Cool it …

I wrote the following paragraph in a previous piece on fanatics and the subtle perils of prolonged contact with them –

There is also an insidious danger to this sort of interaction with them; you start to get imprinted by them. If you’re not careful, you soon start to take on the same fanatical traits that you’re fighting, which is an even worse outcome. If you look, you’ll see this has happened at some of the more combative blogs on global warming. If the point of blogging is to inform and persuade, then it’s readily apparent that such vicious gladiatorial displays will quickly alienate the average person. It’s for this reason and a lack of proper moderation, that so many once highly respected blogs, have become PR liabilities in the fight against eco-fascism.

The beef this time around is about a special edition of a rather obscure journal called Pattern Recognition in Physics which covered some different theories regarding aspects of climate, and resulted in the publisher closing it down after what appears to have been some prodding from what passes as establishment figures in climate science. The reasons given for the closure have evolved as the ripples from it have escalated to tsunami proportions.

As a strong believer in the benefits of freedom of expression, that is the real issue here and the fundamental one.

I have not read the papers in question and whether they have merit or are seriously flawed is totally irrelevant. It’s also just as irrelevant whether you agree with their conjectures or not. Closing down publications because you don’t like what’s in them is what usually comes before getting around to burning books, and as Heinrich Heine remarked, burning people is what comes after that.

The best response to such draconian censorship is Christopher Monckton’s initiative of taking over publication of the journal. He is to be commended for such direct and courageous action. Whether the journal thrives or not is an imponderable but if the ideas contained within it are likely to cause similar furores, I say good. It’s about time controversial ideas came in from the cold and back into serious science journals. Get some articles in from people like Swiss patent clerks with nothing but an average teaching qualification. Who knows, I might even consider subscribing to a science periodical again.

As a blogger, I made a decision right from the word go to only cover the political, infowar, economic and human cost of what can only be described as the cult of global warming. The critiques of the underlying science are well catered for by other blogs. As far as I’m concerned, that science was debagged years ago and that was done despite the chronic withholding of data, methods or indeed any cooperation. The work the two Macs did on deconstructing Mann’s hockey stick paper gave a whole new meaning to the words forensic science. When any scientist in any field does everything in their power to prevent replication of their research, the inescapable conclusion to be drawn is that they’re up to no good.

In a certain sense, I don’t give a damn about the science because that’s a battle we’ve already won but there’s a new liability attached to reaching that position. The average person doesn’t understand science, so they operate on the traditional basis of picking out which knowledgeable people to trust. They look at the person and make a judgement of them rather than the science. We’ve come a long way in the last five years and with the emerging breakthrough into the mainstream media of what used to be viewed as sceptical and contrary ideas, we’ve made real progress.

What I really do give a damn about is a bunch of people, who whether they like it or not, now have a leadership responsibility, and have decided to squander it by indulging in a not too subtle hissy fit of handbagging each other all over the blogosphere. We’ve all disgraced ourselves occasionally and to paraphrase Peter Clemenza, these things have to happen once in a while if only to get rid of the bad blood, but when you see creatures like William Connolly joining in on one side, you know it’s gone too far. Much too far.

As a person who writes blogs and leaves comments on other people’s blogs, I understand only too well how difficult that can be when you disagree, but I do try to restrain my first impulses in both terms of my intent and most especially how it’s expressed. It’s all too easy to write something you think as being superficially innocuous but which has a bigger emotional impact on the recipient than you ever intended. I dropped a comment on this debate at Anthony’s site, which though it disagreed with some aspects of his piece, was still civil and I hope lucid.

It’s neither my place or within my capabilities to act as some sort of class monitor of unruly school children nor to stand in judgement of various competing scientific theories, but I definitely have the right to voice my concerns when I see people engaging in behaviour which is likely to undermine the time and effort I’ve put into fighting what I consider to be eco-fascism. I put my time in, a lot of it, and am not going to stand mutely by when all that work is being indirectly devalued by influences outside of my control. Again, quoting from the same article –

I credit the common man with having common sense and while they may not be too bothered or interested in the latest subtle arguments, they can definitely spot a nutter, so it’s up to you to expose the fanatic as one. If you can do that, you’ve not only nullified the fanatic but you’ve also discredited whatever policies they’re advocating.

