Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/12/a-green-retreat.html

Music to my ears.

ya, ya... no surprise you'd pull out something from the struggling and on it's death bed newsrag Newsweek. This previous MLW post speaks to what Newsweek has become... is all about. I'm particularly impressed with those 3 Shell Oil advertisements directly inserted into your linked article's page source... certainly... music to your ears - hey?

of course... the music to your ears article was from the same Newsweek "economics" editor - Stephan Theil

another take on the Newsweek sinking ship, from the Atlantic: The Trials and Economics of Newsweek

[Shady]

I'm particularly impressed with those 3 Shell Oil advertisements directly inserted into your linked article's page source

More of waldo's McCarthyism.

He sees conflict of interest everywhere, except of course in the Climategate investigations. Then he sees absolutely nothing!

[Keepitsimple]

Tim....thanks again for your insights. I have old Waldo on IGNORE but I can still see that he's been feverishly posting. He's persistent, you have to admit. Reminds me of the "knight on the bridge" in that Monty Python movie where he's sword fighting and loses an arm, then a leg, then another arm...and another leg....but he's still standing saying "just a flesh wound". That's our lovable, old Waldo.

[waldo]

TimG - you are unfit for this forum - you make far too much sense....you're much too rational.

sycophants-R-Us, hey Simple?

Very well put. Thanks.

So well put that you think it needed to be re-posted? Like we couldn't just read it the first time! You must be after sharkman's job of forum cheerleader.

Tim....thanks again for your insights. I have old Waldo on IGNORE but I can still see that he's been feverishly posting. He's persistent, you have to admit. Reminds me of the "knight on the bridge" in that Monty Python movie where he's sword fighting and loses an arm, then a leg, then another arm...and another leg....but he's still standing saying "just a flesh wound". That's our lovable, old Waldo.

we get it Simple... you like sucking up to your new friend! ... and... what? For at least the half-dozenth time you need to advise you have me on ignore... which kind of contradicts the recent time you felt you had to update one of my posts (you know... the ones you don't read ). But hey now - as for Monty Python routines, the one I'll tag you with fits with the denier death knell watch - hey? "Bring out your dead (denier)" - beauty!

[TimG]

Exactly. The news headlines should have read 'Climate Alarmists Clear Fellow Climate Alarmists of Wrongdoing.' Despite of course the conflicting facts in their emails. The whole investigation would be like the cigarette companies investigating themselves, and then exonerating themselves.

It appears that previously sympathic British MPs are turning on UEA: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/

"It's not a whitewash, but it is inadequate," is Labour MP Graham Stringer's summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications - he holds a PhD in Chemistry.

Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry.

...

Stringer says Anglia appointee Muir Russell (a civil servant and former Vice Chancellor of Glasgow University), failed in three significant areas.

"Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell."

...

Stringer said, "We asked them to be independent, and not allow the University to have first sight of the report. The way it's come out is as an UEA inquiry, not an independent inquiry."

...

The British establishment has a poor record of examining its own conduct. The 1983 Franks Report into events leading up to the Falklands Invasion exonerated the leading institutions and decision-makers, so too did the Hutton Report into the Invasion of Iraq.

For Stringer, policy needs to be justified by the evidence.

"Vast amounts of money are going to be spent on climate change policy, it's billions and eventually could be trillions. Knowing what is accurate and what is inaccurate is important."

"I view this as a Parliamentarian for one of the poorest constituencies in the country. Putting up the price of fuel for poor people on such a low level of evidence, hoping it will have the desired effect, is not acceptable. I need to know what's going on."

...

Climategate may finally be living up to its name. If you recall, it wasn't the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up. Now, ominously, three inquiries into affair have raised more questions than there were before.

Edited July 12, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

It appears that previously sympathic British MPs are turning on UEA:

whaaaa! Why won't anyone listen to frauditor Steve McIntyre!!!

the climatefraudit site doesn't even pretend to offer up "science" anymore... it's truly become the parody of McIntyre - host to a bunch of whining, wailing cry-babies. C'mon - man-up! Accept those 7 independent investigative exonerations of CRU, Jones, Mann, etc., and move on to your next manufactured POS. Get over it - hey?

