Friday 25 September 2015

Climate Change Debate - Four Books

Every time I see a new book denouncing climate change -- a.k.a. man made global warming, or MMGW -- I jump at it. The subject fascinates me. How, I wonder, can reality continue to be rejected. In all of human history, I'm quite sure, there has never been a more contentious scientific debate. Not even the most impassioned flat earth campaigns could match the recalcitrance and quantity of falsehoods emanating from the MMGW controversy. Some well-known believers have even dared go on record suggesting "deniers" be imprisoned. How do we stop this insanity? With each new published book I fantasize that finally, the alarmists will be forced to admit defeat and come down to pleasant, cool earth.
Yes, the issue is difficult. In fact, it's next to impossible for non-scientists -- including failed presidential candidate Al Gore -- to completely understand the technical facts. Deciphering truth from the jillions of units of misinformation being churned out -- often from computers that can't actually distinguish a climate crisis from a dating website -- is futile for a lay person.
    Also, the contradictions are legion. Writer A: Last year was the hottest on record! The polar bears are going extinct! A full 97 percent of the world's scientists are in consensus that global warming is destroying the planet! Writer B: There has been a steady decline in global temperature for 16 straight years! There are more polar bears than Mother Nature can feed properly! Science is about reliable testing and retesting; consensus is for opinions and politicians!
    Who do we trust? A good place to start might be the eminent scientists, climatologists and other Ph.D.s who make the soundest arguments, those found in Mark Steyn's latest book, A Disgrace to the Profession: The World's Scientists -- in their own words -- on Michael Mann, His Hockey Stick, and their Damage to Science, Volume I. Steyn, who compiled and edited the chapters, is a well-known author (of four previous books), journalist and defender of free speech.
     It is important to mention the professional relationship between Steyn and Mann, in case you aren't aware of it. The latter is suing the former and several others in the District of Columbia Superior Court for defamation. Steyn et al allegedly libeled Mann by allegedly calling the Hockey Stick graph allegedly -- I am being abundantly careful -- fraudulent. Steyn regularly updates readers of his blog on how the case, started in 2012, is dragging on interminably.
     Michael Mann needs no introduction. He is the Yale-and-Berkley-educated physicist and mathematician, now a climatologist at Penn State University. He is also the inventor/creator/discoverer of the (in)famous hockey stick graph, what Steyn calls "the single most influential graph in climate science. It leapt from the pages of a scientific journal to the posters and slides of the transnational summits, to official government pamphlets selling the Kyoto Protocol, to a starring role on the big screen in an Oscar winning movie [An Inconvenient Truth], to the classrooms of every schoolhouse in the western world." Also, a version of the hockey stick featured prominently in the influential United Nation's 2001 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
     The hockey stick graph purports to demonstrate that, for about 900 years -- represented by the long handle lying flat -- the world experienced almost no climate variation. Then, the blade of the stick shoots straight up for about 120 years, from the start of the industrial revolution. The blade also signifies a coinciding increase in atmospheric CO2 -- that would be the critical plant food we exhale with every breath -- which is also ostensibly threatening the planet's existence. (Despite what some alarmists say, CO2 is not pollution.)
     Their message: Industrialization -- that magnificent, massive engine of change that has done more to uplift humankind out of the virtual stone age than the wheel and the electric nail polish drier combined -- is killing us by releasing too much CO2, which is heating the atmosphere, and causing MMGW. The only problem is, the hockey stick has been almost completely discredited, which is the fundamental point of Steyn's book.
     To educate readers, Steyn quotes about 150 Ph.D. scientists from every corner of the earth. He even uses the statements of a few liberal scientists who actually believe in MMGW, but who have no trouble denouncing the hockey stick.
     Unfortunately, Steyn quotes fired controversial University of Ottawa physics professor Dr. Denis Rancourt, who was sanctioned for, among other misadventures, awarding every student in his class of 23 an A+ after one semester. But the rest of the scientists in the book are obviously exceptional scholars, with so much integrity they are barely known outside professional circles.
      The 12 chapters are each organized into ten or so bite-sized sections, which highlight an individual scientist's criticism of the hockey stick. Steyn's helpful and often hilarious insights and comments are peppered throughout.
      Steyn at one point complains that writing out the credentials of each contributor was cumbersome. It is easy to see why. Almost every name is followed by a full 100-word paragraph of accreditation. Here is one, of average length: The late Dr. Jerry D. Mahlman: "Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at Princeton. Senior Research Associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Pioneer in the use of computational models top examine the interaction between atmospheric chemistry and physics and one of the first scientists to raise concerns about ozone depletion. Recipient of the Rossby Research Medal of the American Meteorology Society, the US Government's Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive and Gold Medal of the US Department of Commerce."
      Several of the hockey stick's most obvious problems are easy to grasp. The 900-year long handle completely ignores two indisputable eras, the Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250 A.D. and the later Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. For proxy measures, Mann and his team used only a few trees, including one California bristlecone pine, which is certainly old, but whose rings cannot determine climate. As stated by Dr. Jeffrey Foss, author of the 2009 book Beyond Environmentalism: A philosophy of Nature: "tree rings are not a reliable proxy for temperature." After more critical analysis, Foss concluded, succinctly: "wrong tree, wrong proxy, wrong location, wrong method."
     You will love the 12 chapter titles, written in Steyn's proverbial acerbic inflection, among them: "Mann is an island," "Mann of the hour," "Mann o'war," "Mann overboard," and my personal favorite, "Mann boobs." 

