turned phrase:-
...we know with certainty that we know fuck-all
http://tinyurl.com/cj545c7
I would love to know what the seminar discussed and whether there were any conclusions. I'd give him credit for raising the points, even though he seems a bit timid in doing so "or do [you] think, my points are not interesting,". I imagine its quite possible people took the hint implied there and just replied
"Nah, none of us are interested Doug, we're doing fine thanks"
Signs of a just a little honesty and commonsense creeping out from Dr. Maraun?
I've never heard of him.
I wonder if those two facts have some connection?
There can be few who came on here or frequented WUWT and Climate Audit pre-Climategate 1 who can have been all that surprised by what came out in either Climategate 1 or 2 or, indeed, the pathetic whitewashes and the reaction of the politicos and press.
The fact that it DID come out and surprised at just how brazen, dishonest and incompetent "The Team" were (and still are, without doubt)? Yes.
Shocked that they are proved to be activists rather than scientists?
Not so much.
But what will happen to "The Team" and their acolytes and enthusiasts? My guess is that it will be the square root of sod all. I'm surprised that Phil Jones hasn't already been elevated to the peerage.
What should happen to them? That's a tough one.
In view of the damage for which they have been responsible in following their "cause", it would be equitable if they were summarily dismissed and never again received a penny piece of taxpayers' money. But there is zero chance of that.
For myself and apologising in advance for lowering the tone and slipping into the rough vernacular, I suggest that Jonsey and his "Team" should all be rogered with a ragman's trumpet.
Foxgoose:
They'll continue to know FA until they get the physics right.
cc: t.osborn@ueaxxxxxxx
date: Wed Sep 3 14:00:06 2003
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@ueaxxxxxxxxxxx
subject: Re: An idea to pass by you
to: Edward Cook <drdendro@ldeo.columbia.xxxxxxxxx
ED
without the slightest doubt , I do wish to be involved in this AND/OR something like it -
what I wanted to do (to be frank) myself, is to do a piece with you, Tim and Tom Melvin and
Jan(?) , on the validity of the low frequency components of the family of reconstructions -
but with the emphasis on the tree-ring side . Tim is certainly (with me and you - remember)
doing a paper for The Holocene on the areas of uncertainty in these attempts (focusing on
calibration issues, spatial representation of predictors (spatial and time scale bias),
seasonal bias and relating these , ultimately. to the reliability of the reconstructions
{This is my version of what will be in it but he may disagree} . The basic point is that I
(and I think he) agree that Mike and Phil's latest contribution is a step backwards ( in
time and understanding ) - well in reality I do not believe it is a step forward. I need to
read you message in detail and then phone tomorrow (I HAVE to get this PhD report off to
New Zeland now) after talking to Tim . You know I desperately want to produce a new
temperature reconstruction from the various tree-ring data (and explore the Mann western US
PC correction - though Malcolm has ignored my request for the data) . At the least , all
this requires that I come to see you (and perhaps Tim too).
I WILL be in touch ....
Keith
At 08:32 AM 9/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as described in the
extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley's follow-up talk on how everybody but
him has fucked up in reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this
is a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility
is really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be
involved in. Consider the tentative title:
"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are The Greatest
Uncertainties?"
Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D'Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones (??), Mann
(infinite?) - I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too personally invested in things now
(i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in
- Bradley hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can
contribute without just defending their past work - this is the key to having anyone
involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table and don't start by assuming that ANY
reconstruction is better than any other.
Here are my ideas for the paper in a nutshell (please bear with me):
1) Describe the past work (Mann, Briffa, Jones, Crowley, Esper, yada, yada, yada) and
their data over-laps.
2) Use the Briffa&Osborn "Blowing Hot And Cold" annually-resolved recons (plus Crowley?)
(boreholes not included) for comparison because they are all scaled identically to the
same NH extra-tropics temperatures and the Mann version only includes that part of the
NH (we could include Mann's full NH recon as well, but he would probably go ballistic,
and also the new Mann&Jones mess?)
3) Characterize the similarities between series using unrotated (maybe rotated as well)
EOF analysis (correlation for pure similarity, covariance for differences in amplitude
as well) and filtering on the reconstructions - unfiltered, 20yr high-pass, 100-20
bandpass, 100 lowpass - to find out where the reconstructions are most similar and
different - use 1st-EOF loadings as a guide, the comparisons of the power spectra could
also be done I suppose
4) Do these EOF analyses on different time periods to see where they differ most, e.g.,
running 100-year EOF windows on the unfiltered data, running 300-year for 20-lp data
(something like that anyway), and plot the 1st-EOF loadings as a function of time
5) Discuss where the biggest differences lie between reconstructions (this will almost
certainly occur most in the 100 lowpass data), taking into account data overlaps
6) Point out implications concerning the next IPCC assessment and EBM forcing
experiments that are basically designed to fit the lower frequencies - if the greatest
uncertainties are in the >100 year band, then that is where the greatest uncertainties
will be in the forcing experiments
7) Publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to
be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit
about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe
the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability
was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).
Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of seasonality of
response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an empirical comparison of published 1000
year NH reconstructions because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used in both
seasonal and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons differ and
where they differ most in frequency and time without any direct consideration of their
TRUE association with observed temperatures.
I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done before the next IPCC
assessment. But to give it credibility, it has to have a reasonably broad spectrum of
authors to avoid looking like a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.
If you don't want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole idea like a hot
potato. I honestly don't want to do it without your participation. If you want to be the
lead on it, I am fine with that too.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.xxxxx
Phone: xxxxxxxxx
Fax: xxxxxxxx
==================================
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +4xxxxxxxx
Fax: +44-xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[2]/
=========================================
I'm loving the scoring system to decide who might want to look at their work again....
Bradley(?), Jones (??), Mann (infinite?)
Demanding that sort of clarity makes you a denier, I'm afraid, Phillip.
General hint to everyone:
These are human beings we’re talking about. They say silly things, change their minds.. If you cut them, do they not say the bleeding obvious?
Before generalising, let’s google them, find out who they are, what else they’ve said, etc.
The most helpful discussion I've seen of that this year was on Judy Curry's in January. Steven Mosher made the key points well after 'Louise' had given her definition of denier:
I think this is quite common - when someone says 'denier' and is challenged to explain what they mean it turns out they're referring to the set of virtually nobody. It's one of the most naked, yet believed-in straw men ever constructed.
So what's the difference between sceptic, realist and lukewarmer? I don't know. But at least with those terms you're likely to come up with definitions that don't map to the empty set when applied to the seven billion human beings now on the planet.
See here for excellent COMBINED climategate 1 & 2 e-mail search engine.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php
Puts everything in context for you !
They'll continue to know FA until they get the physics right.
Nov 25, 2011 at 8:46 AM | Phillip Bratby
Phillip, it is amazing that they all disagree in the emails about who has it right or wrong but once in pubic its the "Cause" and nothing but. McIntyre must have a wry smile on his face right now whereas M. "Nothing to see here" Mann looks worse and worse!
Wonderful timing for the release of this lot of email
Check out this great online search engine, highlighted by Joanne Nova. Combines Climategate I & II:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php
Please investigate why Phil Jones was sending out emails about carbon trading to UEA staff in 2000:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0073.txt&search=carbon+trading
Phillip, I should have added "and ditto Jones"
Yes Geoff, but they're human beings with a desperate desire to control the lives of their fellow human beings which kind of puts them in a special category, doesn't it?
Without being too "Godwinesque" - there are unfortunate historical precedents for this kind of behaviour.
Bishop, the outpouring makes me wonder how much more research you would have had to commit to for the HSI had this lot been out!
PeteH
Love the "once in pubic"!!
phil
Worth noting that the site that has assembled the C/Gate 1 & 2 e-mails with a search engine
is ECOWho.
They are as pissed off with this stinking affair as we are if this comment is anything to go by:-
If your wondering why this is on an Eco site its because we are interested in fact led research and development that leads to a better future for all; ClimateGate is very indicative that at the very core of climate research the high standards that we all expected for such core research are not being upheld. See this article and its conclusion for how we think this is adversely effecting the science and in this case is such a big issue.
http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=dmaraun
Dr Maraun was at CRU between 2007 and 2009
Foxgoose
What have I been saying for ages, most recently on the "Dangerous Climate Change?" thread?
We still don't even know what we don't know.
And that is becoming clearer every day. At last!
I can't imagine how any of the participants in the following email chain could bring themselves to believe that arranging for schoolkids to see a Hollywood disaster movie fell within the remit of academic climate science (or DEFRA):-
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/3042.txt
Here is a short blog with picture of Dr Maraun
Foxgoose - "...there are unfortunate historical precedents for this kind of behaviour."
Bay of Pigs Invasion, attack on Pearl Harbour, Iraq war, Nazi Germany's decision to invade the Soviet Union, Watergate...and all understood to be the result of 'Groupthink';
William H. Whyte coined the term in 1952, in Fortune magazine: "Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well."
The term 'Climategate' suits it well.