What’s at risk here is not your pet science theory. It’s the growing trust in you. If we allow ourselves the luxury of habitually throwing vicious internecine temper tantrums whenever we like, we’ll get tagged as squabbling nutters by the ordinary person, and then it’s back to the scientific fringe you all go, and I for one refuse to accompany you there.

Think about it carefully the next time, it’s your choice.


Related articles by Pointman:

Some thoughts on fanatics and how to fight them.

What I’m going to say will upset a few people.

How climategate destroyed the science of global warming.

Click for a list of other articles.

43 Responses to “Cool it …”
  1. greynotmad says:

    Although I agree that most of what you have said is emminently true, unlike Shakespeare I do like the way you have set it down.

    I however feel you are too benevolent to the forces of censorship as recently practised by the ABC and the Climate Commission. They do not poo poo arguments they just erase them. Fortunately the Government has now erased the Climate Commission and I hope they soon reform the ABC.

    Shaw said that all progress depends on the unreasonable man and he was right at the time – but we have since so altered the meaning of unreasonable that it no longer fits. In this age all progress depends on hearing the views of “Contrarians” and if we silence those views we will disappear as a civilisation.


  2. Blackswan says:


    For decades we’ve been relentlessly harangued by the Green lobby and politicians who have justified every spurious pronouncement on AGW with the fact that “it’s been peer reviewed” so it simply must be true.

    Rubbish! Unless complete data sets have been available for such a ‘review’ to replicate the findings of such claims made in published hypotheses, they are worthless. On what grounds do one’s “peers” review scientific claims? That the author is a ‘good bloke’? That I play golf with him every week and he has a decent handicap? We were in college together and listened to the same lecturers? He’s married to my wife’s cousin?

    Has data been rounded up to ‘keep things simple’, or cherry-picked or deleted altogether? Are weather stations located in appropriate sites; have half the world’s weather stations simply disappeared? Have the IPCC endorsed the claims of papers written by students or worse, written by the footsoldiers of climate NGOs looking to feather their funding nests?

    From my perspective, this issue has always been about politics, AGW-justified Ponzi schemes from main chance carpetbaggers, about organised crime, bribery and corruption. It’s been about the degradation of our children’s education, to the point they are easily indoctrinated because they can’t see that “carbon pollution” is not the same thing as carbon dioxide. It’s about once-revered scientific institutions trading their scientific integrity for funding; mainstream media becoming nothing more than publishers of press releases from the AGW cultists; it’s about wealth transfer and “Marxism masquerading as Socialism” as our Prime Minister once rightly said.

    To close a publication down entirely because somebody startled the horses is overkill of the worst kind. I’ve heard such behaviour excused by saying “These people have families to raise, mortgages to pay, their livelihoods to protect – they simply have to do as they’re told.” Whatever floats your boat – for now.

    The last time I saw a clash of egos on such a scale was on the wall of a schoolyard ablutions block – it was messy and did nobody any credit.


  3. NoFixedAddress says:

    Dear Pointman,

    Don’t be too disappointed with this controversy.

    That someone like William Connolly can raise the issue of “peer review” at this stage merely indicates the clutching at straws phase of the movement he favours.

    Rather, follow the fight for hearts and minds currently being waged in Australia at the moment.

    Don Aitkin, former vice chancellor of the University of Canberra, responded to a critic of sceptic Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council.

    That critic is Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb.

    and check Don Aitkin’s blog at

    Please continue blogging on ‘the political, infowar, economic and human cost of what can only be described as the cult of global warming’.

    As an old fashioned auditor I have been amazed at the development of post-normal accounting that appears to have been used to justify investment decisions in the cult of global warming.

