I never met Hitler, either, but I believe he was a thoroughly unpleasant chap.

That 35 was more an indication of my strength of feeling about climate science, it doesn't equate to a numeric number of them. I believe there's only a handful of bad-uns, and some of them are not bad just mistaken.

Hitler! Oh boy! His character and position in history have been exhaustively analysed; you don't have to have known him to learn about him. In contrast, your favorite daemons (let me guess, Jones, Mann, Hansen) are private people about whom you probably know next to nothing that you haven't learnt from an interested party. I doubt you have any solid independent evidence of wrongdoing (don't start on emails; I'm not interested).

Your score of 35 out of 100 for the whole of climate science is odd if it derives from a "handful of bad-uns". There are thousands of scientists working in climate science. In comparison, the prevalence of psychopathy has been estimated at about 1% of the population. So by that measure, your opinion of the population at large must be a fair way along your scumminess scale. Either, as I suspect, you exaggerate your true feelings for effect (it wouldn't be acceptable on BH to express anything other than disdain for scientists), or the rest of us have reason to be concerned how you view us, should we ever meet.

Sorry, BB I have no issues with your contributions normally, but you are borderline trolling now... just trying to get people to bite.

If you want to expand this argument I suggest you start your own discussion topic then try to use a method of debate that gets the results you want (i.e. add value) whether that be confrontation or cooperation...

What more is historical analysis of Hitler other than a bunch of people telling me their opinion? If a lot of them agree, and the facts they present tie in with what i can personally verify, I believe them. SO it is here.

Anyway, I didn't say I disliked them personally, as you say I don't know them. By that system, everybody should start at 50, neither liking nor disliking due to no information, so my 35-40 is only a mild distaste. I give climate science a score, not the individuals. Apart from Mann, who has earned a measure of despite all of his own.

You see to be getting unusually het up about this.

I don't need to justify why I don't like climate science any more than you have to justify liking it. Everyone goes with their instincts, and my instinct is that climate science is performing below par. This wasn't just from CG, it comes from reading ClimateAudit for years, then reading the HSI, and analysing the behaviour of the main players when they made statements in public. Your implication that I've just gone along with what somebody said is wrong and insulting.

The fact that you don't want to know about emails is highly amusing. Who's denying now?

Also your analysis that my 35 again denotes a percentage or number of actual climate scientists I don't like is a notion I tried to disabuse you in my original reply, but you still persist with it. That 35 is a rating, and comes from the influence the few bad-uns hold within the arena, and the lack of enthusiasm for challenging them, not the number of scientists.

Anyway, you're verging into trolldom here, even by my liberal tastes, so I'm going to drop this here.

Jiminy, I haven't had a good argument for days and I'm getting twitchy...

Yin, in saying, "I give climate science a score, not the individuals.", I think you are rewriting your own measure:

1 = "all climate scientists are jolly good fellows and anything they do is ok by me"
100 = "they are all crooks and frauds, and the ones standing by doing nothing are scum" at the 100 end
I'd place myself in the 35-40 range...

You refer to scientists, not the science. Difficult to interpret that any other way.

We've discussed emails before. I know your position and you know mine. Revisit it if you like, but the result will be the same.

My 5.24 doesn't "persist" with percentages or numbers of scientists. It merely questions what the figure for the population at large would be, given that you object to around 5 scientists out of thousands and that there are probably 10 psychopaths per thousand in the population. It is not an unreasonable observation.

BB, sometimes you pleasantly surprise me, and sometimes you disappoint me. Currently you are doing the latter. There are quite a few instances of scientists, researchers outside the field of climate science becoming corrupted, fudging data, faking results - for what? Usually for fame and fortune - greater prominence in the field, career progression, ongoing and increased research funding, empire building, all sorts of egotistical stuff. Less often ideology as well, Lysenko being the prime example.

I think you underestimate the proportion of people with psychopathic tendencies, as opposed to out-and-out psychopaths. 5% would probably be near the mark. They would include people who are opportunists, who go with the flow, turn a blind eye, don't ask too many questions in case it rocks the boat - sound familiar?

Climate change science, with its obscene levels of government funding and ideological underpinnings, must be unprecedented in modern history for its potential for corruption. It was pointed out by economically qualified people a year or two ago that much more EU CO2 mitigation, if that's your thing, could have been achieved at much much lower cost simply by replacing the old and efficient power stations with new gas-fired ones. Productive infrastructure, not useless and wasteful tokenism like windfarms. Why shouldn't everyone on your side listen to rationalists like Pielke Jr, Tol and Lomborg? It just makes no sense, the whole thing.

And no snark please BB, I'm not in the mood after the last few days. On a lighter note, I like mountains too, albeit different from the tropical one you live on. It was a great snow season last winter in Oz, and we're planning at least two trips next winter. Crisp clean air (much cleaner than in the NH), virtually pristine environment, you would be impressed. The climate there is still decidedly alpine for a warm dry continent, and I'm not worried about what the future may bring. Best to look on the bright side, eh? ;-) Cheers.

Dung, chin up, it's probably for the best, and thank you.

Hilary, I've been meaning to return the greeting - a belated Happy New Year to you too. Lots of Aussies pass through Vancouver at this time of year, on their way to and from Whistler. Go Canada, leading the way in climate change rationality! (Not particularly your government in BC though, I gather.) :-)

Damn, that should have been "old and inefficient power stations". Anyway, I suppose you all knew what I meant.

Chris, why the disappointment? You know for sure that we don't agree and I have said nothing particularly novel or controversial, just pointed out an unfortunate truth about BH's propensity for accusation and insinuation. Do you think what I said is untrue? Can you name a few prominent climate scientists, AGW supporters or organisations that BH and its acolytes have not accused of being dishonest or corrupt? Can such wall-to-wall dishonesty possibly be true? Is the existence of some bad eggs in science, as in any other walk of life, in some way proof of the BH attitude to the whole of climate science?

I don't know much of Pielke but I think you'll find that Tol and Lomborg are not highly regarded as 'rationalists' among people who really know something about what the pair discuss.

On mountains, goodwill and peace, we can agree :-) I hope you are nowhere near the fires.