Ever so briefly, my next book review is of Climate Change: The Facts. It was put together by members of  Australia's Institute of Public Affairs and edited by Alan Moran, an official in the royally-named Victorian Department of Minerals and Energy. Promoted constantly, along with A Disgrace, by Steyn on his website, Climate Change comprises 22 essays on the science, politics and economics of MMGW. As one of the contributing writers, Steyn says he is "honored to be alongside some of the most eminent scientists and some of the most rollicking commentators."
     Others include climate change denier blogger Anthony Watts, author and expert on the IPCC Donna Laframboise, English columnist and novelist James Dellingpole, and Cato Institute director of the study of science Patrick Michaels.
      The sixth chapter called "Forecasting Rain" has a particularly interesting take on the why it's so hard to make the international paradigm shift to "no MMGW." The writers -- Queensland University researchers John Abbot and Jennifer Marhohasy -- first point out MMGW's lack of practical utility yet its tremendous political value. They continue: MMGW "is a theory that accords with the mood of our time, the zeitgeist, which assumes that man's greed is despoiling the earth and that political action based on scientific consensus can save the planet.... This is why credible scientific rebuttals fail to achieve its overthrow."
      Unlike A Disgrace, this book includes full essays and comprises three major sections -- the science of climate change; the economics and politics of climate change; and the climate change movement -- in 20 chapters. Though overly complicated in some places, the book appears, in general, to leave no fossil unturned on the thorny topic of MMGW. If you finish this book and still believe in the alarmists' absurdity -- that the climate is changing rapidly and dangerously -- then you may not see the light on this issue until Greenland is finally forced to change its name.

Even more briefly, two older but excellent books might as well be mentioned here. I read them a few years ago and they both struck me as reliable, intellectually consistent and full of common sense. One is Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, by Brian Sussman, a former science reporter and a well known television-turned-radio personality in uber-liberal San Francisco. Reportedly he enjoys irritating the sophisticated elites in that city, and is wildly successful as a result.
     Published in 2010 by WorldNetDaily in Washington, D.C., the 224-page book is as satisfying as it is coherent, entertaining and informative. Climategate offers up a simple, compelling theory: MMGW is a deception of the highest order, and all those high profile advocates are just in it for their own advantage. They want to re-engineer society according to their own vision and become extremely wealthy in the process. Sussman reveals that it was his simmering anger at this chicanery that prompted him to write the book. Yes, he names names.
      Besides covering all the MMGW topics, he also holds lowly misunderstood coal up to the light.  He praises the raw material -- still a major source of power for some 48 percent of homes worldwide -- saying it is now an abundant, clean and cheap energy source. He says, "coal should have a bright future in North America" since "soot, sulfur and nitrogen oxides are no longer problems" in coal's production and use in the U.S. In his characteristic upbeat tone, Sussman explains, with certainty, that even coal-related fly ash is not a health concern to humans.

One final book I recommend is: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, by Christopher Horner, a Washington lawyer, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and an outspoken critic of the science of MMGW. Almost 350 pages, and quite humorous throughout, The Guide deals with just about everything on MMGW. But Horner takes particularly harsh aim at the leading alarmists, who are almost invariably on the left. He exposes radical environmentalists' manipulative methods for getting their way, their way being a complete stranglehold on society. If driving your car is causing global warming and air problems in Africa and Europe, then only world government can save us all. Indeed, MMGW is the eternal justification for endless government growth. It's a liberal's greatest aspiration come true.

The indomitable Mark Steyn writes about my above reviews and the ensuing ferocious debate on his blog. You can read his column by clicking the link below.

Thanks Mark! And thank to all my followers too!

As with most books on Lynne Like's, you can get these on


  1. You write "The 900-year long handle completely ignores two indisputable eras, the Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250 A.D. and the later Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850."

    Indisputable according to what data?

    1. Do you dispute the existence of a Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age?

    2. Tom: There is no scientific evidence for a globally synchronous MWP or LIA.

    3. There is no evidence for a globally synchronous current warming period either. Climate regime change is not globally synchronous. Not now, not during the MWP, not during the LIA.

      Do you dispute the existence of a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?

      Do you dine out on denying the science?

    4. Still waiting for an answer here.

    5. And I've been waiting for answers since before this.

    6. "Do you dispute the existence of a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?"


    7. As defined by the IPCC below:

      Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that
      were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century.

      he Little Ice Age (about 1450 to 1850). However, there is only very low confidence in quantitative estimates
      of their relative contributions.

      Keep up, Appell. Those definitions have already appeared below.

    8. "In some regions?"

      Which regions?
      For the entire 300 years? Or how long? A year above average? A decade? A century?

    9. "However, there is only very low confidence in quantitative estimates
      of their relative contributions."

      Then what are the judgements based on if they aren't quantitative? Feelings? Aesthetics? The King's proclamation?

    10. Their point is that the two climate regimes existed, undisputed by real scientists, airbrushed out of history by hysterics and political proponents of climate purity such as yourself.

