[Update, Parncutt has pulled his page, the webcite link still works, 1:00 am PDT 12/24/12 ~mod]
UPDATE2: 9AM PST 1/24 The Parncutt page now gets a 404 “file not found” error, which to me suggests that University of Graz officials pulled the plug on it rather than Parncutt, as Parncutt alludes to and expects the reactions in his ugly essay and was prepared for them. Based on his demeanor, if he had pulled it, I posit that he would have left some rationalization essay in its place. In the wake of well known mass shootings this year, I suspect the University of Graz didn’t want this PR disaster on their hands before it got beyond the blogging world and into the MSM. See below for the page that I archived using an established and accepted archiving service – Anthony
UPDATE3: 5AM Dec 25th, Parcutt’s page has returned, completely rewritten without a hint of the ugliness of the previous one. It’s a Festivus miracle! I blame the airing of grievances. – Anthony
The bizarre world of AGW proponentry continues. I wonder how David Appell will react to this one? Jo Nova tells us of the latest climate ugliness that is beyond bizzare, and, even more disturbing, we see who’s motiviating this man’s hate. – Anthony
Jo Nova writes:
Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death
Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria, reckons people like Watts, Tallbloke, Singer, Michaels, Monckton, McIntyre and me (there are too many to list) should be executed. He’s gone full barking mad, and though he says these are his “personal opinions” they are listed on his university web site.
For all the bleating of those who say they’ve had real “death threats“, we get discussions about executing skeptics from Professors, wielding the tyrannical power of the state. Was he paid by the state to write these simplistic, immature, “solutions”? Do taxpayers fund his web expenses? (And what the heck is systematic musicology?)
Here’s a quote from Parncutt:
“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”
“Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion.”
“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”
Read the whole story here at Jo Nova’s place: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/
=============================================================
This is the ranting of a person who has become propagandized.
Reading Parncutt’s web page at the University of Graz it becomes clear where his delusions originate from. He names the websites “Skeptical Science” and DeSmog blog as his sources.
“For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.”
“Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog.”
As his affirmed sources for his article calling for the death of climate skeptics, John Cook and Jim Hoggan now own this despicable ugliness. The question is: will they care? And will they condemn this or agree by their silence?
My guess is neither John Cook nor Jim Hoggan will have the moral integrity to condemn this man’s delusional hatred. I hope to be proven wrong.
Since his page will likely be modified or disappeared once University of Graz officials realize they have a rogue PR disaster on their hands, I’ve permanently archived the page here:
Richard Parncutt. Death penalty for global warming deniers?. University of Graz. 2012-12-24. URL: http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html. Accessed: 2012-12-24. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6D8yy8NUJ)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Mike says:
December 24, 2012 at 11:32 pm”
FYI, mainframes are still very much in use today, even punch cards, albeit virtualised. Never mind, you keep on defending people like Parncutt.
Still waiting for alarmists to demonstrate CO2 is pollution.
I’m no psychiatrist, but I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often.
I would argue that Parncutt is a parasite: he produces nothing; no food, no wealth, no technology, no method, no knowledge: nothing. (Perhaps worse – he teaches his subject, creating more useless parasites.)
Yet he cosumes resources: he lives on the backs of the workers.
A man with intelligence, a man with a conscience, should be innately aware of his own uselessness, and this in turn should lead to self-loathing, and some destructive pathology.
The page is back online with changed content (last updated 25 December 2012)
http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/climatechange.html
Other_Andy says:
December 24, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Just when you think Parncutt is just a lone nutter, Mike appears defending him.
Yes, exactly, thanks for posting that. And one can add a lot to the list…
He obviously believes that Gleick was a hero doing the right thing.
He obviously believes that models are data.
He obviously believes that normal humans are not capable of understanding science and that science needs to be interpreted only by the ones who understand how to correctly interpret the signs. The scientific method and argumentation are so much old school.
“There’s rock-solid evidence for both rising CO2 levels, increasing average temperatures, and
many of the expected impacts are happening on schedule.”
