Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Donoughue's parting gift | Main | A new look at the carbon dioxide budget »
Tuesday
Jul302013

Polite discourse shocker 

The Guardian has thrown all my preconceptions into disarray by printing an article about sceptics that is not only thoughtful, but is polite too!

Sceptics such as Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the mainstream view that the greenhouse effect brings about atmospheric warming as a result of carbon emissions, but dispute levels of climate sensitivity. However, others offer far more fundamental challenges to climate science, such as fringe sceptic group Principia Scientific whoreject this orthodox view of atmospheric physics.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (128)

I am equally shocked. Maybe even gobsmacked.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Watts

Not bad, but then there is Adam Corner's vile smear of Bishop Hill folk in the comments:

Adam Corner to Warren Pearce

Considering how badly Adam Corner has flailed (failed) on matters which have come to the attention of people at this blog, I suppose it is not surprising that he displays such resentments. Of course, Corner offers only a sarcastic account of the BH blog world.

Still, Corner's smear remarks represent a petty, irrational response to folks who have shown him to be a shallow pseudo-psychologist.

Physician, heal thyself!

Jul 30, 2013 at 9:57 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Some of the comments are pretty rude, though.

Jul 30, 2013 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

The article was reasonably balanced in tone, but for the main part the comments are not. I am surprised that the Guardian printed the article, but not at all surprised by the thrust of the majority of the comments/reaction to the article.

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

There is another article with an out-of-character theme, linked in the sidepanel: "The Green movement is not pro-science".
The times they are a-changin?

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:05 PM | Registered Commentermikeh

Whatever Guardian folk are - they aren't all terminally stupid.

As shibboleths crumble the urge to investigate a little is irresistible and stuff gets questioned ... and other people asking reasonable questions and getting unreasonbabble answers get noticed - a bit like the recent "my path to scepticism" post on WUWT. I doubt that the Guardian has inoculated the entire editorial staff.

What I've noticed though is an increase in copy n paste content articles from pressure groups masquerading as editorial. The recent "air rivers of doom" being one - this scare story has been carefully placed and worked up over the last 10 days.

The MSM are still on board for CAGW

Adam Corner should be in a straitjacket

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:11 PM | Registered Commentertomo

"Sceptics such as Andrew Montford and Anthony Watts agree with the mainstream view that the greenhouse effect brings about atmospheric warming as a result of carbon emissions, but dispute levels of climate sensitivity. "

That is exactly why I call right wing sceptics frauds . Look at the last thread. It was a ridiculous shambles with widely differing opinions on the most basic topics. Even the shape of carbon molecules, the 2nd law of thermodynamics . Yet here we are discussing climate sensitivity again.


Roger Pielke senior severely critiquing a multi-decadal climate model projections paper on basic methodology.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00205.1

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

The "cross-sections of polar ice sheets" photo in the Guardian article are Lonnie Thompson's Bolivia ice core samples from 1997:
http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/42-20701925/porters-descending-with-ice-core-samples

I wonder if that data has been archived as yet? :-)

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrady

In the full article I think the author was politely stating that skeptics are in the way, because they argue with the believers about science and thereupon confuse the public and the politicians -- leading to a stalemate in formulating new and effective policies to combat the evil rising CO2.

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterDrcrinum


Still, Corner's smear remarks represent a petty, irrational response to folks who have shown him to be a shallow pseudo-psychologist.

Physician, heal thyself!
Jul 30, 2013 at 9:57 PM Skiphil

Yes - it's fascinating how Adam let his "let's all be reasonable academics" mask slip.

He seems to be taking it all rather personally these days - I think he hates being reminded of his "blue period".

Still - a cracking article by Warren.

I even registered a new CIF ID to celebrate.

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:19 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

The article appears to have inflamed the apostles of a certain cartoonist.

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

From the original quote above:

"whoreject"

Is that a scientific subject that has been corrupted by money?

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterMax Roberts

whoreject >> who reject

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:36 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Warren is doing what social scientists should have been doing before - just describing climate scepticism in an accurate and objective way. It's ironic that this is so gobsmacking.

Normal service at the Guardian will be resumed as soon as possible - anticipate a stream of responding articles from Dana etc.

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:50 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Rob Wilson also has a provocatively titled item up at the Graun too today, as someone tweeted, they've been hacked!

The green movement is not pro-science

I actually learned something too, quite shocked to learn that Greenpeace actively sued to prevent stem cell research in Europe, strikes me as kinda funny when I only hear about anti-science Republicans while meanwhile it seems GP get free pass from a well known geneticist ;)

Jul 30, 2013 at 10:53 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

For those interested in how social scientists see things, I recommend Sheldon Ungar and his latest, a chapter "The artful creation of global moral panic: climatic folk devils, environmental evangelicals and the coming catastrophe" in the book "Moral panic and the politics of anxiety".

