The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Choice excerpts from Hulme:
“Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies…”
And philosophical types will want to dig here
“Mayer and Arndt (2009) warn against the ‘epistemological hegemony’ of the IPCC and sociologist Bruno Latour goes so far as to describe the IPCC as an ‘epistemological monster’…”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike (4:22) is correct. I think folks are getting way too excited about this because of the headline. No one who knows anything about the IPCC has ever believed the line that 2500 scientists “agree” on every single paragraph — that has always been a political line made by advocates. At most, a few dozen specialists look at the particular topic — there are many, many topics covered in the IPCC reports, from the hard science, to impacts on ecology to economics. Furthermore, the IPCC reports are (supposed to be) a synthesis of the peer reviewed lit — as in what gets published in the accepted (not fringe) peer reviewed journals. Those in opposition to the synthesis given in the IPCC reports aren’t doing a very good job of taking the theory apart via the peer reviewed journals. If you can’t get it published in the journals, you haven’t made the case. Don’t make the case, don’t change what is reported by the IPCC. Attacks on op-ed pages and blogs make people happy but are really just noise.
When talking about animals and humans the antonym is “gracile.”
Noted. (The real criminals are the enablers.) However, hasn’t Patchy made that consensus claim, along with other key members of the IPCC cabal? And, regardless of the source, it’s worth rebutting.
What does it do to your argument that there was (and is still, mostly) “a consensus in the discipline” that the hockey stick correctly portrays the temperature record of the past millennium?
I always wondered if Hulme just might be the leaker.
dr.bill says:
June 15, 2010 at 1:13 am
re Wren: June 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Wren (seriously), I don’t understand how you can, on the one hand, repeatedly and relentlessly just skim the surface of anything ‘alarmist’ and then spend such large amounts of time in detailed nit-picking about anything ‘counter-alarmist’, while treating the rest of us as illiterate clods who can’t see beyond our noses.
Your post that I have referenced is a case in point. All of us have likely read the whole article, many of us before it appeared on WUWT, and we read entire sentences and paragraphs, and can generally do so without moving our lips. Newspapers don’t put everything into their headlines. They put what will catch people’s attention, and they often try to compress what they think is the gist of an article into that headline. Headlines are supposed to be short. Everyone on the planet knows that you have to read beyond the brief quotes and headlines.
Your analysis of the IPCC ‘concensus’ suffers from a trivial weakness of logic. In science fiction novels, for example, particularly those involving great quantities of minute description, a common symptom arises. If you ask a Biologist for an opinion of the novel, you often get an answer like: “Some errors in the Biology, but otherwise good.” Ask a Physicist, and you’ll get: “Some errors in the Physics, but otherwise good.”, and so on for the Chemists, Engineers, Geologists, Economists, and all the others.
The IPCC process suffers from the exact complement of this paradigm, and I cannot believe that you do not see this, because you are too articulate otherwise. If you have financial interests in the matter, then I can at least understand that. If that isn’t the case, then I simply don’t understand how you can write these things as if you believe them. You just don’t seem that dumb.
/dr.bill
—————
What is the profit in speculating on the motives and intelligence of people who post here?
Who is deep throat? We will take the sciences back for the common people.
There is no compromise
.
Kevin says:
June 15, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Those in opposition to the synthesis given in the IPCC reports aren’t doing a very good job of taking the theory apart via the peer reviewed journals. If you can’t get it published in the journals, you haven’t made the case.
Which is why the modus operandi has been to pressurize the editors of the journals and the reviewers to stay in line.
Read the climategate emails around the direct threats made by the Team against editors of prominent journals.
Are these the actions of reputable and responsible scientists?
Not much it would seem, and you do have a point. I let my interest in glaring incongruities get the better of my common sense for a moment. Sorry for the interruption. Carry on with your work. ☺
/dr.bill
Re Tallbloke (11:38) And yet, as I recall, the articles in question were published & those critical of components of the theory were noted in the IPCC reviews. The claims made in climategate look to me like bluster/boasting between people who didn’t really have the power to actually make it happen. The editors, when threatened by a “boycott” by a particular group, can always say “take a hike.” The editors who publish something that really rocks the prevailing view will indeed take heat, but if the article in question withstands close scrutiny, then the reputation of the journal will be enhanced. Getting anything published in the more prestigious journals is not easy — most submitted pieces are declined, regardless of the particular field of study. Based on what I see floating around the blogosphere as arguement against the prevailing components of the theory, there are few articles that are of high enough quality that would also have that big of an impact. The blogosphere is effective politically in nailing down a base, but until someone gets serious about finding the flaws in the big picture and making those points in the serious journals, the science will continue to annoy the heck out of you.
Also in reply to tallbloke — If I were coaching people on how to do this, I’d advise them to start by digging into the long development of the theory and then figuring out where they need to start to “unravel” it. I’d start with http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ which will drive you crazy — (forewarned is forearmed), but until this is done and people figure out the flaws in the basics (beyond “I don’t believe it.”, the focus on hockey sticks and such is a waste of time.