He obviously believes the “Frankenstorm theory”.
He obviously believes satellite temperature data is wrong, but scientist can use thermometers from airport and make just the right corrections to extract the trend that satellites cannot see.
He obviously believes that ARGO data is wrong and heat has by-passed the ocean surface and the first 700 meters layers to hide like the big monster in the depths just waiting for the right moment to strike on us.
He obviously believes that activist and payed PR agents have the role to just filter the right science for us to digest. They have no other interest whatsoever.
He obviously believes that scientists are kind of über-humans, above normal human weaknesses.
He obviously believes that in the last 200 years human cities heat-island had no influence on the thermometers measuring temperature inside, that the cities temperatures remained constant, that their growth did not increase the heat island, on the contrary even reducing the temperature.
“There is incontrovertible data to support of warming, and excellent data to support the probability of further warming causing extensive disruption and damage.”
Incontrovertible where did I heard that word? Was it the reason why Ivar Giaever resigned from APS?
“I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.””
@Mike – if you want to really make yourself an opinion you need to read both sides and try to understand what skeptics say. Just reading one side makes you unable to stand against possible propaganda. Almost all warmista sites are heavily moderated, not allowing for open discussions, are only echo-rooms of the own bias.
I appreciate open discussions and possibilities to learn from, but I refuse to contribute to a site where open questions or conversations are distorted, where my posts may be edited or dissapeared, where double standards apply.
So if you want to discuss science try it on skeptic blogs on threads on the respective areas. It is a good opportunity to learn, but don’t come with insults, argument ad hominem, arguments from authority…
BTW “climate change disputers” is way wrong. Basically I saw climate change disputers on the CAGW sites where 50% believe there are no natural climate changes, that natural climate change is very sloooow and the 0.7 degree change we have seen in a century and half is very fast and much more then anything else and thus not natural. Yeah, speak of climate change disputers… They have mostly no knowledge of Bond events, no understanding of MWP, believe it to be a Greenland anomaly and so on.
Most of the people here do not buy the “science of catastrophical anthropogenic climate change due to CO2” – and are very skeptic of its arguments – therefore CAGW-skeptic would be the right word. People here see that there have been some good results in the enriching of the atmosphere with CO2, discussion that is taboo for CAGW sites.
If you think the position of Richard Parncrutt is defendable you need to explain how can you justify the use of biofuels when there is famine in the world? Those are not theoretical death in the more or less distant future but real death now. You need to explain the death by freezing of fuel poverty and the justification for feed-in tariffs for solar and wind.
You need also to explain the “death list” at desmo blog and why for example is a person like Donna Laframboise there who only highlighted corruption and wrong processes, or any other science person who has a theory like V. Courtillot or Anthony Watts who only hosted a blog with scientific arguments?
Mike says:
December 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
RACook –
1) I like all of those things you are arguing we should have. Except: I would like to do it all while reducing emissions and quickly lowering atmospheric CO2 levels to a safe level.
What is safe level?
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2012/09/the-photosynthesis-effect.html
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/html/PlantPPM2.jpg
2) I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong that there is no evidence of AGW. There is both a clear physical mechanism for CO2-induced warming
well, well, explain further
3) … it is pretty clear that rising CO2 levels are going to result in extreme damage to the world economy…. What I advocate is economic progress with sane controls on industrial pollution.
CO2 is not pollution. The current CO2 levels are far away from damaging anything and focusing now on CO2 is routing resources to fight the wrong priorities. The current solutions are far from doing good, on the contrary.
4) … I would suggest taking a look at the IPCC summary, or any of the many excellent books discussing AGW available. I’m reading http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Climate-Change/dp/1848365799 at the moment – recommended! Anyway the issue here is not about all the various unexpected things that could happen with AGW – it’s about the large chance that our models tell us we may have of extreme environmental disruption. Let’s say your doctor told you that due to smoking cigarettes you had a 60% chance of developing lung cancer in the next six years – and you could cut that chance to 15% by quitting. What would you do?
