Breathe, reply.

àƒÆ’àanàƒÆ’à‹Å“, also called Dan0.

As an aside, I’ve left because I got the answer I was looking for (dont rely on the dendro reconstructions, at least not yet), and because I’ve decided that Steve is very bright and very good and I don’t trust his honesty.

Lee, with a conclusion that has merits.

Apparently, Steve, for you speculation trumps evidence whenever it allows you to make accusations against climate scientists.

Tom Curtis asks, with yet another critical comment that did not appear in my RSS feed.

Notice the reply: “Can you give me a page reference to the triptych in Lamb 1988 or are you just throwing a spitball against the wall?”

You’ve Been Getting sloppy

[faustusnotes has some interesting things to say about arrogance and verbal abuse.]

RomanM, if you want me to drop the arrogant and abusive manner, try associating yourself with a blog that doesn’t accuse other people of f*** and incompetence. A well-mannered post saying “I don’t understand what Lewandowsky did” is very different to a vicious post saying (and I quote)

Read More



A first post at Michael’s, telling the story how I came to distinguish between two stances: good ol’ skepticism and something new to me that I will call incredibilism.

While the organ grinder refuses to admit his instrument is badly out of tune (#80), there seems little point in staying around just to listen to the squealing of his monkeys.

Tom P, not staying around in spite of a collegial welcome by the CA crowd.

You can’t be serious.

Steve, perhaps being serious.

I don’t think it is entirely fair to get quite so exercised about what a 10-minute talk (to a coffee-house-style meeting of journalists — we aren’t talking about congressional testimony here) was not about.

Myles Allen, noticing Steve’s trick.

Hantemirov Responds

[Steve believes that this comment is genuine.]

Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work.

Read More


Older posts RSS