Paul Ehrlich (yes THAT Paul Ehrlich) recently posted a review about Mark Steyn’s book A Disgrace to the Profession on Amazon, and after reading Ehrlich’s review, my irony meter pegged, the needle flew off the scale and embedded itself in the wall of my office, nearly missing our resident member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
You just have to read it, apparently Mr. Ehrlich has no self awareness whatsoever when it comes to evaluating his own massive folly in predicting the future. Here is the screencap:
That is rich. Steyn compiled the critical opinions of dozens of scientists about Mann’s work on The Hockey Stick, and yet Ehrlich, says things like this:
“Mike Mann is admired by all real climate scientists, even those who may have same disagreements with him…”
Well, perhaps he’s right, I assume everybody at his own echo chamber website Real Climate does admire Dr. Mann, the rest of science, eh, not so much. Otherwise, they would have come to his aid and filed amicus briefs in his court battle with Steyn. The thunderous silence of science in support of Mann speaks volumes.
Mann can’t even be bothered to use current data is his slide show, leaving data on display to stop in 2005. What sort of “admired scientist” does that sort of sophistry? The kind that push an agenda and can’t ever let data point to them being wrong, illustrated in Ehrlich’s big list of failures. For example, he said in the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
Instead, U.S. population increased:
Gosh, it looks like a hockey stick, doesn’t it?
But, despite that massive failure of his scientific predictive skill, Ehrlich couldn’t help himself and got in another forecast of impending doom in that review:
Unhappily the “triumph” may prove doom for many of our descendents.
Right. OK then.
The egos on these folks must be so large that the department of transportation must set out orange road cones ahead of them when they travel, so that they have a wide lane of their own.
Your best pushback against these people? Buy the book and decide for yourself.
Order it on Amazon here.
Click to order
Note: about 5 minutes after publication, this article was updated to fix some spelling and formatting errors.
Anyone wanna bet P. Ehrlich never actually read Steyn’s book? 😉
/snark
Unfair! You know that Real True Scientists like Paul “Often Wrong, but Still Quotable” Ehrlich get major cooties when they read things that don’t fit into their paradigm. How can you ask him to risk cooties?
I think your question can be answered by inquiring if Mark Steyn was from Stanford or Berkeley.
sarc/:-)
PaulH
Best first comment of the year.
Eugene WR Gallun
Obviously your sarc is on.
Maybe you’d recommend posting a “sarc” about a “snark” but it appears Eugene agrees, as would I. Or is your sarc on?
One can speculate as to whether or not Ehrlich read the book. However, what requires no speculation is that Ehrlich points to not one instance of “quotes-out-of-context.” Neither does he identify a single example of these so-called “hacks and has-beens.” His review is as pathetic and vacuous as climate science itself.
David, UK, I’ve pointed out a multitude of out-of-context quotes, as well as misquotes and even a quote misattributed to a guy’s kid. I didn’t compile the notes I posted into an organized review because whenever I tried to discuss these issues, nobody seemed to care about them. I got tired of “skeptics” not caring about misdeeds because they liked the guy who did them and decided it wasn’t worth repeating the same points over and over when they’d just get ignored.
But if you want to argue the issue, it’s trivially obvious Mark Steyn took quotes completely out of context to distort their meaning. It’s not even a challenge to show this. As in, the best thing to do is to just not talk about the issue because anyone who looks at it will see how obvious it is he did it.
Apparently that link got mangled due to WordPress not accepting links without http in front of them. I don’t know why it doesn’t accept ones that just start with www, but here’s what should be a working link.
And for people who want an example of Mark Steyn taking quotes completely out of context, you need look no further than the first sentence of the first page of the book. Steyn starts the book off with the quote:
As I said of this, Steyn offered this quote pretending the quoted individual:
That’s right. Mark Steyn took a person’s quote out of context in order to do exactly what Michael Mann did – draw conclusions about the planet’s temperatures from a tiny amount of data from one small part of the world.
Maybe it’s not 65%, I don’t know. But the Holocene has been warmer than now many times:
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
dbstealey:
Whether or not the Holocene was warmer in the past has no bearing on this issue. Mark Steyn portrayed a quote as speaking about the planet’s temperatures when it only spoke about temperatures for a small region. Not only does this mean Steyn misrepresented what was said in this quote, which he begins his book with, it also means Steyn has effectively used a tiny amount of data from one area to draw conclusions about the planets temperatures – exactly what he condemns Michael Mann for doing.