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Panic-Politics-Anxiety-ebook/dp/B00872FQLQ/

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:00 PM | Registered Commentershub

Comment from grumpyoldman at wuwt

Are you certain that, having been unable to strangle the sceptic cat, the consensus is not now trying to choke it to death with cream?

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:02 PM | Registered Commentershub

The comments associated with the Guardian article are amazing. Some of these people have seriously disturbed minds.

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Maybe the first shoots of reason have returned to this once highly moral newspaper?

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterStacey

Such anger and vituperation in the Guardian comments reminds me so much of the tenor of debate in, for example, medicine in Victorian Britain. Where science is, as yet, poorly understood you get the Aaron's rod approach to debate -- "There is only one truth and it is mine". The trouble with the Guardian and its commentariat is that they're largely Humanities (of one sort or another) graduates.

All of academia is permeated by personal vendettas and reputational assassination attempts. Humanities departments are particularly snake-pits in this respect. Most Humanities' disciplines eschewed anything but the semblance of "science" a long time ago in favour of argument from authority and pure ideological "rigour". And this includes a surprisingly wide tranche of endeavour. Not just Sociology and History, but Geography, Criminology, and even Public Health -- amongst many more exotic branches -- are infected.

One meets a different class of commentator on sceptical blogs. Agreed, many are from the libertarian Right who are reassured that their beliefs are validated. But, more importantly, engineers and applied scientists of one sort or another for whom error is not an abstract outcome which can be hand-waved away but has real world implications.

As an ageing Marxist (itself a pseudo-science of sorts) I know whose company I prefer.

The sheer self-righteous Jesuitical callousness one encounters from those who laughably count themselves "environmentalists" is utterly nauseating. Neither the pillage of rainforests and foodstocks for biofuel, nor the mass starvation and privation of those citizens whose countries are arm twisted into "sustainable" development seem to interest them. Neither, apparently, do they care about the slaughter of bats, raptors, and seabirds by turbines or the toxic rare earth tailings which go to manufacture them or the indestructible concrete bases upon which they're mounted in their thousands.

Neither, suddenly, do they care at all about the egregious clear logging of American woodlands to provide wood chips for our newly converted power plants -- moving us from the C19th back to the C18th in terms of energy supply.

I apologising for going over this all again, but the Guardian article's comments just reminded me why I ended up at His Eminence's blog in the first place.

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterBraqueish

A breath of fresh air from the Guardian!

I think they know full well the comments will be/are nasty, they know their readers. I found it a very sound article promoting the idea that sceptics might not be the unreasonable monsters the alarmists would have people believe.

The turnaround has to start somewhere, and gently. A writer at the Guardian cannot be expected to jump from one extreme to the other, but open up new notions to ponder over as the shift in focus comes about.

Warren Pearce has done an excellent job.

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterA.D. Everard

whoreject

Que...?

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul O

The Guardian super tanker is definitely turning. Fracking is the likely reason. They can't oppose that in the long term.

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:28 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

It's a trap, Bish, a trap I tell ye. Step away from the light....

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:33 PM | Unregistered Commentercheshirered

That's how child predators groom their targets - lots of sweet talk then the sting.

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterdp

I met Warren at the IoP policy/evidence thing. He and I and Ruth Dixon, Ben Pile and Barry Woods of this parish went to the pub after. He is a sensible chap who listens without pushing his views. Which I can only envy. As far as Warren goes, this is not a trap. IMHO.

Jul 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

The Guardian supertanker is definitely turning. Fracking is the likely reason. They can't oppose that in the long term. The Green era is closing.

Jul 31, 2013 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

Underground Cat:

Yes, a good column about anti-science Greens, but it's not from "the" climate Rob Wilson, it is another Robert Wilson:


Robert Wilson is a PhD student in mathematical ecology at the University of Strathclyde, and writes at The Energy Collective.

Jul 31, 2013 at 12:09 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Normal Guardian service has resumed: "Climate study predicts a watery future for New York, Boston and Miami"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/29/climate-new-york-boston-miami-sea-level

It was nice while it lasted ...

Jul 31, 2013 at 1:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeary

The final paragraphs of Warren Peace's article are very good. Science can be used to inform the public and inform policy decisions but too often people try to use it to dictate outcomes. This is made all the worse by overstating certainties and by the pseudo-science we have been overwhelmed by. The public have long since been squeezed out of the discussion through lobby groups, fake charities, comfortable scientists and chummy politicians presenting a pantomime public policy dialogue to convince us get on board with their plans.