    11. When and were did these climate regimes exist?

      And where is the data?

    12. Here (Figure S.2) are the temperature reconstructions for the seven regions, as calculated by PAGES 2k. Where are the MWPs?

    13. Keep up with the literature, dummy. Kaufman and the PAGES2K Arctic2K group recently published a series of major corrections to their database. The resulting reconstruction has been substantially revised with substantially increased medieval warmth. Pay attention, dummy.

    14. Who's dumb? That paper is (a) not from PAGES 2k, (b) hence not a correction, and (b) only about the Arctic.

      I'm looking at Figure 2a. Where is the medieval warm period in it?

    15. Ah the illiterati...

    16. "Ah the illiterati..."

      Again, where is the medieval warm period? I don't see it. How large? Maybe 0.1 C?

  2. Still waiting for the evidence showing the MWP and LIA were "indisputable."

    So far it seems like your phoned your Steyn review in without being able to back up your assertions. Typical.



      "Lamb (1965) seems to have been the first to coin the phrase ‘Medieval Warm Epoch’ or ‘Little Optimum’ to describe the totality of multiple strands of evidence principally drawn from western Europe, for a period of widespread and generally warmer temperatures which he put at between AD 1000 and 1200 (Lamb, 1982). It is important to note that Lamb also considered the warmest conditions to have occurred at different times in different areas: between 950 and 1200 in European Russia and Greenland, but somewhat later, between 1150 and 1300 (though with notable warmth also in the later 900s) in most of Europe (Lamb, 1977).

      In medieval times, as now, climate was unlikely to have changed in the same direction, or by the same magnitude, everywhere (Box 6.4, Figure 1). At some times, some regions may have experienced even warmer conditions than those that prevailed throughout the 20th century (e.g., see Bradley et al., 2003a)

      The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006)."

    2. Tom: Please point me to Lamb's data. I'd like to download it and graph it.

      There are no such data! Lamb's graph was hand-drawn. And it wasn't global.

      Do you still have a 50-year old view of physics, which means you would dispute quarks, gluons, black holes, the accelerating universe, the Higgs boson, neutrino oscillations, massive neutrinos, and a great deal else?

      Science progresses. 50 years ago was a lifetime.

    3. His hand-drawn chart of global temperature trends over the past 1,000 years is cool and probably much closer to the truth than Mann's monstrosity.

      However, his writing on the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Epoch, as he called it, do not rely on hand-drawn charts.

      Science progresses. Climate science has in many ways regressed. You are evidence.

    4. "His hand-drawn chart of global temperature trends over the past 1,000 years is cool and probably much closer to the truth than Mann's monstrosity."


      PS: "Cool?" Is that a scientific judgement?

    5. So you judge science based on how it makes you feel. Figures.

    6. No, like many who work in fields dealing with symbols I notice and sometimes remark that some are aesthetically pleasing. Just as scientists describe theories, formulae and figures as beautiful. You have a dead soul, Appell.

    7. And where is the data for this beautific squiggly line again? I'd like to download it and graph it out for myself.

    8. As it has nothing to do with the subjects being discussed here I'll let you go on your own treasure hunt.

      Funny how Krazy Klimate Kultists expect their opponents to also serve as their reference librarians.

  3. Haha, this from a "science writer" who got eggs on his face after attempting to pan Steyn's book without even bothering to read it ( Mr. Appell, I think it'd be better for you to rehabilitate your credibility first before uttering another word on this subject (or any other, for that matter). Defending Michael Mann is risky business; when he is finally undone, he's taking down the reputation every one of his defenders with him.

  4. You failed to answer the question. Do you have any such data and evidence?

    1. Are you disputing the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?

    2. You failed to answer the question. Are you disputing the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?

    3. It was warm in some places in medieval times and cool in other places. Same with the LIA. Neither were global phenomena.

    4. Neither I nor Steyn ever claimed they were global. Same as current warming.

    5. So then do you just mean it was a little warm a few places about 1000 years ago for a decade or two?

      Where was that, exactly? England?

      PAGES 2k divided the world into 7 global regions, and did not see a noticeable MWP in any of them (PAGES 2k Supp Material Figure S2).

      It was probably warm in Nebraska for a while, though -- which augmented the drought that greated the Sand Hills dunes.

    6. No, I mean what the IPCC said in AR5: "Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence,
      multi- decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. "

    7. Notice what that PDF says:

      "These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century"

    8. I'm not saying they did. Steyn is not saying they did. Lynne is not saying they did.

      They said that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period existed and that evidence for their existence is not disputed by reputable scientists or science in general.

      Which is exactly true.

      It's only Kultists like you who have to pretend they never happened.

    9. "They said that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period existed...."


      "and that evidence for their existence is not disputed by reputable scientists or science in general."

      Point to the evidence.

    10. And where are the data for Lamb's hand-drawn graph? I'd like to download them and graph them for myself.

    11. "Where?" David Appell wonders.

      Here and in Steyn's book, obviously. They said it was indisputable. That's when you butted in.

      Do you often experience memory loss? It would explain a lot...

