Querulous & Anonymous,

Re playing the ball and not the man, did I miss your response to Ian's request for you to back up your "senior's moments" allegation? Did it pass through to the keeper, while you were going the man with words like "denialist" and "ambassador" of deny-and-delay brigade?

You are right that Ian can well look after himself, and I see that he has above, admirably. My point is not to defend him, but to expose your shoddy standards, because if this is representative of the practise of the climate science community, it reaffirm my beliefs about its conduct, and I too have the right to say it.

IanC

“A page reference please, or a withdrawal.” That request IanC I consider quite curious when, after a cursory glance, I note that you have written 10 posts on this topic yet provided us with a mere 2 links to substantiate your assertions.

Since you have written under the “Articles” section where the titles of your articles would have one believe that you are an expert on climate change or environmental issues, we “ordinary” punters could be forgiven for thinking that you and Lomborg (both economists) have some expertise in this area.

I, on the other hand, an “ordinary” punter, have written two posts and provided three links and various quotes from reputable scientists, verbatim. I do not presume anything. Therefore, IanC, perhaps you may in future provide us with a few more links to substantiate your own assertions?

I have continued my research of Lomborg’s book which I can only conclude has created much merriment amongst an ethical scientific community who are most eminently qualified to comment - commentators who, (unlike Lomborg who fails to admit to his mistakes), endeavour only to provide clear and careful appraisal of the certainties and uncertainties about climate change, biodiversity, extinctions etc.

And as the respected scientist Daniel Simberloff writes of Lomborg’s book: “That such a polemic could get through the review process of a respected academic press amazes me. There are enough controversial aspects of environmental forecasting, particularly at the global level, that a conscientious, comprehensive, authoritative examination would be a valuable contribution, but The Skeptical Environmentalist is not such a book.”—Daniel Simberloff, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee

Dr Raven:

http://www.discoverlife.org/who/CV/Raven,_Peter.html): “The most recent example of this kind of problem is the work of a Danish economist named Bjorn Lomborg, who reprises many of the earlier misleading, if not outright delusional, conclusions offered earlier by Simon and Easterbrook (1995), among others.

"Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World," has, remarkably, been published by the generally-respected Cambridge University Press, but evidently without critical review from people actually knowledgeable about environmental science.”

http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/Science-reviewer-calls-anti-environmental-book-dangerous-and-misguided-8865-1/

http://www.ecocouncil.dk/download/sceptical.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/577wt8258u5825t6/

ect.ect.

You’ve written two posts, Dickie? On my count you’ve made at least 17 posts to OLO in less than a fortnight: 11 on ‘Bridging the gap between science and political activities’, 4 on ‘Stay rational on climate change’ and 2 on ‘Deadlines just don’t seem to apply to Gunn’s.’

On this thread you described ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ as ‘a load of codswallop’ and claimed that Lomborg had ‘optimistically advised’ in that book ‘that even the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978’ (14 Nov., 11.16 am). YOU GAVE NO PAGE REFERENCE FOR THIS CLAIM. As I’d already used my maximum two posts per day answering points explicitly directed to me by others, I used the ‘Deadlines just don’t seem to apply to Gunn’s’ thread (14 November 3.19 pm) to point out that your statement was wrong: Lomborg had said that 86% of the forest remained intact in 1999 – down from 95% in 1978. I GAVE PAGE REFERENCES FOR THESE STATEMENTS (pps. 114-15).

I’m not prepared to waste my time searching Lomborg’s 500-page book and its 3000 footnotes for a statement that I don’t believe he made. If you believe he did make the statement that you attributed to him, tell me where I can find it and and I’ll comment. If you can’t back up your claim, withdraw it. Until you do one or the other, I won’t be responding to any of your posts

“If you can’t back up your claim, withdraw it. Until you do one or the other, I won’t be responding to any of your posts”

Mr Castles, Why do I get the impression that you are endeavouring to cast aspersions on my integrity? Those who wish to, should first be without sin and I assure you, I never pluck figures from the air. Do you?

If my “1978” figure was incorrect, then you may be interested in going to the source and having them corrected. I’m sure you are quite capable of that.

The Lavoisier Group URL had you publicly listed as one of their members but you quite expeditiously had your name removed from their website.

Bjorn Lomborg’s claim that he was a member of Greenpeace was quickly exposed as fallacious since Greenpeace said he wasn’t, therefore, I do not believe you are in a position to defame my character:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:X40c_eSy3XUJ:www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist+Amazon+forest+still+retains+more+than+80%25+of+its+cover+in+1978+bjorn+lomborg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

Furthermore, you and your small “exclusive” clique, continue to sing the praises of Lomborg whilst head butting his dissenters. Of course, most of the hyperactive Lomborg's quotes allude to secondary literature and media articles, however, you appear quite determined in assuring us, that if one receives peer reviews of one’s work, then that should be sufficient to silence any dissent over the author’s credibility.

Curiously, I note that you, along with the usual suspects, Carter, Lindzen, Henderson et al, co-authored a paper: “The Stern Review.” On a page not far from commencement was the following insertion:

“It is widely assumed, in particular by governments
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
that the peer review process provides a guarantee of quality and objectivity.

”This is not so.

“We note that the process as applied to climate science
has tolerated gross failures in due disclosure and archiving,
and that peer review is both too inbred and insufficiently
thorough to serve any audit purpose, which we believe is
now essential for science studies that are to be used to drive
trillion-dollar policies.”

Do you run with the hares and hunt with the hounds Mr Castles?

Heaven help us. Could one of the more intelligent AGW-ers perhaps have a word in dickie's ear on even the elementals of public discourse and academic prdocedure. That way he/she may possibly have a chance of taking in the following, and we might be spared these pitiful responses. That is:

It is simply absurd, not to say self-important, to ask someone to find and correct a quote for which you have not given a reference. If I say Freud said he had "monkeys flying out his behind", would you go away and find this quote and check it for me please, dickie? It may take you some time, but no rush.

To then defensively attack the other (who HAS given you a reference) for supposedly defaming YOUR character and refusing to provide the source simply screams of guilt or error. You are embarrassing yourself on this thread, in what seems to be becoming quite a pattern (see Poynter exchange).

"It is simply absurd, not to say self-important, to ask someone to find and correct a quote for which you have not given a reference."

My dear Funguschumley

Please get a grip on yourself. I have provided not one but TWO references. These references will be obvious to all participants, with the exception of illiterate screeching henchmonkeys, who swing from thread to thread, intent on causing mischief.

Cheers