In the recent Mike Hulme comment thread here I thought the comment by Mike Mangan at the making science public page was the most on the money: "They do not want to persuade us. They want us to submit."

Jul 31, 2013 at 1:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

I'm very late to this but having read Warren's excellent effort - the first link I followed was to a video of climate expert Alex Jones which I thought was very well judged, as were others - I took Skiphil's link to Adam Corner's response. I think it's noteworthy enough to quote in full:

Hi Warren, while I think you make some important points here about not lumping everyone who disputes some aspect of climate science as part of a lunatic gang, I think you're being very over-generous in your characterisation of some of the communities you point towards, especially Bishop Hill, which frequently and predictably descends into angry, aggressive denouncements of individual scientists, and it is a huge stretch to describe the typical conversation on that blog as anything approaching a constructive or measured evaluation of science, or anything else. Bishop Hill and other blogs like it can of course do whatever they like, and that's fine by me. But I wonder if arguments like the one you make here aren't bending over backwards to accommodate people and points of view that display very few of the 'real scientist/true scepticism' credentials you elude to?

Based on the experience I, and many many others have had on twitter, or on comment threads, at the hands of various folk associated with blogs like Bishop Hill, I find it extremely difficult to accept that they are simply bold truth-seekers, steeped in the methodology of science, holding the wild frontier pseudo-scientists of climate change to account: that's simply the way they try to present themselves.

And while not 'everybody' who strongly disputes the reality or seriousness of climate change endorses free market or conspiratorial beliefs, these statistical relationships are real, and can't be discounted in any attempt to understand climate change scepticism.

Here's a hard question. No, let's start with an easy one. Does Corner's initial characterisation fit the previous thread discussing David Coe's paper? Not even close. But do Bishop Hill threads ever 'descend into angry, aggressive denouncements', including unnecessary attacks on individuals? Why would I even ask the question? Does it matter? Aren't we so right about everything that we couldn't give a damn?

Skip called Corner's comment a 'vile smear of Bishop Hill folk' and that's partly why I followed the link. But I have to say I didn't emerge quite so sure in every particular. (And I mean every particular. The fact we can find something we think is way off beam in the last paragraph, say, seems an easy out. But I don't think it is.)

I think there are Guardian readers who have given Bishop Hill a try and have been disgusted by what they've found here. Partly because the perspectives are just so different from what they are used to. But partly because they are sometimes expressed in an unnecessarily angry or aggressive way. At that point we lose some open-minded people as well as the not-so-open (who probably wouldn't come anyway). And then they read Corner today and feel reinforced in their view.

That's the way I think it works. But Warren has set the cat among the pigeons very nicely.

Jul 31, 2013 at 2:52 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

@Jul 31, 2013 at 12:09 AM | Skiphil

Yes, a good column about anti-science Greens, but it's not from "the" climate Rob Wilson, it is another Robert Wilson:

Thanks I didn't realise. I was indeed under the misapprehension they were one and the same.

Jul 31, 2013 at 2:53 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Richard Drake, I don't disagree with what you say but it's not what I had in mind when I used words like "vile smear" to reference Adam Corner's remarks.

I was thinking more specifically of how there was plenty of rational informed criticism of the writings of Corner, Lewandowsky, et al. to which Corner has never (to my knowledge) responded adequately. Sure, that stuff is not climate science per se -- more about research methods, statistics, culture, cognition, psychology, etc. But Corner is abusing BH people broadly while ignoring the fact that he has been shown to be frequently superficial, careless, unscientific, UN-academic ... and at times dishonest. He has motive to try to discredit BH generally but his comments only reflect poorly on him.

Is there anger and aggression here at times? Of course, more from some than from others, but no one could deny that wide varieties of comments and emotions are on display here. All I'm saying is that there are many instances of informed and thoughtful commentary at times. By now Adam Corner should have learned a great deal about how to overcome his Lewandowsky-style carelessness.

Rather than exhibit any capacity to learn from critics, he smears all dismissively.

Jul 31, 2013 at 3:25 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Skiphil: thanks. I think one of the problems we run into a lot is that each of us has different levels of knowledge of the details of the debate in its many forms. All I really remember about Adam is that he did host a really useful discussion and was unusually polite in doing so - before even the Guardian had sporadic moments of politeness towards us! But I'm also unsurprised to hear that he's still drinking too deeply from the cup of Lewandowsky. His last paragraph didn't fill me with great encouragement on that front.