There are ample discussions about not only summary but various IPCC chapters on this blog.
Current models are proven to be wrong – garbage – see the discussions about.
Let say the doctor tells you that according to his model you should each day let 500g blood out to purify, his model is showing an increased vitality and the model lives 150 years, would you put it in practice without checking the model forecasting? Would you apply any medicine to you based on models that are disproved by real tests?
5) Er… no, you haven’t shown that we are “the threat” here. You’ve just yelled a lot, thrown a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS at me, and obsessed over things I didn’t say, lol. Anyway, the threat is runaway climate change caused by fossil fuels, and the issue is how to reduce the chance of, ameliorate and adapt to this threat.
If the medicine prescribed based on a faulty model is proven to do harm, would you still swallow it?
1st version:
“At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed.”
“I think it is justified for a few heads to roll”
2nd version:
“I have consistently opposed the death penalty in every case”
Must be a new definition of the words “consistently” and “every” that only a Professor of Systematic Musicology understands.
My Christmas open email to the Professor.
I understand that your university has a faculty for climate study, and thus is economically more less depend on the climate scare, but it still does not explain your almost fascistic views you hold. So I ask you politely to rethink the issue after reading some overviews from dedicated and independent scientists, where after I am almost certain your view will change radically, just as it has happened for so many other people, who have looked into the evidence for them selves, instead of blindly believing in the political correctness.
The whole email is here: http://klimabedrag.dk/Engelske-indlag/open-email-to-professor-richard-parncutt
“Mike” argues that since nobody has actually been jailed or executed, there’s no need to protest the proposal that they should be. He says that rationalizing the holocaust is distasteful, and then proceeds to try and rationalize the holocaust. He is a distasteful and hate filled troll who has wrapped himself in a cloak of morality while arguing to justify the repetition of history’s darkest moments. The only difference between him and Parncutt is that Parncutt has the balls to write under his own name.
Until “Mike” grows a similar pair, his posts should be banned.
Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
“There is both a clear physical mechanism for CO2-induced warming, and ample evidence of it occurring.”
This is a common error of persons who have swallowed what the media propagates concerning CO2. The absorbency spectrum of CO2 is too slight to achieve significant warming. Indeed, atmospheric CO2 is at saturation with respect to its absorbency, which means that further increments have negligible effect. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a theoretical warming of about one degree, but actual temperature records have not supported this theory.
The real warming, as proposed by AGW theory, comes not from CO2 but from increased atmospheric humidity (water vapor) which AGW says should increase with increasing levels of CO2. So far, water vapor has not increased, according to records that measure this aspect. So, for the last sixteen years CO2 has increased, but water vapor has not, and temperature has not and indeed, the last ten years have shown a cooling trend. It is time to re-evaluate AGW theory, don’t you think?
You don’t have to be a genius to figure this out. You do need to learn to think for yourself, however, and this is the tough part for most people.
Regarding the “evidence” that warming is occurring, there is none. The claims of the AGW proponents is based on a theory unsupported by evidence. The “evidence” hype is another myth that gets propagated in popular media and swallowed by gullible types. In fact, the evidence shows otherwise: the last warming trend ended sixteen years ago, and the last ten years show cooling, and this trend is expected to continue indefinitely. So ask yourself “Is this global warming?” That is the first step toward achieving understanding.
How does one achieve independent thought? The key is to not let yourself get frightened. The terrible, frightening things that you hear about in the media sells newspapers, it sells soap, but it does not foster critical thought because one can’t think too well when one is frightened. Think of a cattle stampede.
It is not good for the globe to be cooling. Here is the truth: warming is entirely beneficial; it is cooling that holds dire consequences for the human race, and for life in general. Atmospheric CO2 is beneficial: it is the foundation of life and makes green things grow. Just don’t believe the panic talk you hear and consider whether or not you wish to run with the herd.