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Hi David, Sorry I took so long to answer. So many tasks lately and holidays as well. I want to remind you that I am not a climate scientist, only a lowly book reviewer. I have no first hand knowledge of these well-documented time periods, only a faith in the knowledge and reputations of the climate scientists who write about them. Sort of how I trust my doctor to know the pills he prescribes will heal me without my understanding how or why. Please feel free to provide evidence that these historic time periods did not exist and I will read it. Thanks again for reading my blog and responding to a review!!

  7. Hi Lynne.

    You're a writer. I'm a writer. It is required that writers have evidence for their claims.

    But you don't seem to have any evidence for your claim: "The 900-year long handle completely ignores two indisputable eras, the Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250 A.D. and the later Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850."

    You clearly haven't presented any such evidence, and, when challenged on it, make excuses about why you can't present any.

    That makes your claim unsupportable. It shows you are the kind of writer who will write anything, whether they can support it or not.

    So why did you write something you have no evidence for?

    Was it based on your ideology? Do you WANT Steyn to be right, for some reason?

    If you want to write about science, you'd better be able to back up your assertions. Especially when challenged. Otherwise your science writing is misleading, and even untruthful.

    You are effectively calling people like Mann et al liars, when admitting you can't support your claim. That's extremely low of any writer.


    1. "It is required that writers have evidence for their claims."

      Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

    2. Hi David,

      Are all of your vitriolic replies based on your ideology? Do you WANT Steyn to wrong, for some reason?

      You are nothing but a MWP and LIA denier.

    3. Justin: Steyn is wrong. There is no evidence for a globally synchronous MWP or LIA.

    4. I corresponded with J.K. Rowliing who was surprised to hear she needed to have evidence for her claims.

    5. Who knew it was OK for fiction writers to make things up??

    6. Appell writes, "Justin: Steyn is wrong. There is no evidence for a globally synchronous MWP or LIA."

      But Steyn doesn't claim that they were globally synchronous. That's because no change in climate regime is globally synchronous down to and including the current warming period.

      Does the current warming period not exist because it is not globally synchronous?

    7. "But Steyn doesn't claim that they were globally synchronous."

      That's what this entire argument has been about, starting over a decade ago. Deniers think that if an MWP existed that was global, that means today's global warming can also have a natural cause.

      It's a completely illogical argument (CO2 is a greenhouse gas regardless of anything the Sun or other natural factor is doing), but that's been the motivation.

    8. So you want to tell us what people who you compare to Holocaust deniers think?

      Appell, it's clear you don't even know what you think. You say you are honest--but we see evidence downthread that you tell bald faced lies. "I post under my own name..." "I post under pseudonyms and you don't even know..."

      You take a straightforward argument and add your own qualifers so you can argue against the qualifiers. There's a word for that.

      And you are making stuff up. This argument didn't start because deniers were using the MWP against the consensus. This argument started because the Krazed Kilmate Konsensus (which has been hurting the very real consensus ever since you bat-s**t krazies tried to storm the stage) decided to use bad stats and worse proxies to remove the temptation to use it from the scientific literature.

      It didn't work, Appel. You morons created the argument you wanted to avoid.

    9. "So you want to tell us what people who you compare to Holocaust deniers think?"

      I never made such a comparision. The word "denier" had a meaning before the Holocaust, you know.

    10. I use a pseudonym only because Watts routinely bans people who know what they're talking about. I like getting his goat.

    11. "This argument didn't start because deniers were using the MWP against the consensus."

      You're just wrong. The argument, which goes back over a decade, is in essence about deniers wanting to claim today's global warming, which is global, is the same as a purported global MWP.

      As I wrote, it's illogical on its face.

    12. "You take a straightforward argument and add your own qualifers so you can argue against the qualifiers."

      Science is all about qualifiers!

      But I don't think you understand science.

    13. The word 'denier' certainly did have a good and legitimate meaning before you idiots trashed it. Not enough that you're trashing science, you have to trash the vocabulary too.

      I don't care why you use a pseudonym. I do care--and so should all of us--that you casually lie about it.

      You're an idiot. The argument about the MWP was obscure and academic before MBH 98. It became famous after those fools airbrushed it like one of Stalin's pictures.

    14. I get to decide how I will use the word "denier," not you.

    15. "I don't care why you use a pseudonym. I do care--and so should all of us--that you casually lie about it."

      I use my real name everywhere that allows it. Unlike you, I don't need to hide.

    16. Appell writes, "I get to decide how I will use the word "denier," not you."

      When living in the Bay Area in the 80s and 90s I met numerous wannabe rednecks who said exactly the same thing about 'faggots', 'greasers' and of course the 'n' word above all.

      Users of hate speech don't get to pronounce on its effects or appropriateness.

    17. Pretending "denier" is hate speech? Try reading the dictionary. Start with "denier." Tell us what you find.

    18. Lots of words had legitimate uses before being corrupted by haters with an agenda. 'Red' stood for a color before it stood for a communist. Or a conservative state, for that matter.

      Ever since Fenton Communications promulgated the term and hundreds of journalists and bloggers explicitly linked skeptics to Holocaust deniers, they have debased the word.

      What a pity. I hate to see good words wasted. You trashed it, Appel.

    19. Definition of DENIER

      : one who denies

    20. Definition of 'climate denier': "Worse than Holocaust Deniers"

    21. In Newsbuster's heavily biased opinion. That's not how I use the word. Deal with it and stop whining.

    22. Ah, if only it were just Newsbuster.

      After Fenton's smear machine DeSmogBlog first pushed the term into public usage in 2005, everybody who was part of the climate elect joined the fun.