[TimG]

Accept those 7 independent investigative exonerations of CRU, Jones, Mann, etc

Did you read the quote above? The MP in question (Stringer) led one of the those inquiries and now says he was duped by UEA.

[waldo]

whaaaa! Why won't anyone listen to frauditor Steve McIntyre!!!

the climatefraudit site doesn't even pretend to offer up "science" anymore... it's truly become the parody of McIntyre - host to a bunch of whining, wailing cry-babies. C'mon - man-up! Accept those 7 independent investigative exonerations of CRU, Jones, Mann, etc., and move on to your next manufactured POS. Get over it - hey?

Did you read the quote above? The MP in question (Stringer) led one of the those inquiries and now says he was duped by UEA.

Stringer didn't chair the HOC review???

in any case, the Oxburgh report has been out since April... terms of reference/mandate clearly outlined. Notwithstanding, of course, that the HOC review report, itself, speaks to the makeup and terms of reference of both the Russell & Oxburgh reviews... did they, uhhh... not even read their own report?

of course, the biggest howler of all reflects back on the puffed up outrage emanating from the climatefraudit echo chamber over the Oxburgh exoneration of CRU/Jones... all this fake outrage over a particular CRU paper... and yet... frauditor McIntyre somehow forgot to include that particular paper in his own submission to the HOC review committee. Apparently McIntyre was so outraged that he actually couldn't muster the wherewithal to include that particular CRU report in his submission concerns to the HOC review committee - too funny!

[waldo]

It appears that previously sympathic British MPs are turning on UEA:

by the by... since you saw fit to issue this, your reply, to that post from the Shady character, given all your previous posturing over appropriate intervals to determine climatic trends, it might be refreshing to have you offer comment on the most intellectually dishonest Phil Jones related signature quote attached to the same Shady character who so egregiously, to this day, continues to flaunt his intellectually dishonest Shady practices. Just sayin...

[TimG]

the HOC review report, itself, speaks to the makeup and terms of reference of both the Russell & Oxburgh reviews

And Stringer is now saying they were misled by UEA on those points. IOW, Stringer is now repudiating parts of his own report.

In any case, the onus was really on the panels to ensure they completely understood the complaints of McIntyre, Holland and the others involved in the FOIs. Interviewing them directly and asking them to respond to specific excuses offered by Jones et. al. would be the proper way to conduct an inquiry interested in finding the truth. They did not do that which tells us that the truth was not a particular concern to these panels. What McIntyre could have added to his written submissions is quite irrelevant.

Edited July 13, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

no problem... no biggee... I accept your unconditional surrender!

****bump**** uhhh... Timmay!

interesting… you started out belittling IPCC likelihood (probability) assignments by labeling them as “guesses”. In terms of ‘expert views’, one of the IPCC guideline associations available to assist in assigning a likelihood (probability), you maintained your position by stating, as you said, “Guesses by experts are still guesses”. You then shifted slightly by speaking to bias and subjectivity. In your assessment, you’re not willing to accept the expert view likelihood (probability) assignment as an informed knowledge/choice (biased, or not)… you simply choose to denigrate it all as “guess work”!

in terms of ‘quantitative analysis’, the other of the IPCC guideline associations available to assist in assigning a likelihood (probability), you make a blanket statement that categorizes all quantitative analysis as, “extremely subjective”… you then proceed to speak of Bayesian analysis and prior distribution choice… and throw in a sprinkling of negative personalization (was it something I said?). Now, in my somewhat dated statistical training, I seem to recollect a strong emphasis on attempting to exclude (or at least limit) said bias/subjectivity in prior distributions… if you adhere to the subjectivist school of Bayesian analysis. On the other hand, the issue of prior distribution bias/subjectivity doesn’t come forward… if you adhere to the objectivist school of Bayesian analysis (and objective prior distributions)… a view of Bayesian analysis you seem unfamiliar with. As you said, “I really get the impression that you know how to quote the lingo but have little understanding of what it means”.

Because that is what it is.

