Perhaps Steve could have acknowledged his error, but it is such a tiny part of the overall mauling that the paper recieves, even more so from those who took his critique and analysed it further.

There's your 'uncritical' right there. To paraphrase your good self, leaving errors uncorrected destroys credibilty. Mc is so transparently acting in bad faith that it is impossible to take his criticisms seriously; so he doesn't like some of the choices made in screening and selection, boo hoo.

Phil Clarke 9:20, you continue to deny the institutional frauds of Climate Science, particularly from the Green Blob Party, and are now adopting a level of heightened hypocrisy that Keith Vaz could only dream of.

It is no wonder the UK's DECC was scrapped, and no one has even noticed. Whitehall realised that DECC was a scam

Are you a Big Green Blob Shill, and a double agent working for Big Oil?

What made you realise that Gergis was so wrong?

Phil, given what you excuse here and the rubbish you sometimes espouse, you are a hypocrite of the first order. I admit to increasing bias (on the grounds of increasing experience); you seem to be mired in your own prejudices and shift not an Angstrom from them. It's good to hear, via you, what alarmists think, but it does seem wearisome at times. Same old, same old.

Do you even acknowledge the correct definition of the word "critical" (and therefore of its opposite). Would you have wanted Steve McIntyre to grovel by acknowledging his speculation was incorrect? A speculation that is so peripheral to the main critique. Following your "logic" the answers are predictable.

Repetition: is this the best you've got?

Sorry ACK, but my time and interest for investigating Blog Science are both very limited.

I notice that in the period since Gergis and her team withdrew the paper for rework she has also authored or coauthored over 20 publications, most subject to the rigours of peer review and publication.

That contribution to our understanding is what will endure, long after Climate Audit has vanished into an historical footnote in grey 8-point type.

Strange that your protestations of lack of time to use the web should appear just as I was preparing to ask you about your circumstances. Like me, you seem able to respond to other people's posts almost immediately, suggesting you do have as much time as I do. Are you retired like me, or do you have a sympathetic employer, or perhaps you are self unemployed?

Radical Rodent, ACK, golf Charlie

I note that every comment you three have posted on page 18 has contained an ad hominem attack on Phil Clarke.

As I have said before, ad hominem attacks are a sign that you have run out of valid arguments.

It is time to acknowledge that you have lost this round of the debate.

Yes, we know about the rigours of peer review, when one reviewer became the speculative target of career destruction when he was adversely critical of the paper being reviewed.

As I said, would be great to read the actual mail(s) where this occurred. Until then it is just hearsay.

EM, would you care to reread some of Phil Clarke's ad hom statements, and his denial of making them?

You have rather confirmed that if Climate Science can't be honest, and self correct, it is not a science, and should not qualify for further taxpayer funding.

If you could rerad Phil Clarke's ad hom's, and explain to him why he has completely lost the argument, plot and any remaining credibility, you would avoid tarring yourself from the same bucket.

As I said, Mr Clarke, it can be found within the plethora of e-mails in mentioned. I have told you where it is, and you have shown in the past that you do not follow links provided, so why should I bother seeking for you?

To elevate the claim from hearsay to substantiated fact perhaps? Until then it remains alongside Kim's billion mouths fed by magical greening detritus.

Ravishing Rattie. I believe you can purchase replicas of the Rosetta Stone from the BM. Perhaps you can bludgeon some sense into Phil with one of those.

Speaking of bludgeoning, you did quite a job on EM regarding ad hominem attacks. Impressive.

Radical Rodent

So, no bias there, then… That sentence says so much about you, Phil,

a Big Green Blob Shill, and a double agent working for Big Oil?

you are a hypocrite of the first order.

ACK’s accusation of your hypocrisy may have been bang on target.

All ad hominem attacks, playing the man rather than the ball.

As I said, when you revert to such insults, having failed to counter your opponent's case, you signal that you have lost the argument.

I particularly like this definition from the Urban Dictionary

ad hominem

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

Not so EM. Here it signifies frustration that attempts to debate issues are railroaded into distractions, debating points ignored or derided without cause, and when we persist Phil commonly stops communicating or repeatedly asks for evidence (even sometimes when this has been given)*. We haven't lost the argument, we are merely fed up with obfuscation over topics where Phil's stance has been thoroughly discredited, but where he is not prepared to conceed anything. It's like arguing with a well trained parrot.

I note EM that on occasion you are not adverse to offering your own ad hominem attacks. If you like I'll look back to find where you have made them about me.

* I suspect that Phil might ask me to prove these comments, except that I have added this rider (so he might not).

Well, temperature reconstructions from proxies are so problematic that if there are flaws in any new study, Steve McIntyre is likely to find them.

I note Phil doesn't drag his stick off of this frozen pond and into the big arena. Is he afraid of being ignored or is it something else?

Given prospectuses from Phil Clarke and from Steve McIntyre, whose venture would you invest in?
======================

Heh, if it's not a billion bellies fed yet, and we don't know it's not, then it will be before long. The undoubted benefits of greening, and the not yet recognized benefits of warming are a big problem going forward for the fearmongers.

Some of the world, the poorest among us, have already figured this out. The unnecessarily guilt ridden developed world hasn't, but only because of a false narrative flogged in a propagandistic fashion, Phil being one of the star disinformationists.
=============

It's simply cowardly to talk like this here and not over there. Go for it, Big Man.
==============

All schtick and no stick.

Hey, that's fits the Piltdown Mann, too. Whoa, much of alarmist science, also. Boom, the whole bubble.
======================

Ad hominem attack, ad hominem attack!!!
Shame on you kim.
Dastardly behaviour.
EM vindicated.

More amusement, 'time and interest are limited'. What are you Phil, just a newsreader?
=================