      Just a modest selection:

      "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers."

      - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)

      Al Gore

      "Clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin."

      - Al Gore (1989)

      Andrew Glikson

      "I wonder whether such a show, if concerned with denial of the holocaust of world war II, would have been conceived?"

      - Andrew Glikson, Australian National University (2012)

      Bernie Sanders

      "It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s - there were people - who said 'don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!"

      - Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont (2010)

      Bill McGuire

      "We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference."

      - Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)

      Caroline Lucas

      "Would the media insist on having a Holocaust-denier to balance any report about the Second Word War?"

      - Caroline Lucas, U.K. Green Party MP (2007)

      Chad Kister

      "...the others working to derail this critical piece of legislation will be seen as the Adolph Hitlers of our day, contributing to a holocaust vastly eclipsing the horrors of World War II."

      - Chad Kister, Environmental Activist (2008)

      Charles Larson

      "The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist."

      - Charles Larson, American University (2013)

      Chris Mooney

      "The obvious reductio ad absurdum is Holocaust deniers: Should their perspective be provided, for "balance," any time someone writes about the Holocaust?"

      - Chris Mooney, The Intersection (2006)

      Clive Hamilton

      "Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous."

      - Clive Hamilton, Charles Stuart University (2009)

    23. I don't agree with Ellen Goodman, especially not with Chris Mooney, or any of these other people.

      None of them speak for me. I use the word "denier" in its original meaning.

    24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    25. Tell us all how you feel about Robert's wish to have skeptics up for a Nuremberg trial. Agree or disagree? How do you feel about RICO prosecutions for climate dissenters? Agree or disagree? How do you feel about newpeople being yanked off the air for writing a book dissenting from the Climate Purity Platform. Agree or disagree? How about the proposition cited above that Climate 'Deniers' are worse than Holocaust Deniers. Agree or disagree?

    26. Tom wrote:
      "Tell us all how you feel about Robert's wish to have skeptics up for a Nuremberg trial."

      I don't even know who Robert is, and the whole idea is stupid and deplorable.

      But I expect companies like Exxon-Mobile will someeday be held to account for their decades of denial when they knew the science all along, just like the tobacco companies were.

    27. Tom wrote:
      "You use it as hate speech. That's what you've been doing for years."

      Again, false -- I use it as its meaning is defined by the dictionary.

    28. No, dummy, and everyone can see it. You use the dictionary definition as a shield to hide behind while you spew your invective.

    29. I use the dictionary definition to define the meaning of the word.

      How would you prefer to do it -- based on how you *feel?*

      I think I'm using the word in its original meaning. And I don't care how the word makes you *feel.*

    30. You care very much how the targets of your slimy mouth vomit feel. That's why you use it.

      It's because the opponents of the Krazed Klimate Kultists are more civilized than the KKK that you get away with it.

  8. David, such vitriol! First of all, I am not a science writer. I am a generalist who dabbles in humour and book reviews, sometimes simultaneously. Yes, most writers like to have evidence, or they can have opinions based on evidence, or based on imagined evidence, partial evidence or even false evidence. It's called free speech, which includes the right to be wrong.
    Regarding the "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age", their existence is widely accepted - I didn't invent the terms after all - within both the lay and scientific communities. I would no more provide evidence of them than I would provide evidence of photosynthesis, but I know they are all real. How? I believe the reputable scientists. You can think of my writing on this subject as "opinion" based on the evidence provided by expert others." Those others are in Steyn's two most recent advertised books -- go and read them.
    I am not going to say I have no ideology, but who can say this? Do I want Steyn to be right? Yes, because I do not want civilization to be dragged back into the stone age while governments continue pouring billions of wasted dollars into the ridiculous and fancied idea that humans can effect climate.
    To finish off your comment, I see you've impugned my character and questioned my intelligence. I cannot speak for the quality of your education, but somewhere in the process of earning my three degrees I learned the difference between a mistake and a lie. Assuming you also know the difference, I can only conclude that you are intentionally misrepresenting me when you assert, albeit obliquely, that I am making Dr. Mann out to be a liar.
    If you have something substantial and constructive to add, please do. If, on the other hand, you just want to denigrate my motives and integrity I would ask that you refrain from wasting my readers' time.

    1. Lynne wrote: "Regarding the "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age", their existence is widely accepted - I didn't invent the terms after all - within both the lay and scientific communities."

      Again Lynne, you have provided no evidence. Zilch.

      Would you be surprised to learn that several major paleoclimate studies find NO evidence for a global MWP or LIA?

      Why haven't you cited those? It seems you're content to merely go with your preconceived notions....

    2. Mr. Appell, the IPCC has repeatedly written that there were both a Medieval Warming Period and a Little Ice Age. Are you denying the science?

      "This period of low solar activity, now known as the Maunder Minimum, occurred during the climate period now commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age (Eddy, 1976). There is no exact agreement as to which dates mark the beginning and end of the Little Ice Age, but from about 1350 to about 1850 is one reasonable estimate."