    All the best for 2014.


  4. johanna says:

    While your remarks are eminently sensible, I wouldn’t worry too much about the impact of blogwars. The general public does not read climate blogs. If you interviewed the next 200 people walking down the street in your local shopping centre, it would be surprising if even one of them had heard a thing about this storm in the climate wars teacup.

    As for the journal being closed down – it’s a privately owned publication and the owners can do whatever they please with it. Their reasons may be shoddy or dishonourable, but so what? Others are free to start journals based on different principles.


    • NoFixedAddress says:

      Totally agree


    • Mindert Eiting says:

      ‘it’s a privately owned publication and the owners can do whatever they please with it’. Don’t agree Johanna. Substitute house for publication and you say that a Landlord can do whatever he wants even if you live in that house. Perhaps you had a contract? Similarly, Copernicus had an agreement with editors and they committed breach of contract. My arguments are at NTZ. Agree that this is a storm in a teacup if that teacup is the blogosphere only.


      • johanna says:

        I can’t see any way that the relationship between a landlord and a tenant resembles what we are discussing.


      • NoFixedAddress says:

        ‘Don’t agree Johanna. Substitute house for publication and you say that a Landlord can do whatever he wants even if you live in that house. Perhaps you had a contract?’

        Well obviously, in this case, the publisher knew the contracts and shut it down.

        Was it right?

        Was it wrong?

        Take it to a court of law in the jurisprudence.

        And, from what you are saying, there is no excuse for any person or organisation to withhold data!

        But maybe you refer to post-normal law?


      • Mindert Eiting says:

        Johanna and Nofixedaddress: the freedom of expression of a board of editors and the commercial interests of a publisher are settled in a contract, an editorial statute or an agreement. A publisher cannot kick out his editors if they did not violate their contract, in the same way as a Landlord cannot kick out his tenants if they did not violate a contract. The PRP editors did not violate their agreement with Copernicus, and therefore Copernicus broke a contract by terminating the journal. Copernicus could not do what he wanted. This is not post-normal law but Contract Law existing for ages in civilized societies. Can you think of a better example of rule of the jungle in order to suppress the freedom of expression?


  5. NoFixedAddress says:

    Further to the hearts and mind battle in Australia check out this article by Terry McCrann who is the sharpest real business commentator in Australia today….


  6. Martin A says:

    I was appalled at the lynch-mob characteristics of the comments on PRP on WattsUpWithThat.

    It reminded me of how religious zealots hate another sect of the same religion far more intensely than they hate devotees of a completely different religion.


  7. hunter says:

    Well said. You are covering and discussing better what I believe is the core issue of AGW: ts social dysfunction. It is as if we living through the emergence of a new religion, and its god is young and potentially dangerous; certainly naive and foolish.


  8. Almost Iowa says:

    The only way to talk to a crazy person – is to speak calmly. What you say is irrelevant, only your tone matters. I think we all know this.

    You cannot talk someone out of climate hysteria with reason just as you cannot talk a child out of a nightmare. These things simply must run their course. All you need do to speed the process, is speak calmly and reasonably. In time, as the irrationality of hysteria unravels, the calm, reasonable voice becomes a refuge.

    I certainly do not want to dismiss the hard work and saintly patience of the skeptical blogsphere but the climate debate was lost by eco-fanatics, not won by skeptics. The people of the world are waking from a nightmare and do not need to be told that the monster under the bed was a dream. Neither do they need to be told they were foolish. All they need at this point is a calm and rational voice of reason to welcome them back to reality.


    • NoFixedAddress says:

      ‘The only way to talk to a crazy person – is to speak calmly’ and back away slowly without ever taking your eye off them!


      • Almost Iowa says:

        Well… there is that too. 🙂

        On the other hand, everyone is a little crazy in their own way. People are prone to anger, angst and hysterics and you cannot back away from all of them. It is best to be the anchor of reason and let nature do its thing.


