stewgreen: Let me say that I think that (sometimes at least) it's good to have a post-mortem like this, when the primary evidence has been 'disappeared', so thank you. I'm relaxed about people seeing it differently. I freely admit that I tend to skip certain posters and I didn't spot SR's 'animals' until after Tamsin mentioned it. I didn't see an accusation of lying or of being a liar but, given my interest in 'denier', it was the 'animals' that captured my attention.

On that last point, can I say one more thing that really bothers me here. The moment Tamsin complained about 'animals' and I had supported her (rightly or wrongly) someone else mentions 'denier' and how horrid it is. But that's completely the wrong moment to mention it, because, as Tamsin said, neither she or Richard ever uses that ugly term. In my view we should take a leaf out of Tamsin's book and challenge 'denier' at the time, every time. She's a great example to us here.

But of course I realise I'm skating over whether SR's words could legitimately be taken to refer a responsible consensus scientist like Tamsin (as I would characterise her). Even if they couldn't I would accept a sizeable slice of poetic license from the challenger, because the term is so ugly. YMMV and obviously did.

Of course the Bish's decision is final in a vital sense. It reminds me of the preacher I heard in my early twenties who said of our conscience that "it isn't an infallible guide but it is an inviolable one." (Something that is really worthwhile chewing over as far as the genuine alarmist is concerned.) He gave the example of a bomber crew over North Africa during the War who realised that their compass was malfunctioning. The pilot decided to ignore it and the plane came down in the desert killing all on board. It was later shown that if he'd followed the faulty compass they'd have got back to base.

Thanks to our host for his gentle labours in trying to steer without censoring :)