@jazznick it's good that eco groups are starting to realise that the climate scientists they depend on are corrupt and inept. Meanwhile, the carbon trading market is tanking spectacularly. Hurrah! But the new world order elites are in this for the long haul, they will keep trying to resurrect this in one form or another. We will just have to keep exposing their scams and hoaxes, as they are created.
Please investigate the carbon trading trail!
===
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2847.txt&search=carbon+trading
date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:03:40 +080 ???
from: "Jennifer" <???@alleventsgroup.com>
subject: Re: Carbon investment in Abu Dhabi
to: <???@uea.ac.uk>
[1]wcers banner 364x64 px
20 - 23 October 2008 | Le Royal Meridien Abu Dhabi, UAE
Dear Colleague,
Why should you miss the gold rush?
Carbon trading is emerging as a viable activity in the Middle East, with a strong growing
base of investments in carbon emission reduction technologies and projects.
===
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4877.txt&search=carbon+trading
date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:42:41 +010 ???
from: Trevor Davies <???@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Edinburgh
to: ???@uea,???@uea,???@uea,???@uea,???@uea, ???@uea,???@uea,???@uea
>Envelope-to: ???@cpca11.uea.ac.uk
>From: "Simon J Shackley" <???@fs1.sm.umist.ac.uk>
>To: ???@uea.ac.uk
>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:49:24 BST
>Subject: Edinburgh
>Reply-to: ???@umist.ac.uk
>CC: ???@umist.ac.uk
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
>
>dear Trevor
>
>Tom and I enjoyed the meeting last friday - it is an exciting agenda
>ahead of us. Today, Tom and I met with Brian Launder today and we
>are embarking on more comprehensive internal discussions to define
>the UMIST role more clearly.
>
>Just on the topic of Edinburgh, two areas they have that seem to be
>relatively less covered by the other 4 partners are:
>
>C sequestration: particularly John Grace and Paul Jarvis - who have
>excellent international reputations
>
>Carbon Trading: there is a centre working on carbon trading, headed
>up by Richard Tipper
>
>There are also other depts. that replicate some of our existing
>strengths (e.g. Bert Whittington in electrical engineering and Nick
>Hanley in Environmental economics). And then there is Steven Salter
>and wave power ....
>
>The weaknesses on the social science side between all partners, seem
>to me to be energy policy, energy modelling and empirical work on
>energy efficiency. (I may be in ignorance of work at CSERGE). I
>reckon we could buy in expertise in these areas where necessary -
>except possibly energy modelling, where a large start-up cost could
>occur. Imperial / Cambridge have a lead over us here. But the
>energy modelling I've seen tends to be lacking in integration, so we
>could put the onus on integration and developing new approaches.
>(Afterall, a lot of energy modelling to look at impacts of a carbon /
>energy tax has already been done - do we really need any more?). The
>more interesting / novel areas could be looking at economics of
>carbon trading, and looking at the costs and impacts of the energy
>tax both pre- and post its introduction in 2001.
>
>Best wishes for now
>
>Simon Shackley
We can safely say that the Global Warming scare in the public mind is over.
"Climate change fears 'have been exaggerated' say scientists who claim apocalyptic predictions are unlikely" - FIONA MACRAE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2065954/Climate-change-fears-exaggerated-say-scientists-claim-apocalyptic-predictions-unlikely.html#ixzz1ehy7rYJz
Quote, "Dr Schmittner said it would be ‘virtually impossible’ for a doubling of carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise by 8c or 10c. "
Our good friend Bob Ward (now a doctor and a climate change policy expert) had this to say;
"Dr Bob Ward, a climate change policy expert at the London School of Economics, said however that," this one study is unlikely to supersede all the science that has gone before.""
We all know that the science that had gone on before was junk science.
The game is up for the Team and the Team's dogs - Black, Ward, Monbiot, Harrabin, Revkin, etc. They all have been found wanting.
PS Anyone know where Richard Betts is hiding these days.
- How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
With some difficulty I should have thought. {snip}
What is the difference between a "climate sceptic" and a "climate denier"?
Easy. The deniers deny contrary evidence and evidence of dodgy science, and support the AGW hypothesis. The skeptics don't.
Richard B commented on this site only yesterday.
It seems that Dr Mauran has arrived at climatology via a 'hard science' route. Physics as his first degree then specialisation in statistics. Perhaps this explains why he retained a scientific conscience in his brief interlude at CRU. I can imagine that having somebody around who could (at least) plot a graph using Excel was an embarrassment to its 'leadership'
http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=dmaraun
Oops ..those pesky guys from the Home Guard get everywhere nowadays......
The post above re Dr Mauran's CV was, in fact, from me.