  9. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Pointman does it in style. Great piece on freedom of ideas and speech and the dangers of hyperargumentation.


  10. Katabasis says:

    Great post Pointman as usual.

    I have to agree with some of the other commenters here too. I couldn’t quite believe what I was seeing over at WUWT over the last few days. Especially as so many of the hostile commenters appeared to have forgotten the chronology – that the accusations of “nepotism” wrt the editorial policy appeared to have come as an afterthought, tacked on after what was clearly the main point of dispute: that someone in the journal dared dispute AGW catastrophism.


  11. Truthseeker says:


    My increasing problem with WUWT is that they are exhibiting the same characteristics as the alarmists when they encounter counter arguments to their own chosen dogma. I have had perfectly polite and relevant comments removed from WUWT because of this. I have seen Willis being the attack dog and make a complete fool of himself scientifically speaking doing it. They point out the hypocrisy in other peoples behaviour and refuse to see the hypocrisy in their own.

    This whole exercise was a grudge attack against Tallbloke and they played right into the alarmists hands by falling for their three card trick and misdirection. As you say if William Connolly agrees with you, double check everything you are saying.


    • johanna says:

      The man-god Willis was rude to you? Surely not, and no doubt the thousands of flabby would-be-if-they-could-be fantasists who love him would agree.

      Hilary Ostrov and I got into a bare knuckle fight with darling Willis once on WUWT. We won on points. He made such a fool of himself that Anthony had to close down the thread.


    • hunter says:

      Willis is a very complicated person, and Anthony is likely going to have to rethink giving Willis so much sway over what is said at WUWT.


  12. greynotmad says:

    On Sunday 26 January 2014 we will celebrate 226th Birthday of the greatest experiment in human settlement in the History of the modern world.

    We like to call it Australia Day, although the first settlement was called New South Wales, and we are very proud of what we have achieved in only 226 years.

    Unfortunately there are always knockers and troublemakers and Australia Day usually brings them out of the woodwork. They are usually ill-informed and are blindly following a few ideologues who want to destroy the achievements but have no sensible idea of how it could be replaced with something better.

    However when our Tertiary Education system presents misinformation into the public arena in the guise of fact it must not be allowed to go unchallenged.
    Some weeks ago The Chancellor of the Australian National University welcomed Professor Tim Flannery to give the Annual ANU Reconciliation Lecture. He Introduced Professor Flannery as a former Australian of the Year and as the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission.

    The misinformation began right there. Professor Flannery and his fellow Commissioners were terminated by the incoming Federal Government in September 2013. In defiance Flannery formed the Independent Climate Council which has no official authority or funding.

    There is always a danger when Academics encroach into spheres beyond their training or understanding and Professor Flannery has taken a step too far. Nothing in his studies of Mammalogy and Palaeontology, or even navigating the Murray River, or pontificating on Global Warming is remotely connected to Constitutional Law, Land Tenure or War History. Yet this doyen of twisted leftist ideology has possibly set back the cause of Aboriginal Australians like no other person in our history.

    Many of you have heard of the Mabo Case regarding land rights for the Meriam people from the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait. The Case came before the High Court of Australia in 1982. The factors were Continuous Settlement, Terra Nullius, and extinguishment of land rights by conflict. The High Court held that the Meriam people had continuously settled the Murray Islands from before 1788 to the present day and had not been dispossessed of their land by conflict. They were therefore entitled to land rights.

    The then Federal Government legislated to give the same rights granted to the Meriam people to the various tribes on the Australian Mainland. They used specious arguments like a misdescription of Terra Nullius to justify their legislation. They did not listen to the Historians and pastoralists who said “Hey wait a minute, if the land was taken by armed conflict then ALL LAND RIGHTS ARE EXTINGUISHED”.

    Now this great Australian guru (on all things outside mammalogy) says “that the aboriginal people fought and died defending their lands and people against white settlers are ignored by the Australian War Memorial. In any other war they would have been awarded a Victoria Cross.”