    3. Tom, your quote from the 4AR says the Maunder Miminum occurred "during" the LIA, not that it was the cause of it.

      The 4AR was written almost a decade ago. New science has come in since then, showing that the LIA was (1) not global, (2) probably caused by a string of volcanoes that lead to enough regional cooling for the ice-albedo effect to causes more regional cooling, and (3) the MM would have only lead to about -0.1 C of surface cooling, based on several studies since the 4AR including one very recently by Michael Lockwood and colleagues:

    4. Is there no depth of stupidity you cannot plumb?

      We're not talking about the cause of the LIA. We are talking about its existence.

      Which you deny.

      Quite the denier...

    5. "We're not talking about the cause of the LIA. We are talking about its existence."

      Where? WHERE?

      Was it cold in some places in Europe for some times during 1300-1850? Yes. (Read "The Little Ice Age" by Brian Fagan.)

      But the PAGES 2k evidence I cited above, the Supplementary Material Figure S2, does not show evidence for a continent-wide LIA, The other regions don't either.

      Where in those graphs is a regional LIA?

    6. Lynne, you better not offer resistance to David Appell's Mannsplaining as it just seems to compel him to be more misogynistic. ;-)

    7. This is a perfect example of an ad homimen attack by lying about me -- I haven't written the slightest thing here that is misogynistic.

    8. Before you use that term you need to establish that the attack was actually on a hominem. I remain unconvinced.

  9. IPCC Third Assessment Report
    Chapter 14

    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non linear chaotic nature of the climate make scientific observations academically interesting but they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

    In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Another relevant publication is: “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer.

    1. JAR: The 5AR SPM warns twice about the possibility of "abrupt" changes.

      What is the last climate event you see that was possibly caused by chaos or nonlinearity?

      Look at the regularity of the recent ice ages. Look at the climate of the past 150 years. They show that climate responds to forcings and that chaos and nonlinearity is rare. Hence it clearly makes sense to prepare for the climate we can foresee, while realizing the changes we're forcing can possibly create abrupt change -- all the more reason for mitigation asap.

      That's why there have been two reports by the National Academy of Science on "Abrupt Climate Change" in the last 10 years.

    2. Look instead at the climate of the last 10,000 years. In addition to the MWP and LIA that you would like to airbrush out of the history books, there is the Younger Dryas, the Roman Optimum, etc. that were both abrupt and nonlinear.

    3. There is ample evidence for the Younger Dryas. Is there evidence for a global Roman Optimum? If so, please present it.

    4. Do you deny that the Roman Optimum took place?

      You do a lot of denying, Appel. I wonder if that means something...

    5. Again: is there evidence for a global Roman Optimum?
      If so, what is that evidence?
      Marcott et al didn't find any:

    6. Do you deny that there was a Roman Optimum period? And why do you keep trying to introduce new adjectives to it? I didn't say global. I didn't say chocolate, either, to forestall your next invention.

      So I assume you acknowledge that the Younger Dryas was abrupt, non-linear and that you are full of it?

    7. "Do you deny that there was a Roman Optimum period?"

      Do you mean was it maybe a degree warmer in Rome at some point?

      Perhaps. I'd have to look closely at the data, which you have not done here.

      Was there a global warm period during Roman times? The science says no.

    8. "So I assume you acknowledge that the Younger Dryas was abrupt, non-linear and that you are full of it?"

      It was abrupt.

      Was it "nonlinear?" I don't know. Do you? And if so, how?

    9. As for the Roman Optimum, "the roman optimum: stability from c. 100 b.c. to 200 a.d. Exceptional climate stability characterizes the centuries of the Roman Empire’s rise; certain regions enjoyed unusually favorable
      conditions. In the western Roman Empire, the firrst century b.c.
      through the first and possibly second century a.d. were warmer
      than later centuries. Archaeological evidence from Britain, icecore
      data from Greenland, and dendrodata about summer temperatures from Austria all agree on this score, as does the fact that the Alpine glaciers were retreating and, in the first and second century a.d."

    10. Regarding the Younger Dryas, for those unfamiliar with it, "The Younger Dryas Cold Event (ca. 12.9–11.6 ka) has long been viewed as the canonical abrupt climate event (Fig. 1). The North Atlantic region cooled during this interval with a weakening of Northern Hemisphere monsoon strength. The reduction in northward heat transport warmed the Southern Hemisphere due to a process commonly referred to as the bipolar-seesaw (e.g., Clark et al., 2002)."

    11. " "

      I don't see any evidence there it was global.

    12. According to that, during the Younger Dryas the northern hemisphere cooled while the southern hemisphere warmed. So it was a redistribution of heat, not a global event.

      Yes, everyone agrees nonlinear events can occur. The NAS has written two reports on them in the last 10 years. These events become more probable in a warmer (more energetic) climate, and climate scientists have been warning about them as an additional motivation for mitigation.

    13. Appell writes, "What is the last climate event you see that was possibly caused by chaos or nonlinearity?

      Look at the regularity of the recent ice ages. Look at the climate of the past 150 years. They show that climate responds to forcings and that chaos and nonlinearity is rare. Hence it clearly makes sense to prepare for the climate we can foresee, while realizing the changes we're forcing can possibly create abrupt change -- all the more reason for mitigation asap."