Cheers mpainter
Mike, I can’t for the love of Christ understand, what makes you come here to defend a person you don’t even know? Explain it to me, please. Here we have a person who thinks and writes that we here are bigger criminals than Breivik – and your first instinct is to defend him.
Mike says:
December 25, 2012 at 1:07 am
“2) I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong that there is no evidence of AGW. There is both a clear physical mechanism for CO2-induced warming, and ample evidence of it occurring. Claiming otherwise is just silly.”
Pressure broadening of CO2 absorption lines does happen, but the assumption that this must lead to an ever growing temperature rise on Earth is silly, as the Earth’s atmosphere has obvious means of cooling itself via increased convection. It is a dynamic homeostatic system. Attempts at modeling it have failed so far.
Statistical analysis shows that a rise in CO2 cannot Granger-cause a temperature rise.
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
(Warming causes a rise in CO2, CO2 rise potentially causes a warming – but the first causation is 10 times stronger (through outgassing) – so isn’t it a bit idiotic under these circumstances to say CO2 causes warming? Which is, again, maybe because the causation in the other direction is 10 times stronger, not evident in the statistics.)
http://motls.blogspot.de/2012/07/land-biospheres-absorption-of-co2.html
As for the “ample evidence” of “AGW” occuring: If you are talking about an increase intemperatures, that is just that – evidence for WARMING, not for ANTROPOGENIC warming. Long term warming looks the same since 1840. Where’s the acceleration of warming? No evidence of AGW.
Perry says:
December 25, 2012 at 1:31 am
Parncutt mentions John Sloboda as an advisor. “The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome.”
I think it must be this man. Draw a toothbrush moustache on his photo and see what you get.
http://www.keele.ac.uk/psychology/people/slobodajohn/
——————————————————
Ha ha ha. I think you just proved that the purported and bogus Godwin’s Law is well past its expiry date.
Maybe the words are a little fairer, it appears they still mask a fiendish heart.
Like most Nazis, Parncutt is incapable of discerning irony. His proposal to exterminate “deniers” around the world is a glaring example. “Denier” is a term that derives from “Holocaust denier,” that is, people who think the Holocaust, in which millions were rounded up and murdered, was a figment of the Western imagination. That he would come up with a similar (final) solution for those of us who have been labeled as such is a classic example of unintentional irony.
Dang, sorry mods – missing tag on my last post: Here tis again, hopefully more readable if you could delete the previous:
Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 12:52 am [in blockquotes below]
Well. With all due respect, you probably should try doing that if you wish to begin to understand the response. Beside his basic “final solution” the absolute disdain for logic or in understanding statistics does not paint him as a terribly intelligent man: He said: “….. let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. […] If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die….”
It does not quite work like that, Richard. If you are wrong, you are wrong, you don’t end up magically being 10% right. And even if there were a 90% chance climate scientists would be wrong (and some of the worst case scenarios ARE labelled by the IPCC with a 10% probability of occurring!) then people will still be regarded as wrong and STILL be deemed guilty and sentenced??!
A fascinating example of the antics of the “rule following ape” that we really are. Here you cite something that was a great wrong at the time, and that in retrospect we can see was great wrong and an abomination in every way. Yet you justify the actions that were taken then because “those were the rules” and “those were the guys in charge”. I fearfully doubt your moral character and your ability to think logically. I even suspect and fear I may be conversing with Richard “Final Solution” Parncutt! Surely there cannot be two such people on the planet!! (Ah… but I dramatise and jest, Mike … there are unfortunately many of you).
You get what you fund, and you fund what matches your policy. This takes no conspiracy; governments, NGOs, international organisations live and exist for the opportunity to regulate, fund, tax and bureaucratise. Do you really think some young, up and coming PHD student is going to get any funding for putting up a proposal to disprove any aspect of “the theory”? Do you think anyone is going to put forward such a proposal?
Unanimously declared? What exactly? That the world is warming over the recent half century? Well, yes, largely agreed upon. That mankind is contributing? Yep, mostly agreed upon. That the contribution of mankind is significant? Ah, now we hear some dissent and see a lot of ‘umming and ahhing’. That mankind is the major contributor? A tentative“maybe”.