You want a concrete example look at climate sensitivity. We have no idea what the actual sensitivity is nor do we even know if it is a constant (i.e. sensitivity could be higher coming out of an ice age than it is today).

all discussion to this point focused on equilibrium climate sensitivity… your reference to a non-equilibrium climate state (your ice age reference) is not germane to that discussion. If you’d like to open up the discussion to include a measure of the strengths of, for example, climate feedbacks at a particular time, then you need to explicitly state you’re speaking of effective (and not equilibrium ) climate sensitivity… or do you even recognize (or appreciate) the distinction?

Also sensitivity is something that can never be measured directly - it is something which can only be inferred by using a model that assigns values to many different unknown quantities (aerosols, cloud cover, et. al.).

no – independent of models, many studies have been done to calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations.

So what the IPCC did is assume that all estimates of CO2 sensitivity represented independent measurements and that CO2 sensitivity is a constant.

in your broad sweeping commentary, do you have something that calls to question the IPCC review of independent scientists conducting independent research and bringing forward, independently, their estimates for CO2 sensitivity? If you do, you’ll need to be more specific – beyond your broad brush commentary and implications. And, again, your “assuming constant” reference seems at odds in a discussion related to equilibrium sensitivity – hey?

It then constructed a PDF based on the range of values for these various methods. The trouble is this PDF could be completely wrong if any of their assumption are wrong. In this case the assumption that each estimates independent measurements is likely wrong because researchers estimates for unknown values like aerosols are affected by the expected result and this introduces a bias into the estimate. This bias is likely why the estimates of CO2 sensitivity have not changed for 30 years (1.5-4.5).

now… you’re simply, collectively, calling into question the studies/results… surely, you’re not implying the IPCC review constructed it’s own confidence levels, error bars, uncertainty factors, etc. The assorted resulting IPCC PDF’s simply mirror the study analysis/results… representing the broad assembly of studies within the review. The estimates of CO2 sensitivity have changed… I highlighted a few of the most significant changes for you in terms of TAR-to-AR4 progression. Firstly, the latest AR4 introduced defined probability (likelihood) assignments to those sensitivity ranges; secondly, in spite of your insistence in continuing to reference 1.5°C, AR4 no longer includes it within the recognized likely range… in fact, it explicitly states, “equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C” (that’s 90% probability… yet, you still insist on referencing 1.5°C as “plausible” – quite telling, indeed!). Your reference to aerosols/bias is, again, not germane to a discussion of equilibrium sensitivity… aerosols don't affect the intrinsic sensitivity of the climate, but, of course, as a forcing within the broad grouping of forcings, they are important to the actual transient climate response. But, it would appear, you’re not only unfamiliar with the distinction between equilibrium and effective climate sensitivity, you also don’t appear to recognize (or appreciate) transient climate response as a measure of the strength and rapidity of the surface temperature response to GHG forcing.

In fact there is a historical precedent for the kind of bias I describe with the estimates of electron charge which were originally conducted by Millikan. His value was wrong but it took a long time to discover this because scientists that replicated the experiment assumed that Millikan was right and adjusted their numbers to ensure a better match with Millikan. In an field were scientists that suggest a low CO2 sensitivity are immediately attacked at stooges of 'fossil fuel companies' it is not reasonable to claim that the exact same bias is not at work.

you mean like the hopelessly flawed Lindzen-Choi 2009 study that presumed to estimate sensitivity at 0.5°C? Would you really like to go there… or simply accept a, as you say, “stooging” on their part?

What this all means is the the 'quantitative' probabilities don't mean much. What matters is the range of plausible values. That is why I say the planet will warm due to CO2 and the only question is by how much.

obviously – but your insistence in holding to a minimalistic/optimistic 1.5°C climate sensitivity estimate, doesn’t fit within the IPCC probability categorizations. You continue to ignore the best-estimate of ~3°C and completely discount possibilities toward 4.5°C… because… you can. You wouldn’t bite, twice now, on my questioning your previously stated “business as usual (BAU) scenario” justification for your hanging on to the 1.5°C estimate value... so, let’s be more specific – hey? Since you’re the one that keeps drawing pointed reference to the IPCC reports, as the concept of BAU no longer exists within AR4, just what BAU scenario were/are you describing in presuming to hold to your 1.5°C sensitivity estimate?