Kevin says:
June 16, 2010 at 9:45 am
Re Tallbloke (11:38) And yet, as I recall, the articles in question were published
That’s besides the point. The question I’ve asked, which you have gone to some trouble to avoid answering, is this:
“Are these the actions of reputable and responsible scientists?”
Global warming theory is a busted flush. The bewitched larch of Yamal, the Mann/Jones hockey sticks, the exaggerated claims of imminent glacier meltdown….
The onus is not on us to refute an unproven hypothesis, it is on them to support it with facts which are not so easily proven false.
Steve Mosher,
Well done one providing exactly the kind of misleading commentary Mike Hulme was warning about in the first place.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/
I trust you will prominently link to his public statement of clarification, correcting reports such as these.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/
Correction: second link should be http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
Re Tallbloke: “Global warming theory is a busted flush.”
Not according to Mike Hulme, who ends his latest response to the distortion in the National Post…
“…And for the record … I believe that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Mike Hulme, Norwich
16 June 2010”
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Further-Clarification-of-my-Remarks.pdf
Will Steven Mosher be updating his post in an effort to correct conclusions to be drawn from the National Post’s misleading article, and thereby not mislead his readers in turn?
For Mike Hulme to say the the 2500 scientists consensus is disengenuous now, is Unbelievable!!
AS Mike Hulme ORGANISED sending the statements for a consensus back in 1997..
which pre-dates the uses of 2500 scientist mantra
The “2500 scientist’ thing seems to have only started around 2007, ands sounds like a press release or quote to the media, that got recycled..
It may have been based on this:
Scientists trying to push public policy.. (climategate emails)
Mike Hulme 1997:
“Reference: Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
Global Climate
Dear Colleague,
Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement…….
……….We realize that you are very busy, but this action may have a very positive
influence on public discussions during the critical period leading up to
Kyoto and during the Conference itself.
With best wishes,
Michael Hulme, Climatic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich
Joseph Alcamo, University of Kassel, Germany”
sent and collated by Tim Mitchell – PHD student, at MIKE HULMES request?! (missing Tim the programmer – in Harry_read_me.txt
Tom Wrigley email response was devastingly critical:
“I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” .
“It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.”
“This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted.
In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
People who endorse your letter will NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley”
There is a lot more criticism, see the full email below
(statement from Tom Wrigley’s response Mike Hulme, tim mitchell statement underneath )
—————————————————————————————————————-
From: Tom Wigley
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, grassl_h@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Klaus Hasselmann klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Jill Jaeger , rector@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley
Cc: Mike Hulme , t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
— when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.
Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action — and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of “too much, too soon” is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from “too little, too late” — to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents (“after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling”). People who endorse your letter will
NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Tim Mitchell wrote:
> Reference: Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
> Global Climate
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
> Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
> to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
> emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
> countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
> December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
> scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
> the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement.
>
> ***** The 11 formal sponsors are: *****
>
> Jan Goudriaan Hartmut Grassl Klaus Hasselmann Jill Jäger
> Hans Opschoor Tim O’Riordan Martin Parry David Pearce
> Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber Wolfgang Seiler Pier Vellinga
>
> After endorsements from many hundreds of other European climate-related
> scientists are collected (and we hope that you agree to be one of these), the
> Statement will be brought to the attention of key decision-makers (e.g. EU
> Kyoto negotiaters and Environment Ministers) and other opinion-makers in
> Europe (e.g. editorial boards of newspapers) during the week beginning 24th
> November. The UK and other European WWF offices have agreed to assist in
> this activity, although the preparation of the Statement itself has in no
> way been initiated or influenced by WWF or any other body. This is an
> initiative taken by us alone and supported by our 11 Statement sponsors.
>
> WHAT WE ASK FROM YOU
>
> We would very much like you to endorse this Statement. Unfortunately, at
> this time we can no longer take into account any suggested modifications.
> Nevertheless, we hope that it reflects your views closely enough so that
> you can support it. If you agree with the Statement, then:
>
> 1. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY FILL OUT the form below and either reply via email
> (preferably) or telefax (only if necessary) to the indicated fax number.
> Replies received after Wednesday 19th November will not be included. If
> replying by email please do not use the ‘reply all’ option. If this
> invitation has been forwarded from a colleague, please make sure your reply
> is directed to the originators of this invitation, namely:
> t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (on behalf of Mike Hulme and Joe Alcamo).
>
> 2. We have identified about 700 climate-related scientists in Europe who
> are receiving this email directly from us. If you feel it is appropriate,
> PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to up to three colleagues in your country who
> are working in climate-related fields, who you think may support the
> Statement and whom we have not targeted. To identify colleagues whom we
> have already invited you can examine the email address list we have used
> for your country in the email header (or else appended to the end of this
> email).
>
> We realize that you are very busy, but this action may have a very positive
> influence on public discussions during the critical period leading up to
> Kyoto and during the Conference itself.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Michael Hulme, Climatic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich
> Joseph Alcamo, University of Kassel, Germany
>
> (On behalf of the other signatories of the Statement)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> I agree to have my name placed on the list of scientists that endorse the
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global
> Climate.
