There is always a danger on blogs, despite some fine minds being applied to the subject in hand, that we fasten our ire on one person, whether it's Verma or Betts, without understanding "it is usually the department which drafts the answers" or the equivalent.

But in Bernard Donoughue we have a true and candid friend to guide us. The team is more powerful than any of its parts.

Shub: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Bob Ward's aggressive and irrational style has rightly led to some strong reactions. And what of Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky, Gleick, Mann? These are personalities, not to say egos, and some we are justified in taking a strong line against. But on Baroness Verma I'm sure we would be wise to listen to Lord Donoughue.

Baroness Verma stood up in the House of Lords and was not willing to answer a question of huge significance to the nation.

Whose question?

I hope he won't mind if I quote him on this :-)

Striking if one rereads them that these last two posts weren't addressed to Bernard Donoughue himself.

The first could only achieve its desired effect of starting to marginalise 'dear old Lord Donoughue' - in this of all threads - by pretending that he hadn't just contributed here.

The second is much better, except for not asking Bernard the question direct. The phrase 'fanatics at the Met Office' is well earned. It's why Betts has a tough job and why his "Thanks for sharing your opinion so frankly" to Steve McIntyre four days ago keeps him ahead for me of any previous communicator from the hallowed halls of the global warming fraternity.

We each have a right not to suspend disbelief but if Bernard Donoughue began this process by asking questions of the government 'of huge significance to the nation' in our second chamber I accept his evaluation of the person answering, whom he knows personally. I have more problem trusting someone whose latest 'senior moment' led to casual defamation of another staunch fighter for climate freedom even this month. And that's not all, not even 1%. In this small subset of the network of relationships the verdicts, though always provisional, are easy.

Sorry to make you so angry by suggesting that Bernard D should be listened to when he says some of us at BH should dial down the criticism of Baroness V. That's far and away the most central point for me here. I already allowed for the fact that we had a different evaluation of Richard B Hilary. His final question on CA was interesting I thought and I also thought it interesting that Steve didn't bother to reply to it. Either touchingly naive or something else that's not as good but is rather inept. I don't claim to be able to read every secret of every person's heart on any blog, hence the 'always provisional' in my previous post. The anger or irritation seems way too much though. Up, up and away :)