    First if Flannery is right about the armed conflicts then much of the land rights awarded to various tribes of Aboriginals should not have been awarded. Then he likens them to the 300 Spartans who held off the Persians (No Spartan to my knowledge had land rights granted against the Persians). Then he talks about the Victoria Cross which can only be awarded for valour “in the face of the enemy” to members of the armed forces of various Commonwealth countries, and previous British Empire territories.
    Even if the Aboriginal warriors fought with valour they fought AGAINST the forces of the British Empire Territories and were therefore not eligible.

    I hope his foolish man has not endangered the native title of Aboriginal Australians and I sincerely hope he ceases his frequent incursions into spheres beyond his comprehension.


  13. The science should stand or fall on its own merits.

    If the papers concerned can be shown to be wrong, then they should be withdrawn

    End of story.


  14. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Pointman, while in general I agree with you, and your blog is one I read often, my problem is that given the papers in the Special Issue, if I ran Copernicus I would have closed down that edition in a hot second, for both scientific and business reasons.

    The problem is the science is execrable. The reason is the authors and editors all pal-reviewed each others’ papers, gave them an A+, and published them. The result is garbage.

    Facing that, if I ran Copernicus I see little option other than to shut it down. A publisher of scientific journals cannot afford to become known as a place where editors and authors give papers an easy pass. (They might do it in secret, but they cannot afford to become known for doing it.) That would be lethal to their business model.

    Copernicus also can’t afford to be associated with publishing numerology masquerading as science … and unfortunately, yes, some of the papers truly are that bad, Pointman.

    So for both scientific and business reasons, I would have voted to close it down, cut the losses, and move on.

    Now, was that their reason? I don’t know. I know they objected to the conclusions the authors drew, but so did I. Not because the authors questioned the consensus, but because they just waved their hands and said in essence “our pile of 19 papers shows that the IPCC claims are wrong, so there”. The authors didn’t say which IPCC claims, or which papers disproved those specific claims. If I were a reviewer, I’d never let that kind of unreferenced vague handwaving pass muster.

    Finally, in an amazing action, the editors did not require the archiving of data as used and code as used as a requirement of publication. As a result, some of the papers in the Special Issue cannot be replicated, and are therefore nothing more than advertisements for the self-proclaimed brilliance of the authors. Copernicus can’t afford to become known for publishing un-replicable results

    Note that a number of these issues, such as the nepotistic appointment of reviewers and the failures of the editors to insure replicability of the studies were in direct contravention of written guidelines for editors and peer reviewers … did you expect the Copernicus folks to ignore that?

    So you see, Pointman, although my reasons may be different from those of Copernicus, for both business and scientific reasons I agree with the actions of Copernicus, and I strongly disagree with the authors vague, grandstanding claim regarding the IPCC. My best advice to them would have been shut it down and move on. I don’t see that half-measures would have been enough.

    Now it’s easy to proclaim that freedom of ideas is the only issue here … but this is the real world, where things never turn out as we expect. Curiously, their ideas have gained much more prominence than they ever would have had the magazine not been shut down … so if this was an attempt to squelch an opposing view, it was singularly unsuccessful …

    Me, I don’t think it was that at all. I think it was a cold, sober, calculated daylight business decision by Copernicus, and I’d have done the same. The editors and authors signed up to play in the pool, knowing well what the pool rules were. Then they smashed the rules to bits, broke them wherever they could. Now you think I should be upset when the lifeguard throws them out of the pool?

    Anyhow, that’s my view. As I said above, you have a great blog, and a respected voice in the dialog, and for good reason.

    All the best,



    • hunter says:

      Your argument does not hold up, and your reaction to this was beneath you. You have acted at least as intolerantly in this case as you have accused others on the AGW believer side of treating you. This is worse even than your out of line reaction to Dr. Spencer. You are respected by many and for good reason. This behavior by you is not one of those reasons.