There is no justification for this. Skeptics should all agree this was wrong. People could perhaps argue as to how important this error is, but… come on. This was the first sentence of Steyn’s book! How is nobody saying, “Hey, that’s wrong”?
(Incidentally, the results you posted are not global temperatures. You’re taking a small maount of data from a single area as though it represents global temperatures – the very thing people have condemned Mann for doing.)
Maybe some warmistas should occasionally point it out and condemn it when other warmistas make ridiculous claims.
Until that happens, telling skeptics what they should do is just more of the same one-sided crap we have been getting, nonstop and for several entire decades, from every single alarmist propaganda-spewing “climate scientist” that government grant money can buy.
dbstealey,
I already told you that that graph represents temperatures in central Greenland and contains a significant error because they have not been corrected for layer compression, yet you keep using it as if it represents Holocene temperatures. It does not.
Do you still don’t know despite being told or is it that you don’t care if you are in error? You are an easy target to alarmists.
Here, you can use instead this one:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Holocene%20temp%20recons_zpsxqxeetab.png
It is a global reconstruction from 72 proxies published by Marcott et al., 2013, but averaged by differencing to correct for proxy drop out at the end, and without the Montecarlo averaging that eliminates most variability. The temperature scale has also been corrected by me because the original was clearly incorrect in representing the temperature difference between the bottom of the LIA and 1961-1990 average (zero anomaly).
Brandon S says:
Not only does this mean Steyn misrepresented what was said in this quote, which he begins his book with, it also means Steyn has effectively used a tiny amount of data from one area to draw conclusions about the planets temperatures – exactly what he condemns Michael Mann for doing.
Well, that’s flat wrong. Mann deliberately misrepresented, while your example shows Steyn mistakenly saying something in error. Big difference.
Next, Javier says:
I already told you that that graph represents temperatures in central Greenland and contains a significant error …
Thanx for you opinion. But your Marcott chart doesn’t show a whole lot different from the one I posted, and they both support Steyn.
You also need to do a keyword search in the searchbox here for ‘Marcott’. His paper isn’t nearly as error-free as you’re assuming.
dbstealey:
I don’t go off mind-reading like you do so I won’t address your hand-waved claims offered without any evidence as to what people did and did not know. What I will say is the quote I provided from Mark Steyn was from a presentation entirely devoted to one mountain range, meaning there is no way anyone could view it and think it was about global temperatures.
If you want to say Mark Steyn was stupid enough to look at a discussion which was obviously about temperatures for one area and somehow conclude it was about temperatures for the entire planet, fine. If you want to say Mark Steyn is just too lazy to look at what the quotes he puts in his book are actually about, simply grabbing any that look good, fine. Either way, it’s a damning criticism of Steyn and his book.
YOu’ve repeatedly posted an image claiming it shows the planet’s temperatures were warmer in the past than they are now. You’ve apparently been informed, numerous times, of the same thing I’ve informed you of – that it’s not a global record, it’s a regional record. And despite this, you keep doing it…?
This is flat-out dishonest. You are deliberately misrepresenting what the graph you post is. At this point there is no way you could possibly be unaware of the fact that graph is not a global record, but you keep posting it as one. It’s not an innocent error. You are lying. Stop it.
Brandon me boi,
It’s not polite to label someone as being dishonest, when their view isn’t the same as yours. And you say:
YOu’ve repeatedly posted an image claiming it shows the planet’s temperatures were warmer in the past than they are now.
I’ve posted more charts than you can possibly count. I have literally thousands of them in various folders. If there’s one in particular you’d like to see, ask politely rather than calling me a liar.
And since you mentioned it, I’m curious: are you now claiming that past global T was not warmer than now?
[Deleted. Another sockpuppet post. ~mod.]
Brandon is right, too bad many refuse to acknowledge it.
I would also add that pretending a single line on a graph of temperature represents anything global is either delusional or dishonest, perhaps both.
Brandon is flat wrong. He is supposedly a mind reader who mysteriously knows the difference between someone like Mark Steyn being mistaken, and being deceptive. Brandon is presuming to know the difference, when he obviously doesn’t. If we had mind readers like Brandon we wouldn’t need juries.
