On November 11 in this forum, Q&A accused former Australian Statistician Ian Castles of having had a few "seniors moments" lately. Behind what may appear to be an innocent, "politically correct" remark - and this is characteristic of Q&A's style - is a highly defamatory insinuation. To the best of my knowledge, despite repeated requests, Q&A has yet to substantiate this statement, or even point out the "moments" to which he was referring. A good scientist would substantiate or retract, a decent person might even consider apologizing.

I draw readers' attention to this, as it may help them assess the worth of his recent - and again unsubstantiated - statement regarding Richard Lindzen* and others having "issues". It may also help them to assess the merit of what Q&A generally contributes here.

* Note that Q&A - whoever he is - refers to Professor Lindzen, Chair of Meteorology at MIT, as "Dick", in the way a minor film extra who once handed Hitchcock a donut might subsequently feel entitled to refer to him as "Alfie".

Bennie, Richard Lindzen will tell you "who these 'vested interests' are" at http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf

Bronwyn, "balance" doesn't mean equal time for all. If OLO gives "warmists" plenty of time to state their case but finds it gets a greater number of convincing articles from sceptics, then the number of articles should reflect this.

rpg

Global warming does not mean “each year would get successively warmer” or “every year gets hotter and hotter”.

You have said you are a good engineer. If so, the comments above show a lack of understanding of trend analysis and time series statistics, let alone science.

Sorry folks - all off topic.

fungochumley (I don't care who you are) ... it seems you are harassing me on a thread before I had even posted to it.

You don’t like my comments on OLO and therefore throw tantrums.

If you don’t agree with OLO’s privacy policy I suggest you take it up with Graham Young.

By the way you are behaving, if I did tell you who I was then I would have to take out a restraining order as well – seriously.

As to your off-topic remark, just because you don’t understand my reference to ‘senior moments’ (memories of the Appeals Court Xtrata judgement wrt Bob Carter and statistics doesn’t mean others don’t.

Most people who are at all familiar with the scientific community understand that while some of us disagree about the minutiae, we more than often agree about the bigger picture.

It doesn’t mean we go all ‘huffy-puffy’ and adopt a formal salutatory position (we are still from the same fraternity, so to speak) unless we are communicating in the professional sphere and parlance.

I have always called Richard ‘Dick’ – he doesn’t object, why should you?

You will never understand the science fungo.

Dick Lindzen’s work on IRIS is commendable ... but it does have serious issues that need to be addressed – and good luck to him.

My apologies for clearly posting my last comment to the wrong thread – this was unintentional - although it hardly matters, as the debate generally gravitates to the same issues regardless of the article.

Q&A, I see no evidence of throwing a tantrum. As for you, well…

“The way you are behaving...”?

What? Asking in a public online forum that you substantiate defamatory swipes? Heavens! So threatened is Q&A that he interprets such a request as evidence of harassment and possibly physical assault. This in itself is baseless, pathetic, hostile and a manipulative attempt to “create” an enemy, which appears to be your whole MO. You can fantasise about a ‘restraining order’ to protect yourself from inquiring scrutiny if you wish Q&A, but it says a lot about your mentality, and the insular “fraternity” to which you say you belong. I wonder if Socrates ever considered such an option.

You say you don’t care who I am, and that I’m not a major player, but for someone presumably on the public purse, you seem to spend a lot of time arguing with a nobody like me. If I wasn’t, of course, I’d be put in the ‘vested interests’ category, such is the AGW game. Damned if you are, damned if you aren’t.

Thank you for at least shedding some - not much - light on what you believe were IanC’s “seniors moments”. I see no evidence that others know what you were referring to but I keep forgetting you’re omniscient. Perhaps you could have written those thorough nine words in the first place and avoided some of what you perceive as harassment.

Alas, it is still insubstantial and inappropriate. From what I read, YOU referred to the Xtrata judgment AFTER the accusation of seniors moments. In your world, it thus appears that anyone who doesn’t know, well, everything, including every judge’s ruling, every statement ever made on climate, and every episode of Seinfeld, is guilty by omission of having “seniors moments”. This is not my understanding of the expression and is a deceitful and defamatory use of it.

Cont...

...Or is it just exemplary of your grasp of logic? IanC goes on to say succinctly that he has not read the judge’s assessment and that it’s not on his reading list. So how should he have memories of it? But no acknowledgement or apology has been forthcoming.

Q&A: “You will never understand the science, fungo.”

A characteristically grandiose statement, but in this case probably true, mainly because I don’t believe there is such a thing as “the science”, which is essentially used by fundamentalist AGWers as a substitute for “the Truth”, and which if you so much as question makes you a heathen or in denial. I certainly won’t ever fully understand all of it, (your enlightened guru Al Gore says it could never all fit in a single human brain!) and would be saddened to lose the curiosity that would come with such omniscience. Are you suggesting you do? In which case we can disband the IPCC and just get you to run the show. (Paging Dr Stalin…) Moreover, I believe “the science” can only help us so far. There is more to it than “the science”.

If by Lindzen’s “issues”, you mean that he continues to work in his field, still has question marks, why not just say so. I have no problem - that is science - but as usual your language insinuated something else, and your comment remains unclarified. Could you elaborate on what those issues are? Enlighten us with your science in the name of public interest.

No, it seems you think you understand “the science”, but don’t seem to understand science itself, which is about humble enquiry, or have lost sight of it in your pursuit of something else. If you are endeavouring to convince me of anything other than your insecurity and lax academic standards, you are doing very poorly. And if this makes you feel entitled to be protected and left alone to make unsubstantiated defamatory statements, then I suggest you make them somewhere other than a democratic public forum.