[waldo]

Stringer didn't chair the HOC review???

in any case, the Oxburgh report has been out since April... terms of reference/mandate clearly outlined. Notwithstanding, of course, that the HOC review report, itself, speaks to the makeup and terms of reference of both the Russell & Oxburgh reviews... did they, uhhh... not even read their own report?

of course, the biggest howler of all reflects back on the puffed up outrage emanating from the climatefraudit echo chamber over the Oxburgh exoneration of CRU/Jones... all this fake outrage over a particular CRU paper... and yet... frauditor McIntyre somehow forgot to include that particular paper in his own submission to the HOC review committee. Apparently McIntyre was so outraged that he actually couldn't muster the wherewithal to include that particular CRU report in his submission concerns to the HOC review committee - too funny!

And Stringer is now saying they were misled by UEA on those points. IOW, Stringer is now repudiating parts of his own report.

In any case, the onus was really on the panels to ensure they completely understood the complaints of McIntyre, Holland and the others involved in the FOIs. Interviewing them directly and asking them to respond to specific excuses offered by Jones et. al. would be the proper way to conduct an inquiry interested in finding the truth. They did not do that which tells us that the truth was not a particular concern to these panels. What McIntyre could have added to his written submissions is quite irrelevant.

you keep wanting to attach greater significance to Stringer... he didn't/doesn't chair the committee and it wasn't "his" report... it was the committee's report. And again, did he not even read the committee's report (the committee he's a member of). That HOC committee review report clearly outlines the makeup and terms of reference of both the Russell & Oxburgh reviews. Did he not even read the HOC committee report?

you seem to assert the respective independent panels did not understand their mandates... don't worry - McIntyre can continue to plaintively wail away in his denier blog echo chamber - more drama, more fake outrage, more food for the fodder!

McIntyre's written submission has been thoroughly massaged across the blogosphere - we could have some fun there - hey?

[TimG]

you keep wanting to attach greater significance to Stringer...

I have explained it enough times to make it clear to any reader that there are serious issues with the inquiries. Your semantics over who was the chair are irrelevant noise. Especially when the chair agrees with Stringer:

Dr. Stringer’s sense of betrayal is shared by the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, who in an interview with BBC on the Oxburgh report stated “Quite frankly, I couldn’t believe it. There has been a slight of hand in that the actual terms of reference were not what we had been led to believe.” Other MPs feel as he does,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8795000/8795643.stm

[Shady]

I have explained it enough times to make it clear to any reader that there are serious issues with the inquiries. Your semantics over who was the chair are irrelevant noise. Especially when the chair agrees with Stringer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8795000/8795643.stm

Tim, I wouldn't waste your time. Everybody in the forum as given up on trying to discuss anything rational with waldo. Global warming isn't science to him. It's religion. And you will never talk a religious zealot out of his beliefs. No matter if the facts are on your side.

[waldo]

****yawn****

University of East Anglia did not change the brief of the Oxburgh Panel

Following a broadcast on the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4 on July 7, 2010, and text on Roger Harrabin's blogsite on the BBC webpages, the following has been sent to Mr Harrabin by Lord Oxburgh and Professor Trevor Davies.

"The University asked the Panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh to consider whether "data had been dishonestly selected, manipulated and/or presented to arrive at pre-determined conclusions that were not compatible with a fair interpretation of the original data". It is not true that Professor Davies subsequently asked Lord Oxburgh , as you claim, to adopt a "narrower...brief" of any kind. We shall be grateful if you would correct the wrong impression which has been given".

and again... did they not read their own HOC committee report... the one that lays out the makeup & terms of reference for the Oxburgh & Russell reviews? Did they not read the actual Oxburgh report that most clearly and unequivocally defines the terms of reference that the Oxburgh review operated under?

by the way, TimG... you shouldn't be gun-shy about attributing your previous quote to the notorious sly/slick denier "journalist" extraordinaire, Lawrence Solomon

[waldo]

a lil' ole reminiscing... just so any woefully intellectually dishonest Shady character, espousing Shady practices, can grasp the subtleties of which actual reviews/reports are being discussed!