      Appell also writes: "Yes, everyone agrees nonlinear events can occur."

      The world wonders.

  10. David & Lynn,

    Let's at least start with wikipedia as a source, flawed as it is.

    Also historical accounts are helpful- we all know the Thames froze over and there was a carnival on it in the 1600s. The vikings called Newfoundland "Vinland" or Vine-land because grapes grew there.

    1. Sorry, the latest and most comprenhensive science find no evidence for a global MWP or LIA:

    2. First of all, the Thames River and southern Greenland constitute a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface area. So they can hardly be evidence for a global LIA or MWP or a global anything.

      Secondly, not everyone agrees the Thames River froze over, such as Kelly and Ó Gráda who wrote (2013) about the Slutsky Effect. A Vox article writes:

      "In Kelly and Ó Gráda (2013) we examine some of the anecdotal evidence used to support claims of a European Little Ice Age.

      "The freezing of the Thames – which for most people is the most salient fact about the Little Ice Age – was caused by Old London Bridge, whose twenty arches effectively acted as a dam, creating a large pool of still water that froze twelve times between 1660 and 1815.

      "Tidal stretches of the river have not frozen since the bridge was replaced with five-arched one in 1831 – even during 1963, which was the third coldest winter since records begin in 1660 (after 1684 and 1740)."

    3. You won't find anyone--not Mark Steyn, not any of the commenters here--anyone claiming that the LIA or the MWP were either global, synchronous or both.

      That's because climate regimes are not ever global, synchronous or both. Including the shift that started making itself evident in 1976 and scarce in 1998.

    4. Modern warming is global and synchronous -- warming that started before 1976 and that has *accelerated* since 1998.

    5. It is not global. Large parts of North America, Australia and Antarctica have not warmed at all since 1900. That's why those heat maps have different colors, Appell.

      Accelerated since 1998. Trying to get a cheap laugh? Go tell it to James Hansen who wrote that temperatures stalled in the past decade. Go tell it to the IPCC who wrote that the rate of temperature rise has fallen sharply since 1998.

      You are the buffoon of science, Appell.

    6. You should tell NASA. Because they find that warming is global:

    7. "Accelerated since 1998."

      Here are those data:

    8. And yet the IPCC says, "A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of Antarctica."

    9. "And yet the IPCC says, "A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of Antarctica.""

      So what? Warming is not smooth or monotonic -- natural variabilitiy still exists, and AGW can even cause cooling, like if the AMOC shuts down.

      Cherry-picking a region or two is not a disprove of global climate change. Sorry.

    10. I'm not trying to disprove global climate change, dummy. Not smooth or monotonic--just like the LIA and MWP.

  11. Look at Appell's history of putting foot in mouth and then judge his rantings.

    Mark Steyn caught him spreading lies

    and Phil Jones basically told him to go away.

    He's also the genius who commented thusly at Bishop Hill:

    "I comment under my own name, always. I have nothing to hide and am not ashamed of my opinions."

    but said this at Anthony Watts' site:

    "I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it."

    Not really worth arguing with Lynne; he's not here to advance anything resembling science.

    1. How about addressing the science? It seems none of Steyn's readers knows anything about the science; all they can muster are ad hominem attacks. They don't even read the science posts....

    2. Links to above Appell quotes:


    3. Interesting Appell that you consider use of your own harebrained mis-steps and quotes as "ad hominem".

    4. What I see is the completely inability of you, Lynne, and of Steyn's readers of being unable to understand and discuss the science. All you seem to know is what someone told you, and the only people you listen to are those in the echo chamber you already agree with.

    5. Do you not even comprehend that you have been caught blatantly lying numerous times and yet you continue to insist that people respect your words or debate you?

      If you tell a baldfaced lie about your integrity as a science commenter, why should anyone give your articles or arguments regarding science (or really, anything you say about anything) even a second of time?

      You keep harping about inability and yet you yourself have a proven INABILITY to act in an honest, honorable or forthright manner.

      Tell you what; write an article on what you've learned about being a internet comment sockpuppet and I promise I'll read it. I probably won't believe it, but it might be worth a laugh.

    6. I don't lie, and haven't. Most of all, I don't deny the science.

    7. And yet you deny the IPCC acknowledgment of the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.


    8. Where did the IPCC acknowledge the existence of a global MWP and LIA?

    9. To quote someone on this thread, 'apparently you can't read.'

    10. I have been following this facinating debate closely and avidly. After reading this string I thought I would point out a few facts regarding Lynne's original post and her replies to David.

      First, Lynne is not "refusing" to debate the science as David claims above. What she has stated is that she is no more qualified to enter into this debate than she would be to debate whether photosynthesis actually occurs. I think that is honest and couageous of her, and continuing to belittle her is childish and frankly inconsistent with the facts - not the hallmark of a reputable scientist. How can she be accused of not engaging in debate when she is hosting this entire exchange, and not interfering with anyone's opinion??

      It's also rich for David to accuse anyone of deploying ad hominem tactics, but to include Lynne in that blanket accusation is unjust. Regarding the former, while the tone of some postings have tended toward being offensive, most have been respectful and measured, and besides, it was David who first engaged in this behavior by calling Lynne "low" and all but accusing her of calling Dr. Mann a "liar", to which Lynne's splendid reply he has yet to respond. Regarding the latter, I took the time to re-read Lynne's remarks and can find no evidence to support David's assertion.

