TBYJ: It's not policing, it's pointing out that slayers often claim a great deal for their 'findings' and there are big consequences of taking that seriously. That's not what Rhoda does in his thread, by the way, but take the original book and indeed mydog/AlecM ... that's much clearer. The kind of claim made and its effect, when we all (ostensibly) want the same in terms of policy, is what this is about. None of us have any means to 'police' anything - no cells, no arrest warrants, nothing. But clear thinking helps.

David Ross:

It is not incumbent on anyone else to provide compelling counter theories (e.g. Svensmark). The burden of proof should be on them.

Very true, and I'm sure misunderstanding this is a big reason for the Slayer phenomenon. There's no need for it. The evidence of four billions years of stability testifies against high sensitivity, as does all the latest real-world data. We don't need to shoot down the GHE and if we try we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

TBYJ: Agreed. I think the recent threads spawned from Rhoda's have been fantastic. We must be able to consider any possibility. That's completely different from every thread, on any subject, being invaded by unlikely claims on something that, despite its billing, is far from crucial to our shared policy aims or our desire for truth.

It's much wider than the person(s) you signally fail to point to with a single name Shub. Martin A paid attention much more than most and there's no way I'm saying that this has had anything but good effects. I think if people read what I've written they'll get the message. If they read what you've written I've written they won't.

I'd like to go back to Arrhenius and the logarithmic relationship so we'll meet on that or somewhere else.

Hey, I thought you liked my thread :) Thanks for your excellent contributions in any case.

The eponymous chocolate teapot depicts putting shit-or-bust weight on the arguments of the slayers. That I say has negative consequences. But wise birds in the UK debate like Andrew Montford, Doug Keenan, Nic Lewis, Matt Ridley, Jonathan Jones, Nigel Lawson, Benny Peiser and David Whitehouse have not made this mistake, so when something like the recent Met downgrading happens they have full credibility and we all greatly benefit as a result.

As I've made clear, Bishop Hill should have debate of all options and the recent discussion, since it was accepted by all parties that slayers were off topic for the Ridley-Romm-WSJ thread, has been remarkable. I don't think I've been in the least heavy handed, however, in pointing out why interruptions of this topic on main threads, explicitly on this basis

There are people ... who see many discussions as pointless when the GHE itself is not proven, the GHE underpins every other discussion one way or another

is a very bad idea. If people hadn't argued this point, together with demanding that the first person who disagreed should be banned from the blog, this thread would not have existed. On the other hand, if this argument had been accepted, even threads on the latest Met Office rowback would no doubt have been interrupted continually with the slayer debate. That would have benefited nobody, least of all the increasingly interested outsider. Much better safe than sorry.

Rhoda: totally agreed. The argument isn't remotely over. It should be - indeed it should have been, in my view, when Richard Lindzen gave the world a balanced account of the matter in September 1989 (h/t Robin Guenier). We all know that it isn't a simple matter of applying the scientific method by now. But, precisely because the battle is so long and drawn out, we must retain discipline. Of course we all have different perspectives, as I argued strongly the other day on your own thread. But there remains something that deeply unites us. Defining what exactly it is - that may be a bit harder. :)

You hit the bullseye there, Simon. But only once :)

shub:

These were your words, Richard.

Except for the ones you added in square brackets. The substitution of the slayers chocolate teapot for the low-sensitivity GHE one speaks not just of indulging the slayers but of accepting that this is a make-or-break issue. Profound loss of credibility flows from that, meaning that the scones (our shared desire for the ending of highly wasteful and unjust carbon reduction policies) are also ruined. If so the poorest will suffer far more than they have from the banning and sidelining of DDT - and that's saying something. Biofuel subsidies have already had a disastrous effect and have by no means been discontinued, even though Friends of the Earth and others have rightly turned their back on the idea and, less creditably, on any responsibility for it.

It's a complex chain of reasoning and events but to cause such loss of credibility to such an important humanitarian cause, based on highly improbable hypotheses, in some cases 'goobledegook to the power of tosh', is not a minor problem in my book. By all means rephrase it according to your own lights but as you do bear in mind the whole of the 'big picture,' as I've tried to. I'm sticking, so far, with what I originally wrote.

I've been asked by the host not to reply to a certain nym but I'm sure nobody will mind me agreeing with the post of 3:11 PM. The problem addressed in this thread is those that make the GHE issue a make-or-break one, for example, those who in the past declared "many discussions as pointless when the GHE itself is not proven, [as] the GHE underpins every other discussion one way or another."

There's no suggestion of this argument being repeated in the post of 3:11 PM and I take it from this we are now in agreement. Once this is understood, I'm sure it will also be seen that my thrust here does not in any way conflict with the host's.

Shub:

If a 'slayer' posts a comment, it doesn't mean that those who read it have accepted that what he or she says about the greenhouse effect is a make-or-break issue. That is how they position it, not the rest.

Absolutely. That's helpful. The next paragraph is more tricky and I'd like to think more before responding. Others brighter than me should of course feel free :)

TBYJ:

As a lukewarmer, I doubt some things without absolute proof, on intuition, which places me outside the scientific mainstream.

The scientific mainstream also believes many things "without absolute proof" - on shared intuition, often also called consensus. It's just less honest about it than you are. So it's your honesty that places you outside the mainstream, not this :)