      • Willis Eschenbach says:

        Pointman, in response to what I’d call an opportunity for a rational discussion of the issues, you say

        Cool it …

        Thank you for taking the time to answer in such a thoughtful and detailed manner.



      • Pointman says:


        One day an employee came into work with both of his ears bandaged.
        His boss asked him what happened to his ears?.

        “Yesterday I was ironing a shirt, when the phone rang and I accidentally answered the iron instead of the phone!”

        “Well,” the boss said, “that explains one ear, but what about the other?”

        “They called back!”



      • Willis Eschenbach says:

        Dang, Pointman, sounds like you work in an interesting place. How come nothing funny like that ever happens where I work?



    • Pointman says:

      Cool it …



    • Willis Eschenbach says:

      hunter, you say:

      Willis,Your argument does not hold up, and your reaction to this was beneath you. You have acted at least as intolerantly in this case as you have accused others on the AGW believer side of treating you. This is worse even than your out of line reaction to Dr. Spencer. You are respected by many and for good reason. This behavior by you is not one of those reasons.

      It is not possible to answer this kind of accusation, as it doesn’t contain any specifics to identify what you are (perhaps rightly) upset about.

      Let me ask of you what I ask of everyone, which is to quote my words that you object to, and tell me why you object to them.

      I asked the same of truthseeker below, and when you answered that, again you made accusations without a scrap of information to let me know what you are upset about.

      The devil is indeed in the details. Waving your hands and telling me my actions were “beneath me” is meaningless to me, hunter, unless you identify the precise words that you think were wrong. How can I change my behavior when you don’t tell me EXACTLY where you think I went wrong by QUOTING MY EXACT WORDS.


      PS—Without even the courtesy of an email from Dr. Roy, who I have met and admire, for some unknown reason he publicly accused me of plagiarism by not properly crediting ideas that were not mine. Perhaps you might be courteous in the face of to such a groundless personal attack. I hope you never have to find out. I was as courteous as I could be when wrongly savaged in that fashion. In fact, had he done his homework he would have found what I had to point out to him, that I had indeed credited Ramanathan for his ideas. It’s all in the record, his accusation of plagiarism was wrong. Never apologized either … ah, well, I still respect him.


  15. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Truthseeker says:
    January 24, 2014 at 11:15 pm

    I have seen Willis being the attack dog and make a complete fool of himself scientifically speaking doing it.

    I do get tired of this kind of vague handwaving accusations. If you have a scientific objection to my work, how about identifying it? I’m happy to discuss it. All you’re doing above is throwing mud.



    • hunter says:

      Willis, it is not the science, and it is certainly not your great narrative writing. It is that when you get upset you lose a certain amount of perspective, shoot first and skip asking questions later. You expect some credit for good faith in your motives and work. However, twice now I have seen you not extend the same to others who are on the same side of the climate issue as you. And your following at WUWT is small and loyal and acts to further inflame things. This lack of perspective can ultimately damage your useful large body of work, when you make a mistake, which is inevitable for mere mortals. As well as bring disrepute to skeptics in general.


      • Steven Mosher says:

        1. How did he lose perspective. He has a very consistent perspective on how science should be done. These guys did not live up to it. Perhaps you think he should have considered other factors. like what.

        2. What questions did he miss? Seems to me he was and is spot on. He read the papers as I did. Found mistakes as I did, and then asks the rational question.. How did this happen?

        3. You bring up sides of the debate. Willis is on his own side. Not skeptic, not warmist, but heretic. guess what He gets to be that way.

        Here is what I think. Many people come to this debate and they dont care how they beat the warmists, they only care that they are beaten. Anything for the cause.

        Willis is different. He’s got some principles. For the most part he sticks to them

        Lets take his demand to Judith that she “call out” the climategate team and “disown” them

        you’ve never criticized him for that.

        Now, he sees these guys pulling similar stunts. True to his principles he calls them out.