Perhaps we can take hope from what he picks up as our aspiration:

I find it extremely difficult to accept that they are simply bold truth-seekers, steeped in the methodology of science, holding the wild frontier pseudo-scientists of climate change to account

It all depends on who the 'they' are of course but I think he's spelled out a worthy goal there. (I've been thinking of doing a Discussion on who 'we' are. I may need your help in that not turning into internecine warfare. Or I may not do it!)

Jul 31, 2013 at 4:11 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

He's really poked a wasp nest with a stick there. Reading the comments of the true disciples makes me certain more than ever that we sceptics are right.

Jul 31, 2013 at 4:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh.

Two reality checks that are about to completely destroy the whole AGW meme
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
and this more telling one
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
NH ice extent etc was their number 1 icon
Check SH ice more anti-AGW pain

Jul 31, 2013 at 4:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterEliza

Normal Guardian service has resumed: "Climate study predicts a watery future for New York, Boston and Miami"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/29/climate-new-york-boston-miami-sea-level

It was nice while it lasted ...
Jul 31, 2013 at 1:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeary
------------------------------------------
I must admit that my suspicion is that the article was clickbait for sceptics, to try to enhance their flagging readership numbers. It certainly worked for me, and obviously for readers at Anthony's place too, who would normally never darken the Grauniad's grimy portal. Incidentally, it seems that the Bish and readers have been teaching Anthony to speak Pommie - he used "gobsmacked" in his comment here and title over there - and that's not a term that Americans use. :)

It was interesting to note that fairly vigorous comments from sceptics, including a few familiar names (hi Foxgoose et al!) were permitted. Judging from what people here have previously said, this is unusual. Can anyone comment on whether the comments policy was noticeably different for this article?

Jul 31, 2013 at 4:57 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Sure. The worst of us is no better than the worst of them. So let's make an effort to remember that those we disagree with need no be evil, just mistaken o misinformed. Truth be said, we all are probably wrong to a certain degree.

Jul 31, 2013 at 5:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrute

The comments to the article are interesting - especially if you look at the "recommend" scores.

Certainly a change here.

As for the associated article questioning if the green movement is anti science and quoting the almost religious rhetoric of Caroline Lucas on Stem cell research - I would say that some years ago I attended a talk by Lucas who was introduced as a Climate Change Expert - "Dr Caroline Lucas". I was so dismayed at her total lack of knowledge of scientific basics that I wondered what exactly was the field in which she attained her PhD?

The answer?

"She earned her PhD from the University of Exeter in 1989 with a thesis entitled Writing for Women: a study of woman as reader in Elizabethan romance"

Says it all.

Jul 31, 2013 at 7:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK

@ Johanna

.........................

Normal Guardian service has resumed: "Climate study predicts a watery future for New York, Boston and Miami"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/29/climate-new-york-boston-miami-sea-level

It was nice while it lasted ...
Jul 31, 2013 at 1:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeary
------------------------------------------
I must admit that my suspicion is that the article was clickbait for sceptics, to try to enhance their flagging readership numbers. It certainly worked for me, and obviously for readers at Anthony's place too, who would normally never darken the Grauniad's grimy portal. Incidentally, it seems that the Bish and readers have been teaching Anthony to speak Pommie - he used "gobsmacked" in his comment here and title over there - and that's not a term that Americans use. :)

It was interesting to note that fairly vigorous comments from sceptics, including a few familiar names (hi Foxgoose et al!) were permitted. Judging from what people here have previously said, this is unusual. Can anyone comment on whether the comments policy was noticeably different for this article?

Jul 31, 2013 at 4:57 AM | johanna

........................

I would say the comment policy IS currently different for this article.

In particular those comments challenging the Climate Change "view" with well reasoned points and questions seem to be allowed (for now?) and are scoring highly compared to what could be described as the more "traditional" Guardian responses.

It is interesting - these "traditional" responses underline exactly what the article and the adjacent story is saying about the lack of true science in the thought processes of those on the "warmest" side of the debate.

It is interesting

It will be worth monitoring the comments to see what happens.

Jul 31, 2013 at 7:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK

Following Chris Goodall’s demolition of Stephen Emmott’s “Ten Billion”, something’s certainly happening at Guardian Environment, (and we don’t know what it is).
Don’t think there’s been a wholesale conversion yet though.
The words “conspiracy theorists” link to the Lewandowsky/Cook Recursive Fury paper which labels Watts McIntyre Nova and me as conspiracist ideationists. “Montford” links to a tweet, not to here. There’s a mention of “politically motivated sceptics who can utilise doubt as a weapon” which links to Oreskes, and he ends with the awful warning that:

The conundrum is that both "sides" (if one can use that term) seem to focus on real science as the arbiter of knowledge claims. In doing so, they risk constricting material policy measures.
In other words, the danger of taking us seriously is that we might persuade the politicians we’re right.
In terms of civilised debate, we sceptics are about where Jews and Catholics were in the nineteenth century when they were admitted into universities and the professions.