And IMOH Mark Steyn wasn’t far off when he said the Holocene has been warmer most of the time:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Or, we can accept Javier’s assertion that Marcott was right:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
That’s such a bunch of self-serving nonsense that it’s surprising people want to nitpick what Steyn knew, while ignoring the preposterous straight upward ‘hokey stick’ produced by Marcott’s deceptive shenanigans (the red line).
But Marcott has been so thoroughly debunked here that there’s no need to waste more time on it. A keyword search is there for anyone who wants to revisit his alarmist propaganda — or, they can just look at his bogus chart above.
Finally, I note that Brandon never answered my question: “are you claiming that past global T was not warmer than now?”
dbstealey,
You are so biased that you are incapable of looking at the data if it has the name of Marcott on it, and you keep using a regional graph saying that it represents global climate when it does not and you know it.
Marcott’s publication has a number of issues. They changed the dates of some of the records, used an averaging method that exaggerated the final warming, and run a montecarlo that eliminated most of the variability. But the 72 proxies the reconstruction is made from are the best proxies available and have a global nature. Correcting the issues is very easy by using the original dates, and averaging by differencing. The result is the best global Holocene reconstruction available today, based on published literature, that I have provided to you.
Whether it supports or not what Steyn says is beyond the point. You cannot extract global conclusions from a regional graph and pretend that you are science-based.
And if Marcott is an alarmist, Alley is even more alarmist, but that is irrelevant, what is important is what the data says. And the data from Alley that you display as a truthful representation of Holocene temperatures has also an issue. As Vinther et al., 2009 demonstrated, delta18O data from ice cores in Greenland has to be corrected for elevation changes.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/abs/nature08355.html
They corrected Agassiz and Renland ice-core data in their publication. To my knowledge Alley’s GISP2 remains uncorrected and thus it shows lower values before 5000 BP that what were probably the temperatures in Central Greenland during that part of the Holocene.
You have been told, you should learn. Otherwise you have confirmation bias, and cherry-pick and miss-represent data and are therefore irrelevant.
Javier says:
You are so biased…
Projection from Javier, nothing more. And:
You have been told, you should learn.
But Javier never learns. He could not have read all the Marcott articles and comments, but his confirmation bias tells him he shouldn’t. Otherwise his head might explode from the cognitive dissonance.
Its amazing that people like ‘Javier’ still believe, when the ultimate Authority, Planet Earth, is making a fool of those beliefs. And of the true believers.
“Javier” says:
You have been told… I already told you… …& etc.
That gets tedious from a know-nothing. <–[that's you, “Javier”]
You are not even aware of your strong confirmation bias, are you, “Javier”? Amazing.
You never did a search to find and and read all the Marcott articles and comments, did you? No, of course not. Marcott has been so thoroughly debunked here that if you had read them, you would have tucked tail and run away instead of making your preposterous claims. Anyone who accepts this Marcott chart at face value has no clue about the real world:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Until you identify yourself, "Javier", you're just another know-nothing anonymous screen name, and your opinions are no more credible that a Scientologist's.
dbstealey:
I explicitly acknowledged the possibility Mark Steyn wasn’t trying to be deceptive, so I’m at a loss as to how you can claim I “mysteriously know[] the difference between someone like Mark Steyn being mistaken, and being deceptive.” Maybe Mark Steyn didn’t mean to completely distort the meaning of a quote which was obviously not about the topic he claims it was about. Maybe he’s just an idiot who can’t read simple sentences. Maybe he’s just so lazy
I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter. Either Mark Steyn is a liar, or he’s so intellectually vapid as to be indistinguishable from one. Either way, he grossly distorts the meaning of numerous quotes he offers in his book, including the one he uses as the very first sentence of his book. That’s a huge problem every skeptic should be bothered by.
Look, it’s simple. If Mark Steyn didn’t know he was misrepresenting this quote, he must not have looked at where the quote was taken from. That means the only way Steyn could not be a liar is if he simply saw a sentence he liked the sound of and used it without bothering to check what the sentence was in reference to, not even reading the page he copied the quote from. Cherry-picking words to that extent requires a level of willful blindness that would be staggering.
