TBYJ:

Ah, I see where you're heading now, Richard, and I concur.

Sincere thanks for that :)

There is no need to invoke an overthrow of physics to get the result the slayers want. If they were being clever, instead of trying to get establishment science to swallow and assimilate the very difficult prospect of all their accepted physics being wrong, slayers could effect the same policy outcome by pushing the much less radical lukewarmer position as a unified position.

Hmm, two very important issues here. Would it be morally right for slayers to argue on the basis of a scientific position they don't actually believe in to "get the result [they] want"? Yes, hold the front page, Drake has Sympathy for the Slayers - albeit in that very limited sense.

The second issue is that Lindzen is not a lukewarmer - at least I think most people calling themselves lukewarmers would say he isn't. And you yourself say earlier:

This is where my Lukewarmerish is slightly less complacent than Lindzens, I still think some of the actions are worth doing, even if the rise is going to be small.

"Some of the actions" is too vague for me to say for certain but I think Lindzen thinks all of the actions are unnecessary, just as they are for the slayers.

I don't have a big beef with the lukewarmers in saying this, I'm still just aiming for maximum clarity and precision.

I agree but I also think human nature precludes this - a lot of the slayer psychology is about retribution on establishment science.

That I think is speculative, compared to what's gone before, but extremely helpful and for me convincing, at least for some in the slayer camp. But if one always considered only the extremists one would have given up trying to make any point about anything long ago.

I say the extremes may not control the outcome of the global warming mitigation debate. Ordinary voters might even have a say before it's over. That's why I think RKS and woodentop are too pessimistic by half. But thanks very much for this, TBYJ.

TBYJ is easily the closest here. My key question was

So, if the policy outcome is the same and one approach is much more likely to be true than the other, are there any downsides in some sceptics giving the impression that the slayer option is a fundamental, make or break issue in the debate?

If you read the slayers they give the impression that their arguments are vital for the overthrow of CAGW in all its forms. In particular they tend to be utterly dismissive of a pioneer of good science and honest communication to the public like Richard Lindzen. What this thread is trying to show is that in fact their arguments are totally peripheral to the debate that really matters: whether the world's poor should be burdened with murderous carbon-reduction policies on the back of a high-sensitivity view that is totally lacking in scientific support. Nic Lewis has also been showing the lack of empirical evidence in recent days, and the last time he did so here the thread was interrupted by lengthy debate of the slayer option by therealviffer and Dung, who angrily demanded I should be banned from BH for suggesting this discussion should be moved elsewhere. That demand has never been lifted that I have seen. That's how central this has been made out to be.

One of the ways the centrality of the slayer issue has been promoted on Bishop Hill in the last year and more is by mydogsgotnonose and his other manifestations feeling free to interrupt any thread. He has been saying, explicitly or implicitly, "This is of central importance to everything else." But it isn't. And his contempt from Lindzen and other brave pioneers of good science sticks in the back of my throat. That is the attitude of a saboteur, a fellow traveller in the worst sense, not an ally.

Of course, if people at the BBC and the Guardian think that we think this is a central issue they will mark us down as the idiots their pride made them assume we were anyway. Why give them that option?

So this, among other things, is my answer to Dung in his Discussion thread three days ago:

3) There are people (holds hand up) (holds another hand up for alecm ^.^) who see many discussions as pointless when the GHE itself is not proven, the GHE underpins every other discussion one way or another.

That said, I will obey the great leader!

The GHE and the slayer critique of it doesn't underpin every other discussion, for the reasons I've shown. That is misdirection. It's time we grew out of it.

And of course I support the discussion Rhoda started. Nothing should be off limits in that sense. It's giving the impression that the slayer option is a make or break issue that should not be countenanced, not least for the sake of the many victims of CAGW policies.

Me neither.

Dung:

Drako

OK Dungo, the allusion is up to you - the Disney cartoon elephant or the 70s rock group. As for me, when I introduced myself in Spanish to some delightful Spaniards and Argentinians with whom I was staying in Zaragoza in 1982, right at the end of the Falklands War and the start of the World Cup group stages, for which I had partly come over, their response forever sticks in the mind: "Francisco Drake - pirata!" Pronounced Fran-this-co Dra-kay of course. We were firm friends after that.

Back to the conclusion of your latest post:

... on [Rhoda's] thread, there are a number of long standing BH denizens who give credence to the the slayers (not me, I am still trying to learn).

We are all trying to learn, Paul Dennis included. Bless that man in particular. He has a real-world reputation to think of. It's certainly been greatly enhanced for me. But are he, you, Richard Drake, TBYJ and others to be taken to have giving credence to the slayers merely by joining that discussion, unless they explicitly say so? I don't for a moment think so.

Above all, very few of us I believe wish to "give the impression that the slayer option is a fundamental, make or break issue in the debate," which is the point at issue in this thread.

You though have given that impression, not least by suggesting I should be banned from Bishop Hill when I had the temerity to say the issue was off-topic for the Matt Ridley thread, then by saying:

There are people (holds hand up) (holds another hand up for alecm ^.^) who see many discussions as pointless when the GHE itself is not proven, the GHE underpins every other discussion one way or another.

Now would be a good time for you to think it through and put the record right. Once we agree on this I think the rest will quickly fall into place.

Thanks for that RKS. I agree that it's best not to call Nikolov & Zeller slayers. What should we call them? Do TBYJ, Martin A or Paul Dennis have an opinion on that?

Hmm, just to be clear, RKS, I think you are saying that you believe Nikolov & Zeller are correct. But this seems to me to be a slightly unhelpful word to add to my very basic categorization so far:

1. Lindzenite (a neologism I hope doesn't catch on)
2. Slayer
3. Correct.

Shall we say instead:

1. Lindzen GHE
2. Slayer
3. Gassy.

My original question would then recast to:

So, if the policy outcome is the same and one approach is much more likely to be true than the others, are there any downsides in some sceptics giving the impression that the slayer or gassy options are fundamental, make or break issues in the debate?

How does that sound? More to the point, what's the answer?

(Cross-posted with TBYJ at 1:44 PM but I'm sure we can work something out!)

Bullied by the Bish? Surely a contradiction in terms, according to the founding ecclesiology of this place? :)

TBYJ should have his say back to RKS, if he wishes, but if we can dial down on the insults - TBYJ's not remotely like mydog, that's a bridge too far for anyone who's contributed to this thread so far - that would be appreciated.

RKS (3:09 PM): All our interactions here are open for others to comment on. Otherwise it would be email. This is a thread I began and there's been, to my mind, amiability throughout (if I haven't forgotten something) until you and TBYJ began to cross swords. But I don't deny the need for irritation or anger at times - or at least their inevitablity. I will now step out, at your request, and await what TBYJ makes of the latest. I'll also wait a little while to respond to your 2:56 PM, which will take us in another direction.