'You Stupid Boy' (George Mainwaring)
Martin,
I started reading CA from almost the beginning (2005? 2006) and I for one was tremendously shocked by the first set of climategate emails. I think it is because Steve M had been so assiduous in prohibiting anyone from using the f word (fraud) and avoiding speculation on their motives.
When I started reading - it was o...mi...god. It simply floored me that with the notable exception to Monbiot that no one within the scientific-journalist complex reacted with anything less than horror. Big eye opener.
Foxgooose 9:05 AM:
Agreed (as usual). I just think specific information on specific persons is more useful to His Grace (or anyone else trying to make sense of this) than general sounding off.
Douglas Maraun can be found defending his ex-employers at CRU at
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/01/guest-article-by-douglas-maraun.html
(I’d like to find out more, but my wife thinks painting the hallway is more important than saving the planet from the planet-savers).
The question of the day (for those posters that would prefer to change it) is:
"-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest."
would you like to comment on that Zed?
I downloaded the zip file and have been browsing through them at random. I even saw one where someone was talking about setting up a bible class.
Has anyone mentioned or noticed number 0723 yet? That shows how bad their computer programs are.
0723:
date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 16:40:37 +0100
from: Elaine Barrow <xxxxxx@xxxxxxx>
subject: SPECTRE
to: Mike Hulme <xxxxxx@xxxxxxx>
Mike,
There is a slight problem with SPECTRE. If you select UKTR, IS92e and the
max temp. change and then look at the graph for Santon Downham in the
extremes section for maximum temp, you'll see a warming which is off the
scale.
I have checked the figures for this site and they are correct - the problem
is that it is in a land grid box and for August and September there appears
to be an anomalous warming cf. the other months (3.2 and 3.8 deg C, resp.
cf. approx. 1 for the other months).
Either the scale needs adjusting, or we need to fudge the figures...
I'll let you know if I find anything else.
Elaine
They don't like it up em Latimer!
"sort"? Should have been "sought"
Bishop's tweet- 'I think the BBC may end up the big losers from Climategate 2'
'Ho Ho' will stick th the BBC like
http://www.screwfix.com/p/sticks-like-sh-t-290ml/22070
Dr. Douglas Maraun was clearly a liability to "the cause".
Let's not beat about the bush -
what's the line between "not especially honest" and "dishonest"?
once again, many thanx to bish, anthony, big mac, joanne nova, and others in the blogosphere who have worked tirelessly (well, almost tirelessly) and for free to wrest back the scientific method from the dogmatists. take a bow.
CAGW is over. you can tell by the way the MSM gone SOOO quiet. as always, it's what they won't report that is most interesting of all.
MSM, as we've known it, will soon go the way of the dinosaurs. they are worse than useless.
Apologies if already posted.
Bob Ward in full, 'I know the deniers are wrong but can't quite seem to prove it. Help!' mode. After he fails miserably in a long email battering from David Whitehouse. So he threatens to take Booker to the PCC.
Hilarious.
1069.txt
"So I am planning to go public over my argument with Whitehouse and to take Booker to the Press Complaints Commission. To do this, I need to be able to scotch their argument. I think the best way in which I might be able to do this is by showing that if you take virtually any consecutive seven-year period since 1850 you find that the uncertainties overlap, making them "statistically indistinguishable", but this does not mean that temperatures haven't changed since 1850. So, do you know how I might be able to obtain a version of the attached graph, but with the years in chronological order?
Best wishes,
Bob"
And an Interesting read!
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/some-thoughts-and-some-questions-about-the-climategate-2-0-release/
One thing CG 2.0 makes clearer than ever, the "just pathetic" Michael Mann is held in particularly low regard by sceptics who have seen his dishonesty comprehensively and forensically exposed by Steve McIntyre and our own Bish, and is also comprehensively and apparently universally reviled by people who he has had professional contact with - how does this guy (a) keep his employment, and (b) sleep at night? His work has been shown to be so worthless that it's not even wrong and everybody knows it.
Where next?
Somebody ought to develop a Twitter bot telling the world all those skeptical phrases these nice Defenders of the Cause were telling each other
Nov 25, 2011 at 9:41 AM | Mac
Hi Mac,
I'm not hiding anywhere - I responded to your question to me on The Scientific Firmament Thread and I've also said a couple of things on Unthreaded.
Cheers
Richard
Why can't women understand the really important things in life?
(I'm safe - she can't find BH on her Ipad)
Richard Betts -
I'm glad you have such a thick skin. Sometimes I'm embarrassed at the vitriol and unjustified abuse dished out by fellow sceptics - I think it is enormously to your credit that you still come here and engage openly with what (in parts) is such an aggressive audience.
Perhaps it is just me that has a thin skin!