And the Insurance Industry? Really? No chance of self interest there?
I am not surprised at all, because I read the scientific literature. As much of it as I get time to, as soon as it comes out. Mentions of uncertainty, modelling and adjustments are everywhere, but we don’t see that in the headlines, do we?
Very early on (when I was a believer …!) I turned to articles on the TOA radiation deficit (what more ironclad proof could one seek? Let’s see our measures of incoming vs outgoing radiation?)
Loeb etal 2009 J. Climate, 22, 748–766
In other words – satellite data is not precise and calibration processes are based on modelling to provide the expected figures… which are in turn quoted as ‘proof’ by other modellers.
How about our much vaunted satellite measurements of sea level rise? Umm, it has problems too, to the extent they want/need/propose the launching of another satellite. Read all about the problems, uncertainties and proposals right here: http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/GRASP_COSPAR_paper.pdf
(and hey, those guys ain’t gonna speak up if they think there is no looming disaster are they? No probability of catastrophe, no funding, no job….)
So we are bombarded with “proof” that requires “leaps of logic”: ie Superstorm Sandy: (No cites required I guess). Logic flow: Warms seas create hurricanes. Seas were warm. A hurricane occurred. It is obvious to all that warmer waters will make hurricanes worse. Therefore this is proof of global warming.
Then they tell us it was “unprecedented”… um, that is unprecedented since…..um …..the last time it happened: from The Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science:
Here is another dramatically headlined story taken at face value by people who fail to read in detail:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1976
Headlined “First evidence of ocean acidification affecting live marine creatures in the Southern Ocean” … but this not quite what the original article was about:
Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean by N. Bednaršek, G. A. Tarling, D. C. E. Bakker, S. Fielding, E. M. Jones, H. J. Venables, P. Ward, A.Kuzirian, B. Lézé, R. A. Feely, and E. H. Murphy is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
This is simply a beat up about a natural phenomenon. Calcite shells cannot exist under certain conditions of depth/pressure/ temperature. When natural upwellings of this water occur, it damages shells in the upper layers. They harvested some of these shells, took photos and then did some modelling and “proved” the rather obvious fact this will be more likely to occur in a more acidic ocean. (Yep, both upwellings and ‘dissolving shells’ are completely natural phenomena. Read up on Calcite Compensation Depth) (Wiki will suffice, here is a quote for you):
“….Calcite compensation depth (CCD) is the depth in the oceans […about 4000 meters..] below which the rate of supply of calcite (calcium carbonate) lags behind the rate of solvation, such that no calcite is preserved. Aragonite compensation depth (hence ACD) describes the same behaviour in reference to aragonitic carbonates.Calcium carbonate is essentially insoluble in sea surface waters ……. [….] Calcium carbonate is more soluble at lower temperatures and at higher pressures. It is also more soluble if the concentration of dissolved CO2 is higher. [….]….”
There are few scientists who try to encompass the “whole spectrum of the debate”. Most stick to their own areas of expertise, pursue the funding which is available, and make sure they have a summary paragraph in there which says something along the lines of “…and the situation can be expected to be much worse/better/more intense/less intense later according to forecast AGW predictions…” . Look closely, you will see it everywhere. You may see it as acceptance of the theory; I see it as people paying “lip service” to the system they are dealing with. (ref your comments on Hitler above).
ie: Do something! Do ANYTHING! But do it now!
I support the effort that goes into developing new and more efficient energy policies, although I do decry the fact political machinations and vote seeking are driving an illogical early move to crop derived fuels.
I fully support all the effort and new technology that is going into measuring ocean temperatures, sea level changes, ice changes, atmospheric changes etc etc etc, (and you may ask yourself why scientist deem such research necessary if they already know enough about what is happening) and respect the fact that scientists need to generate a certain amount of drama to attract funding from politicians who have wars to prosecute, their friends to look after, and their own pockets and political legacy foremost in their minds.