And he does it multiple times. This is just one example. If you want to claim Mark Steyn is just so incompetent he can manage to repeatedly cherry-pick people’s words to distort their meanings without realizing it… fine. Okay, whatever. That’s not any better than being a liar.
In fact, it’s worse. At least if he’s lying you can respect his cleverness and intelligence. If he’s not lying, you’re championing a bumbling buffoon who makes a mockery of every one of you.
Brandon S,
I’ve heard that calling someone a liar in Parliament is forbidden. It’s an extreme attack that must be incontestable, IMO. But you throw out that term constantly, five times at least in that one comment, and not including your writing that Steyn is ‘indistinguishable’ from being a liar.
I don’t agree that “the only way Steyn could not be a liar” is limted to your examples. I can think of others. And you are not the arbiter of what examples are acceptable, and which ones are not.
It almost seems like you’re trying to defend Michael Mann, who has, shall we say, ‘fabricated’ some things in order to support his hokey stick chart. THAT is the central issue, not hair-splitting over what Mark Steyn may or may not have meant. I know you’ll say something like ‘but back on _____ I said “_____”.’ You are attacking Mark Steyn in a pretty reprehensible way, based on what you perceive. But your perception isn’t necessarily reality.
You would get a lot more sympathy for your views if you didn’t tar everyone with the same brush, as when you say:
If he’s not lying, you’re championing a bumbling buffoon who makes a mockery of every one of you.
So that’s our choice — according to you: We are either accepting the word of a liar, or we are accepting what a “bumbling buffoon” says.
Sorry, but no. I don’t accept your characterization. You seem a little less than rational. Certainly less rational than Mark Steyn (who I haven’t much supported, except for pointing out that he is a stand-up guy who didn’t fold like a house of cards when Mann’s lawyers attacked).
Oh, and as for the rest of what dbstealey says, this is nonsense everyone on this site should be embarrassed by. Look at this:
dbstealey is relying on the tried and true defense of Michael Mann’s hockey stick, that any errors Mann/Steyn made don’t matter because he reached the right conclusion. And then he goes with another common defense play:
This blog post is about Mark Steyn’s book, but dbstealey is complaining that people want to talk about… Mark Steyn’s book. Like many of Mann’s defenders, when confronted with the glaring problem in the work he likes, dbstealey is quick to change the subject and express outrage at anyone who dares stay on topic. He is so devoted to this tactic he actually says:
Leaving aside the fact he just misquoted himself, which is all sorts of funny given this exchange began as a discussion of how quotations have been misused, this remark is absurd. This blog post is not about Marcott et al or its conclusions. My criticism of Mark Steyn’s book is not about whether Marcott et al is correct or whether some other conclusions are correct. My criticism is simply that Mark Steyn took a quote which was obviously about one thing and falsely presented it as being about another. I contend he did this multiple times, but I’ve focused on the time involving the first sentence of his book.
dbstealey’s observation I didn’t answer a question is a transparent effort to change the subject from this simple point because he doesn’t want to deal with it. The question he asked has nothing to do with the issue I raised. It’s nothing more than a red herring designed to divert the discussion in order to avoid discussion of the fact Mark Steyn grossly distorted the meaning of quotes he used in his book.
Brandon S says:
This blog post is about Mark Steyn’s book, but dbstealey is complaining that people want to talk about… Mark Steyn’s book.
I like seeing how Brandon is so fixated on what I write. He said:
This blog post is about Mark Steyn’s book, but dbstealey is complaining that people want to talk about… Mark Steyn’s book.
Aside from the fact that everyone writes their opinions here, and Brandon isn’t a self-appointed arbiter of those parameters as he seems to think, I was just commenting about Steyn’s guesstimate that 65% (IIRC) of the Holocene was warmer than now. I don’t know the exact percentage (and no one else does, either).
When I posted a chart, Brandon went into his usual nitpicking mode, taking time out from constantly labeling Mark Steyn a “liar”. (And it does not help Brandon’s credibility to say to me: “You are lying. Stop it.” If Brandon S wants to be that kind of despicable vermin, it reflects on him, not on others. I don’t lie, and I very much doubt that Mr. Schollenberger would have the balls to say that to my face. Internet cowards like Brandon are a dime a dozen, writing from the safety of their keyboards.)