        Willis did the very first FOIA to get data. These guys dont share data. he calls them out
        Willis shares code. These guys dont. he calls them out.
        Willis writes to science magazine ( or was it nature) demanding they follow their own damn rules.
        He calls these guys out for violating their own rules.

        Guess what happens when you put principles before personalities?

        you piss people off who think you should change your principles to suit their personal failings


  16. NikFromNYC says:

    Tony fucked up. Now cut the curiously imperfect weatherman-turned-science-cop some slack, for he is no hack. He understands war, instinctually, and supports the generals he still usefully commands, in that war, as he locally needs to do.


  17. DirkH says:

    What, no Nietzsche?
    When you stare long enough into the abbyss the abbyss stares into you.
    He who fights monsters better take good care to not become a monster himself.


  18. DirkH says:

    Willis Eschenbach:
    “Now, was that their reason? I don’t know. I know they objected to the conclusions the authors drew, but so did I. Not because the authors questioned the consensus, but because they just waved their hands and said in essence “our pile of 19 papers shows that the IPCC claims are wrong, so there”.”

    This is very interesting. Because Willis Eschenbach is known to constantly say “Quote my exact words, don’t pretend I said something I didn’t say.”

    Obviously Willis Eschenbach himself does not think this applies to himself as well.



    • Katabasis says:

      I was thinking along similar lines Dirk –

      “Not because the authors questioned the consensus, but because they just waved their hands and said in essence “our pile of 19 papers shows that the IPCC claims are wrong, so there””

      – They did?


    • Willis Eschenbach says:

      DirkH says:
      January 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm

      … This is very interesting. Because Willis Eschenbach is known to constantly say “Quote my exact words, don’t pretend I said something I didn’t say.”

      Obviously Willis Eschenbach himself does not think this applies to himself as well.

      I absolutely think this applies to me. My problem was, I thought you folks had been following the story and would be familiar with the quote, as it’s been all over the blogosphere at this point. My bad.

      To rectify that, here is their quote:

      Several papers have addressed the question about the evolution
      of climate during the 21st century. Obviously, we are on
      our way into a new grand solar minimum. This sheds serious
      doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming
      as claimed by the IPCC project.

      Now, they have not identified either:

      a) what IPCC claims they are talking about, nor

      b) which papers have “shed serious doubt” on those specific claims, nor

      c) what it is in those papers that is doing the doubt-shedding, nor

      d) which papers show that we are “on our way to a new grand solar minimum, nor

      e) why their unidentified papers (whichever they are) addressing “the question about the evolution of the climate in the 21st century” should be considered any better than any of the dozens of papers in the IPCC report that make the same overblown claim, that they can predict the climate of the upcoming century. Do you buy that, that their papers in the Special Issue have put the question of the 21st century climate to rest?

      As a result of the absolutely vague nature of their claim, all that they are saying is “our pile of paper beats your pile of paper”, without the slightest effort to specify what they are talking about at either end of the scale, their own work or the IPCCs. They just say, our work puts your work in doubt …

      The part that seems to have escaped people is that their statement is scientifically meaningless because it is far too vague to be falsified. As such has no place in such a Special Issue, and particularly not as an overall conclusion. It is nothing but a hubristic boast, without anywhere near the specificity needed to make it a scientific statement.

      My best to you,



  19. Ron Sinclair says:

    At the end of the day guys, I say there are two “must read’s” for me on a weekly basis on the climate issues. Pointman and Willis Eschenbach. They both make an excellent contribution in my view. Willis on the science and Pointman on strategy.
    This controversy and the fingerpointing needs to die down and let folks get back to work on the main issue of defeating the warmists.
    As Willis would say – my best to you all.


Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Cool it … | Pointman’s. […]


  2. […] Unsurprisingly the dubious attempts to silence the publication have met with loud and harsh objections, see here, here, here, here and here. […]


  3. […] Vůbec nepřekvapuje, že pochybné pokusy o umlčení publikace narazily na hlasité a příkré námitky, viz zde, zde, zde, zde a zde. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: