Thursday
Apr122012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Lindzen's response to Hoskins et al
Apr 12, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Richard Lindzen's response to the critique of his presentation at the House of Commons last month has been posted at GWPF.
Reader Comments (52)
AK, you came onto this thread after 39 posts and said:
Let's first look back on the 39 posts before you arrived. The first eleven all refered to Richard Lindzen, including mdgnn's lofty dismissal of the man's work and career. Then Rhoda questioned something that I'd said (that I continue to think is very important) about what Lindzen had written about the 'hot spot'. After I'd answered Rhoda, Brownedoff appeared to defend mdgnn by saying that he wasn't able to contribute on the Jones Radiative Transfer thread (which turned out to be wrong, didn't it). After I'd answered that there were eight posts mentioning or discussing Lindzen's paper, including two by myself which quoted him on other important points, in the last of which I mentioned a difference in worldview between Monckton and Lindzen - because I wanted to take a moment on how closely they seem to be working together. After that Brownedoff wanted to talk more about mdgnn (the ultimate diversion for me) and Rhoda wanted to talk about me 'still playing the man' in mentioning Monckton being a Catholic - a very tendentious use of four simple words. I replied to both of those leading to around 13 further posts, of which all seven of mine mention Professor Lindzen. Then two other worthy commenters came in and talked about Lindzen.
That accounts for the 39 posts before you arrived. You've since done six posts that haven't once mentioned Lindzen but do attack me. I've replied six times (including this one), mentioning Lindzen explicitly in five - and in the other his relationship with Monckton remained the focus. I've stuck almost too rigidly with the subject of this thread in 21 posts and you've come in to criticise me without once mentioning it. Then you criticise me again and say:
You haven't once dealt with any points arising from Professor Lindzen's original talk in the House of Commons or his brilliant written defence of it to Hoskins et al. And you accuse me of timewasting. Your diversionary tactics would seem self-evident to all by now.
Richard, I did not attack you. I offered a very mild criticism, which I clearly explained was kindly meant, but you obviously saw this as an attack. I was interested in pursuing our different perspectives as I suspect that this is causing our differences, but if you think I have malign intentions I shall bow out.
I didn't comment on the good professor as I have been an admirer of his for some time and didn't realise that I should not be departing from the subject of the thread.