(continued denier whining, foot stomping and gnashing of teeth - film @11:00)

yabut Shady... in light of the various fabricated assertions coming from the true Hackergate deniers, this particular panel that Lord Oxburgh chaired was set up in consultation with the Royal Society to assess the integrity of the research published by CRU.

apparently, this particular independent panel needed a chair and members conversant in science and scientific practice to actually review an assortment of the more high-profile CRU papers, particularly those that the true Hackergate deniers elevated to prominence in their attempts to fabricate doubt and uncertainty over the Hackergate emails.

members of the scientific panel that reviewed the CRU research papers:

- Chair: Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool)

- Prof Huw Davies, professor of physics at the Institute for Atmospheric & Climate Science at ETH Zürich

- Prof Kerry Emanuel, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

- Prof Lisa Graumlich, directs the school of natural resources and the environment at University of Arizona.

- Prof David Hand FBA, professor of statistics in the department of mathematics at Imperial College, London.

- Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, professor of theoretical geophysics at the University of Cambridge

- Prof Michael Kelly FRS, Prince Philip professor of technology at the University of Cambridge

oh, Shady... your baseless concerns over the integrity of Ron Oxburgh seem at odds with oil industry magnate, Shell Oil - for some reason Shell Oil appointed Ron Oxburgh to chair it's UK branch... perhaps they had designs on "keeping tabs on him"... hey?

yes, Shady... Ron Oxburgh has a real checked past, one completely devoid of knowledge and expertise (/snarc):

Ron Oxburgh: a graduate of the Universities of Oxford and Princeton. He has taught geology and geophysics at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He has been a visiting professor at Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology and Cornell University. Lord Oxburgh has been a member of the Science and the Engineering Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, and the Advisory Council for Science and Technology. From 1988 to 1993 he was chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, and from 1993 to 2001, Rector of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. He is a member of A*star (Advisory Committee on Science, Technology and Research for Singapore). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a Foreign Member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences.

yes, Shady... this independent scientific focused panel exonerated CRU, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, etc.; finding no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of it's research results to a preconceived agenda... (continued denier whining, foot stomping and gnashing of teeth - film @11:00)

[TimG]

by the way, TimG... you shouldn't be gun-shy about attributing your previous quote to the notorious sly/slick denier "journalist" extraordinaire, Lawrence Solomon

You are a piece of work. I provide a link to the orginal source of the quote and since you can't ad hom the BBC you google around and find Soloman also used the quote and then attempt an ad hom based on that.

It is truely pathetic and I am starting to see why other posters put you on their ignore list.

Edited July 13, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Dr. Stringer’s sense of betrayal is shared by the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, who in an interview with BBC on the Oxburgh report stated “Quite frankly, I couldn’t believe it. …There has been a slight of hand in that the actual terms of reference were not what we had been led to believe.” Other MPs feel as he does

by the way, TimG... you shouldn't be gun-shy about attributing your previous quote to the notorious sly/slick denier "journalist" extraordinaire, Lawrence Solomon

You are a piece of work. I provide a link to the orginal source of the quote and since you can't ad hom the BBC you google around and find Soloman also used the quote and then attempt an ad hom based on that.

It is truely pathetic and I am starting to see why other posters put you on their ignore list.

bullshit! Yours is a direct, verbatim... word for word... quote from that POS Lawrence Solomon's article. Yes... Solomon includes a BBC referenced quote - but your complete quotation is directly from Solomon's article. Your link is to the BBC audio clip... are you really, truly standing on your fake outrage (is there a pattern here?), and claiming your exact quotation came from within that BBC audio clip?

as for pieces of work, yup, it certainly didn't take long to realize you 'front a good game'... once one gets behind your covers, all is very well illuminated.

[TimG]

claiming your exact quotation came from within that BBC audio clip?

The words attributed to Phil Willis came from the BBC audio clip and those are the only words that matter in the quote. The fact that you cannot distiguish between the substance of an argument and irrelevant noise makes any discussion with you extremely tedious.

