From time time to time I have noted the tendency among upholders of the climate consensus to hurl strongly worded accusations of wrongdoing or abusive epithets at their opponents, apparently without considering it necessary to provide any evidence in support of their allegations. I'm thinking here of Nigel Lawson or Owen Paterson being described as "deniers" by just about every left-wing journalist in the country, without apparently needing to justify the accusation in any way and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
There was yet another example of the same thing today, with economist and left-wing talking head Jeffrey Sachs aiming brickbats at Matt Ridley on account of his recent article about the lack of any surface temperature rise:
Ridley climate ignorance in WSJ today is part of compulsive lying of Murdoch media gang. Ridley totally misrepresents the science.
Not a shred of evidence is presented, not a hint of an explanation as to how he considers that the science might have been misrepresented. It's almost as if evidence is seen as superfluous. (This is somehow familiar. Now what does it remind me of?)
This kind of wild namecalling makes Sachs look rather deranged in my opinion, although as we have seen this kind of thing is common on the other side of the lines in the climate wars. I really think we need a word for it: a "saching", perhaps. Maybe readers can think of something better.