>
> Full Title and Name
>
> Affiliation Country
>
> Signature (for fax replies only)
>
> Date
>
> Other comments:
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> We would prefer you to return this email message to us by email, having
> duly completed the form above. You should be sending the form to:
>
> ****************************
> ** **
> ** t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx **
> ** **
> ****************************
>
> If you would rather not use the email reply function, then please print out
> the form above and fax it (filled in) to:
>
> “Attention: European Climate Statement”
> Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
> Telefax: +44 1603 507784
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
> =============================================================================
>
> In 1992, the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global
> climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year,
> at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take
> another important step. It is our belief that the nations of the world
> should agree to substantive action for controlling the growth of greenhouse
> gas emissions.
>
> Our opinion is bolstered by the latest assessment of scientific knowledge
> carried out by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
> IPCC reported that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
> influence on global climate”. They also gave examples of observed climate
> change up to now, including:
>
> · Global mean surface air temperature has increased by between 0.3 to 0.6
> degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, and recent years have been the
> warmest since 1860.
> · Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past
> 100 years.
>
> Based on estimates from computer models, the IPCC also maintained that
> humanity will have a continuing and cumulative effect on climate in the
> future. Future society may find that some climate impacts are positive, as
> in the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in some dry regions;
> and society may be able to adapt to some impacts, such as by building dikes
> against rising sea level. But many, if not most, climate impacts will
> increase risks to society and nature, and will be irreversible on the human
> time scale. Among the possible changes are further increases in sea level,
> the transformation of forest and other ecosystems, modifications of crop
> yield, and shifts in the geographic range of pests and pathogens. It is
> also possible that infrequent but disastrous events, such as droughts and
> floods, could occur more often in some regions. At particular risk are
> people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas and
> islands, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or in mountainous
> regions. The risk to nature will be significant in the many areas where
> ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are
> already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.
>
> Because of these risks, we consider it important for nations to set limits
> on the increase of global temperature due to human interference with the
> climate system. We recommend that European and other industrialized nations
> use such long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining
> short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example,
> by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States.
>
> Some may say that action to control emissions should be postponed because
> of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. Our view
> is that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require
> “precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of
> climate change”, as stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
>
> We also acknowledge that economic arguments have been put forward for
> postponing the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after
> carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find
> the arguments against postponement to be more compelling. First, postponing
> action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions
> onto future generations. Second, it will lead to a greater accumulation of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and hence make it more difficult to
> prevent future climate change when action is finally taken. Third, the
> latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate
> control of emissions.
>
> Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other
> industrialized countries to agree to control greenhouse emissions as part
> of a Kyoto agreement. Some controls can be achieved by reducing fossil fuel
> use at little or no net cost through accelerated improvements in the
> efficiency of energy systems, the faster introduction of renewable energy
> sources, and the reduction of subsidies for fossil fuel use. Moreover,
> reducing the use of fossil fuels will also reduce local and regional air
> pollution, and their related impacts on human health and ecosystems.
>
> We believe that the European Union (EU) proposal is consistent with long
> term climate protection. This proposal would reduce key greenhouse gas
> emissions by 15% from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I
> countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger
> emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the EU, or
> similar, goal as a positive first step “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
> interference with the climate system” and to lessen risks to society and
> nature. Such substantive action is needed now.
>
> *Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
> Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
>
> Signed:
>
> Jan Goudriaan Hartmut Grassl Klaus Hasselmann
> Jill Jäger Hans Opschoor Tim O’Riordan
> Martin Parry David Pearce Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
> Wolfgang Seiler Pier Vellinga
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> ** This message originated from the
> ** Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
> ** It was sent out by
> ** Mike Hulme and Tim Mitchell on behalf of the 11 key signatories.
> ** If you object to being on this email address list,
> ** please accept our apologies and inform us;
> ** we will then remove your address from the list.
> ** Please direct any comments to:
> ** t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ************************************************************************
>
> The list below consists of the people with UK email addresses to whom this
> message has been sent:
>
> all CRU staff
I left out all the signaturies: find it here:
http://www.climate-gate.org/index.php
search for:
Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
J Bowers: June 17, 2010 at 3:29 am
Hmmm, there’s a squadron of pigs lined up outside my window ready to take off.
@KenB
“Now exactly where is the apology, the mea culpa of all those that used that big lie to ignore the damage that had been done to science, put their head in the sand, fingers firmly in their ears while they poured scorn on sceptics who dared speak up.”
Excellent point. I am also waiting for Solomon’s reply for the libelous misrepresentation of Hulme’s views. You are absolutely right to point out the damage to science caused by this scurrilous attack on scientific process and integrity.
Barry Woods: June 17, 2010 at 5:50 am
Yada yada yada …
Sheesh mate, that post is oh so passe.
Unsurprisingly, chirping of
hypocritescrickets … deafening.