Currently scientists have a reasonably plausible theory to pursue, and they are very obviously in the early stages of gathering data.
The discussion and pursuit of answers is not helped by the unfortunate side effect of the dramatic approach which was to produce a baying mass of “noble cause devotees” whose almost religious fervour and systems of programmed belief do much to prevent a normal discussion being pursued.
Just curious, as an interested observer, if instead of death to “deniers,” he had said death to Arabs or Muslims or Jews or gypsies, etc., in the form of state executions, would he still be walking around free in Europe?
The “festivus” link appears broken. Should be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus
Mike is ‘permutising’
i.e. mistaking considering every possibility under the sun for rational thought
He is like the fellow at the pub quiz. The qustion is , ‘what is the capital of Mongolia ?’
The other members of the team bow their heads and rack their brains
Mike shouts out ‘Dniep, Sevastopol, Bejing’
‘Canberra, Kiev, Ulan Bator’
‘London, Paris, Rome’
When the answer comes – ‘Ulan Bator’
He proudly says – ‘I got that’
except he did not.
just because it is possible to imagine something, does not make it worthy of attention
his thought experiments might have a use, but not here. not now. They lack judgement and they lack a point. They lack effectiveness and most of all, they dont score a point in the quiz
Oh don’t worry too much about this fellow. He couldn’t kill my Grandmother (not least because she died 10 years ago). He is an over-educated arsenugget. I emailed him with an invitation to a fight here in North Wales but elicited no response.
Nothing to fret about, just a routine [trimmed]head.
A Happy New Year to Anthony and all.
Am I on the death list yet ?
Unfortunately I can’t continue this lovely discussion. Two of my subsequent responses have apparently been rejected by the moderators. Under these circumstances, where faithful WUWT commenters may slander and disparage opponents freely, while those who calmly attempt to counter their arguments are muzzled, I have no choice but to take my ball and go play somewhere else.
Enjoy your echo-chamber.
Jim says:
December 24, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Not EVERYTHING is a part of some GRAND con-spir-acy; perhaps someday God in his wisdom will grant you the maturity and grace to see that as well …
Where did I say that everything is a part of some con-spir-acy? Putting your words into my mouth in order to ingratiate yourself with infantile admonitions about maturity? How senile of you.
P.S. Not to mention that a belief in God is in itself the most glaring grand con-spir-acy theory.
David Ross says:
December 24, 2012 at 2:20 am
Parncutt’s page has also been cached by Google in full
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uni-graz.at%2Frichard.parncutt%2Fclimatechange.html
=================
I read Parncutt’s blog post again to see if commenter “Mike” made any reasonable arguments. He does not. Parncutt is a fruitcake.
You know, I’m jut sitting here thinking through the practical aspects of Parncutt/Mike’s Final Solution. Lets assume there are a few hundred million deniers, denier sympathizers, family members, etc. on the planet. One of the challenges to the Final Solution will be how to handle the corpses in a sanitary manner so as not to risk the potential of spreading disease among the virtuous non-deniers who remain. Clearly, incineration is the only large scale, tested solution. But here’s a point that I think Mike has missed — the particulate matter generated from the incineration will be a powerful negative forcing. In fact, it would probably offset the effect of 10s of trillions of tons of carbon. So I think Mike has missed an important point in his argument. If, in the abundance of caution, we knew that incinerating 100s of million of deniers could avert a climate catastrophic, why wouldn’t we at least try it? After all, who could argue with the logic of the precautionary principle?
Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm
“….Unfortunately I can’t continue this lovely discussion. …”
Sigh….. I’m missing Mike. Such an easy and voluminous target. 😉
But really, jokes aside, and without knowing what really occurred, it is a pity if he was indeed moderated out of here. He has obviously put a lot of time and effort into his replies and I do appreciate those who make an effort to discuss all points put up in debate.
The same has happened to me on several CAGW sites (ie, moderated out or banned), and we do end up with this strange system of “one-sided debates”.
[Not mod’ed out. Mod]