[waldo]

The words attributed to Phil Willis came from the BBC audio clip and those are the only words that matter in the quote. The fact that you cannot distiguish between the substance of an argument and irrelevant noise makes any discussion with you extremely tedious.

buddy... the tedium is you throwing up a link to an audio and quoting separate from the audio... I wasn't prepared to listen to your linked 6 minute audio clip... so I checked your quote and, surprisingly (ya, ya) it's from Solomon's article. So you quote from Solomon but don't attribute the article/author... which is all I pointed out before you went into your meltdown!

now, equally, within my same post that you replied to I also link/quote from an East Anglia response to that BBC audio clip... you didn't bother to acknowledge that response. You also don't acknowledge my several references to makeup and terms of reference as exist directly within the HOC committee report... the report that Willis co-authored. Did he even read his/the committee's own report? Frankly, can one really give Willis any credence when the mandates of the particular reviews were well established... more to the point, the Russell review mandate has nothing to do with the supposed Willis concerns - those concerns, if they have any actual validity, are applicable to the Oxburgh committee. As you very well know, the Oxburgh review report has been long completed (since April)... what prevented Willis from bringing this same (supposed) concern forward at that time, when the Oxburgh report/exoneration was published? Again, the Russell review terms of reference ensured it wouldn't address Willis' supposed concern?

[Keepitsimple]

As the audio clip said: "In a recent survey, 98 % of Climate Scientists agreed that humans were contributing to warming - the debate is over how much". I believe that most skeptics agree with that statement.....and the debate has always been - and continues to be about "how much".

[waldo]

As the audio clip said: "In a recent survey, 98 % of Climate Scientists agreed that humans were contributing to warming - the debate is over how much". I believe that most skeptics agree with that statement.....and the debate has always been - and continues to be about "how much".

a very legitimate comment... unfortunately, there is little genuine skepticism within MLW climate related threads. Scurrying about and sourcing "denier nuggets" from denier blogs or tabloid newspapers is not legitimate skepticism. Pumping up quote mined commentary while distorting it's context is not genuine skepticism. Denouncing CO2 as the causal link to warming, while offering nothing as a substantive alternative is not legitimate skepticism. Continually fronting refuted science is not genuine skepticism. Going ape-shit crazy over inconsequential IPCC WG2 statements is not legitimate skepticism. Nothing within Hackergate, even if carried through to the wildest wet dream fantasies of Steven McIntyre, has any bearing on the actual science... continuing to pump-up the Hackergate volume is not genuine skepticism. Etc, etc, etc.............

[Keepitsimple]

You are a piece of work. I provide a link to the orginal source of the quote and since you can't ad hom the BBC you google around and find Soloman also used the quote and then attempt an ad hom based on that.

It is truely pathetic and I am starting to see why other posters put you on their ignore list.

I hope you do not put him on ignore just yet........every now and then we're fortunate enough to have a poster who presents some fresh and yes, rational ideas and information. To that extent, Waldo's zeolotry, hubris and outright foul demeanor have proven to be a catalyst in providing a more balanced argument from posters like yourself. Although it may appear that there are only a few posters who participate, you can tell by the number of viewers that the audience is much larger. In that respect, it's important for everyone to be able to express their views and evaluate the views of others. Having said that, Waldo will of course, outlive his usefulness and through a combination of frustration and pity, you'll finally have to put him on IGNORE. It's like putting him out of his misery and actually quite liberating.

[waldo]

Simple... at his pissant whiney best!

hey Simple - how's that debate over climate science progressing? The one you say is finally starting to happen By the way, your DD (denying your denial) and Concern Troll practices do not legitimatize your self-pronounced (but insincere and fake) skeptic designation.

[waldo]

Moncton is a buffoon.

Tim....thanks again for your insights.

hey now! Simple... hasn't the Lawd Monckton been one of your favoured go-to sources? Does this mean you'll no longer quote from Monckton and attribute the falsehoods Monckton perpetuates as a counter to legitimate science? Or do you not agree with your new buddies assessment of Monckton?