But it’s nice to know that Brandon reads my comments, no doubt cracking his knuckles and grinding his teeth, while desperately looking for some phrase or other that he can impotently attack. I’ll just consider Brandon a part of my personal entourage. ☺
(More comments in this sub-thread by KJ and Paul Murphy, at 2:27 pm below, near bottom.)
He doesn’t need to. With his amazing predictive powers he is able to discern that all of the scientists quoted in the book are “hacks and has-beens”. ‘Cause he knows anyone who doesn’t agree with him is by definition a hack or has-been. The man is a god! \sarc (only in bizzaro land) Thanks for the laugh!
Average Joe,
You don’t need to add ‘sarc’ . it’s assumed
Maybe someone sent him a photocopy of the book cover to read.
But he will very, very soon. Definitely. No doubt about it. /ehrlich
Good for Steyn, being able to spin off books from the research for his law suits.
Mann will regret picking on Steyn, if he doesn’t already.
blockquote error…
I hope you meant “barely missing…”
Well, I hope he meant “nearly hitting” because nearly missing to me means a hit.
(Nit picking again. Oh well, gotta have a little fun occasionally.)
Well, we all have heard of a “near miss”; meaning “almost hitting”. Maybe this is just a derivative form.
Some people write “nearly missing” when they meant “narrowly missing.”
You forget this is the “Friday Funnies”, which Brandon is unwittingly or something similar, contributing so ably to. As in, bringing us a good laugh.
I read Volume 1 and can’t wait for Volume 2!
Yeah funny, but people really do think that, and my students think they’re all the ones who are right.
So not funny enough!
Oh, Ehrlich… With friends like him, Mann doesn’t need enemies.
Has Mann issued a writ against Steyn for this book and – if it’s wrong, it’s obviously libellous title? If not why not? Oh, let me guess….
’21 of 344 people found the following review helpful’ (that’s about 97% I think)
The RICO 20 plus MM?
LOFL!
Thank you but this from the comments on Amazon is even better.
‘Any predictions about the trial, Paul? Specifically, will the human race go extinct before they get around to opening statements?’
Nigel S — too funny — Eugene WR Gallun
Mr. Paul Ehrlich has a proven track record of being so horrifically wrong, that this review serves as both praise for skeptics and an indictment for Mr. Mann.
I cannot be writing this comment, since, according to Dr Ehrlich, I died thirty years ago.
I presume you starved to death, or were cannibalized by your fellow starving Americans…
“I died thirty years ago”
Dang! I knew there was something weird going on ! It explains why I feel as if I’m living in the Twilight Zone with all these wacky upside-down “scientists” spouting their loony gloom and doom /hellfire and brimstone “predictions”.
But you got better…..
By coincidence, I just ran across an old sci-fi book:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50441/50441-h/50441-h.htm
For some reason, I thought of Ehrlich when I read this:
“By the 23rd century Earth’s population had reached seven billion. Mankind was in danger of perishing for lack of elbow room—unless prompt measures were taken. Roy Walton had the power to enforce those measures. But though his job was in the service of humanity, he soon found himself the most hated man in the world.
For it was his job to tell parents their children were unfit to live; he had to uproot people from their homes and send them to remote areas of the world. Now, threatened by mobs of outraged citizens, denounced and blackened by the press, Roy Walton had to make a decision: resign his post, or use his power to destroy his enemies, become a dictator in the hopes of saving humanity from its own folly. In other words, should he become the MASTER OF LIFE AND DEATH?”
It sounds like Ehrlich, a semi-talented science fiction writer, can’t tell the difference between reality and his stories.
Or able to spell correctly
How are there “remote”sreas of an over populated world?
Well stated AW. Sophistry – right on. Excellent word choice!
narrowly missing rather than nearly missing hopefully
On the correctness or not of “hopefully” used as a disjunct rather than the adverb meaning “in a hopeful manner”:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17762034
Yes, for Kenji’s sake I hope so. Being struck by a flying irony meter needle sounds dangerous.
” …Being struck by a flying irony meter needle sounds dangerous.”
Darned right. The wound could go ferrous …
Does anyone listen to Ehrlich any more? I can’t even work up the necessary curiosity to go to amazon and read the full review.