Jul 31, 2013 at 7:54 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Adam Corner’s opposition to those who propose low estimates for climate sensitivity stems from Barry Woods’ outing a picture of him at a Green Party rally in a blue wig.

Jul 31, 2013 at 8:05 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

DougUK
Moderation is genuinely independent of the authors, but is influenced by “reports” on individual comments. I once got ten comments by a very active pro-AGW troll wiped within an hour by reporting abuse. I left one comment alone, in order to test my theory that I could get a commenter on to pre-moderation (the naughty step) with my reports alone.
I’ve just reported the first commenter for abusive language. Far be it from me to suggest that others might like to try out the Guardian’s report system.

Jul 31, 2013 at 8:15 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Not completely OT, Hamish MacRae in the Independent suggests the debate on fracking should not be framed just on environmental terms - The fracking debate is more about power than energy.

The Guardian gets polite, the Indie gets sensible, all very odd. I suppose it is still the silly season and the usual editors must be in Tuscany?

Jul 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

@ Braqueish

"The sheer self-righteous Jesuitical callousness one encounters from those who laughably count themselves "environmentalists" is utterly nauseating. Neither the pillage of rainforests and foodstocks for biofuel, nor the mass starvation and privation of those citizens whose countries are arm twisted into "sustainable" development seem to interest them. Neither, apparently, do they care about the slaughter of bats, raptors, and seabirds by turbines or the toxic rare earth tailings which go to manufacture them or the indestructible concrete bases upon which they're mounted in their thousands."

Thank you for the reminder.

Jul 31, 2013 at 8:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

Hello Richard, and all from CA,

I think the biggest difference between "we" and "them" Richard, although I know you didn't put it this way, is that there is a them, because they, despite their differing styles etc, have one specific agenda. They have bought in, and some just hide it a little better than others. On the other hand, there is no "we" because there are many of us who have no agenda, and some of us even believe what "they" believe, like Mosher etc. Others of us just want the game to be played fairly and honestly, and I guess Steve falls into that category. I myself am a conservative libertarian, but I'm also a very liberal progressive libertarian, and I don't see any conflict there either. As I've said on CA, my thing is that I don't have to understand the science to smell a rat. I know how people that are wrong argue from other political discussions I've had in other areas. They attack you, belittle your position, your associates, anything they can other than address the actual factual merits of the matter at hand. The Pro-AGW comments at the Guardian on this story are classic exhibits - hostile, nasty, full of ad hominem attacks. It is literally their calling card.

Ooh, I love how I can edit my posts! How's the Zamboni over here guys? I can slide under doors when Steve gets done with me ; )

Jul 31, 2013 at 8:47 AM | Registered Commentertomdesabla

At its heart, the present 'Consensus' is based on accepting that the computed radiation field from the apparent temperature of the atmosphere, using a 'pyrgeometer' is a real energy flux instead of being the potential energy flux to a sink at absolute zero. It's wrong, easily proved from Maxwell's Equations and leads to gross exaggeration of the radiative heat fluxes in the modelling.

Meteorologists and Climate Scientists are taught this so can be forgiven. Engineers and physicists are taught to measure/predict the difference in flux as the net energy flux. Thus the positive feedback in the models is an artefact and responsible for the fake scare. For the definitive answer, look at Goody and Yung 'Atmospheric Physics': qdot = - Div Fv and the positive feedback disappears.......

Jul 31, 2013 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

I was pretty depressed when I read the first comment, by one Peter Simmons. Later, though, after his qualifications were challenged, all his comments were deleted as inappropriate. Says it all, really.

What's more, some of the traits he wrote about could equally apply to those responsible for the hysterical attacks on fracking, as seen at Cuadrilla's latest site.

Jul 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterIan_UK

@Ian_UK: I concur. The comment by JBowers is illuminating: 'I am (PhD Chemistry) with publications in peer reviewed journals. [Riposte] But not one on climate.'

The game being played, and this Bowers person appears to be at the head of it, is pure Lysenkoism aka Hansenkoism, It's to claim that only people taught or who subsequently accept false radiative physics are permitted to comment on the modelling. Sorry Bish, but this is the basis of the whole argument and must be heard.

Jul 31, 2013 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

The first rule of dealing with the Guardian?

[Manners]

They are as broke as broke can be, with a declining readership (<160000). hence the attempt to broaden their appeal.

Jul 31, 2013 at 9:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndy

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>