All too many listened to he and Barry Commoner. The result is the war against modern society and economy by “greens”
Scott,
Unfortunately one of his disciples is our current National Science Advisor – John Holdren.
Unfortunately Ehrlich was here in Oz at the UNSW giving a talk about something a few weeks ago. However I don’t know how many turned up.
Ehrlich wrote review on 9/11 !!! and the Stanford professor can’t spell:
“propioganda” and “propoganda” – a word he ought to know by now
Good catch. I’ll bet the irony of that is lost on him. I like his first sentence with ends with “outrageous (he actually spelled it right!) lies.” It makes no sense unless it’s a Freudian slip.
Best wishes.
This meter?
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=pegged+meter&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
Erlich, in a 2004 Grist Magazine interview (thanks Wikipedia):
Where have I heard something like this lately?
I get a chuckle every time this guy opens his mouth. I wonder who read Steyn’s book to him.
Good one.
Did he just say “there is no certainty in science” ??????? Whoops!
Some of Paul Ehrlich’s earth day 1970 predictions:
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
Lifted from this WUWT link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/failed-earth-day-predictions/
Damn, you seem very articulate for a dead person.
Ehrlich missed his calling to be a science fiction writer. There is more money to be made in fiction writing, and he should have chosen the climate science path.
Science fiction, as published by the IPCC?
L. Ron Hubbard wrote the manual on how to turn science fiction into a cult religion.
The first step is to convince your followers they are special and “more evolved” because they follow your teachings.
Sound familiar ?
Paul Erlich is a biologist? Well then, according to AGW doctrine, he is NOT a climate scientist, and has zero credibility or authority to speak as one, or on behalf of one, let alone “all real climate scientists. ” And none of the stupid things he said in the past can be held against them today. Neener neener.
He also completely missed the dual crescendo of rock and roll and big hair in the 1980s.
This guy could not predict sunrise if he had a Farmer’s Almanac glued to his eyelids.
roflmao
I’m surprised Ehrlich hasn’t died yet — from shame.
Let me see if I understand this:
A scientist who has been discredited by his own statements is coming to the defense of another scientist whose work has also been discredited?
Two discredited scientists walk into a bar…
MJ:
Of course they did….it was an error bar so they didn’t see it!
+1!
+10
Nice one, Harry.
Plus or minus two standard deviants.
I’d rather believe the original definition but that they were walking OUT of the bar and whatever they had to say was duly noted.
now that was good 🙂
Paul Ehrlich — A man who desperately wants to be heard, but has absolutely nothing left to say.
Are you asserting that he ever had anything to say that was worth listening to?
I would think he would welcome massive depopulation as a solution to what he considers the worlds biggest problem. (Human beings)
That is exactly what he would welcome.
This is what surprises me about the Pope. How is it he fails to realize that many of the people he listened to regarding climate change are firm believers in the concept of a fixed carrying capacity for the planet. Ehrlich is one of the longest serving deacons in that belief system. Somehow Pope Francis isn’t making the connection that the solutions his science advisors are advocating involving making the poor go away. When they think no more poor, they are not thinking of raising their condition up to developed world standards. They are thinking no more as in no longer existing.
I bet he has diagrams for his new gas chambers hidden in his basement !!!!
Red Priests are a sad contradiction, more so for the rest of when they gain power…..
Paul Erhlich is just another Timothy Leary whose brain went FFZZZZTT in the 60’s. There was a lot of them.
Didn’t the original Watergate scandal feature a man named Ehrlich-Mann? The more things change …
Ehrlich’s review does not contain a single phrase from the book indicating that he has read it. It is just the usual puffery and empty claims repeated so frequently at SkS and RC.
The emptiness of the charges against the book is clear. There is nothing in the review that informs. He is just sticking pins into a kewpie doll of his own making. While I hold that a man wrong 1000 times can be right once, it is not in evidence in the diatribe. Hollow claims, empty accusations, ‘Believe me I am a scientist.’
Yawn…
Yeah, I noticed that in his “review” also.
“Back off man, we’re scientists!”- Peter Venkman.
Just like Brandon, copying him above.
A stopped clock is correct twice a day, but one which is just plain wrong can easily be wrong forever.
Huh. I made a response to this comment, but it apparently got caught in some filter somewhere.
Nearly missed? Oh the poor pup was hit! — John M Reynolds