      Just thought it might be worthwhile settihg the record straight...

    11. "What she has stated is that she is no more qualified to enter into this debate than she would be to debate whether photosynthesis actually occurs."

      No she didn't. In her book review, she wrote "The 900-year long handle completely ignores two indisputable eras, the Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250 A.D. and the later Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850."

      Now you think she is saying she can't defend that statement. Then why did she make it?

    12. But you're the only one who is disputing the existence of the MWP and LIA. And you can only dispute their existence by inventing a new qualifer, such as global or synchronous. Nobody else claimed that for them. You introduced them and then said the phenomena did not have those qualities.

      They were not chocolate, either.

    13. At this point I can't even follow what you're talking about.

      Define two terms you're using:

      1) "MWP"
      2) "LIA"

    14. You're explaining science to the public and you don't know what MWP and LIA are?


    15. Define the terms you're using.

    16. I'm happy to accept the IPCC's definitions. In AR5 they say, "Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi- decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century."

      And " Based on the comparison between reconstructions and simulations, there is high confidence that not only external orbital, solar and volcanic forcing, but also internal variability, contributed substantially to the spatial pattern and timing
      of surface temperature changes between the Medieval Climate Anomaly
      and the Little Ice Age (1450–1850).

      ..."There is medium confidence that more megadroughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950–1250).

      ..."Continental-scale temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (about 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as the mid-20th century and in others as warm as in the late 20th century."

      Don't want to force you to rely on (gasp) 10-year old science!

    17. The 5AR came out before the PAGES 2k study. So the 5AR's science is not current.

    18. "There is medium confidence that more megadroughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850)"

      How is a (a) drought, or (2) wetter conditions evidence for an LIA?

      Isn't an LIA determined by its temperature?

      Soon & Baliunas tried this trick too, and got lambasted for it.

    19. Ask the IPCC,dummy. They wrote it.

    20. Dummy?

      Goodbye, Tom -- you're not able to stay civil.

    21. Brave, brave Sir Robin! It's easy to tell when you are losing your argument. It's okay for you to call McIntyre a scumbag but using the word dummy--oooh, the shame, the horror.


    22. McIntyre is a scumbag. Let me publish your private emails and you'll understand.

    23. "Dummy."

      My 2nd grade niece has better insults. Smarter, too.

    24. I was trying to describe, not insult. McIntyre is not a scumbag and did not publish anybody's private emails. You're lying again. What a surprise.

  12. Appel -

    Apparently you blocked my comment on your site, so I will give it a go here.

    You decry harkin pointing out your lies as "ad hominem" but on your site you call Steyn and McIntyre "scumbags". Nice consistency that.

    The real scumbag is the person who takes one position in public and an opposite position in private. I have no problem with Steyn or McI making that letter public because they are exposing you as a liar and hypocrite.

    Regarding the proof you want, one cite one paper from notorious alarmist Rahmstorf. As Steyn points out, the literature on the WMP is massive. So, no, we can't quit our jobs and get busy typing in hundreds of references to blogs.

    Go away, resume your pot smoking and leave this woman alone.

    1. thanks for the support guys!!

    2. Lynne, what is your opinion of the PAGES 2k study?

    3. TC: The article by Rahmstorf -- a very good scientist -- was a popular one about the PAGES 2k study. The figures he gives are from it. I have seen zero interest among the Steyniacs is discussing that study, or even acknowleding its existence.

      It doesn't matter if the literature on the MWP (not "WMP," as you wrote) is massive -- it matters what the data imply for regional and global averages. To find that out you have to do the calculations, which aren't easy. It hardly suffices just to list proxy studies and cite nonexperts.

    4. So, now you say it exists, but it doesn't matter.


    5. "So, now you say it exists, but it doesn't matter."

      Apparently you can't read.

    6. Apparently you can't think. You seem limited to repeating the same banal alarmist whining points everywhere you go.

    7. David, so regarding the MWP you're saying that consensus doesn't matter if it can't be proven scientifically? I think you're getting the hang of this science stuff.

    8. keenu: No, that is not at all what I'm saying.

  13. Appell said:

    "I don't lie, and haven't."

    Ignoring links to your lies is not the same as not lying.

    Appell also says:

    "Most of all, I don't deny the science."

    You have made an internet commenting career of ignoring the science.

    Example - go to your own site and watch Oxford physicist Jonathan Jones repeatedly tell you that you are either denying (or failing to understand) the science that resulted in Jones calling Mann's Hockey Stick "obvious drivel" and "pathological science".

    Or you could go find a dog chasing its tail and it would be about the same.

    1. harkin, you idiot, you can't even read. Jones hasn't a clue about paleoclimatology beyond what he reads on dumb denier blogs. He's wrong, as I showed there, and as subsequent work by real climate scientists after Mann has shown many times -- work all the deniers try to keep ignoring, because it gets in the way of their ridiculous denial narrative, just like Lynne is ignoring here.

    2. So you are saying that Jones is as ignorant of paleoclimatology as... you are yourself?

    3. What research has Jones done in paleoclimatology? What papers has he published?

    4. If this is your list of publications, perhaps you'll point me to your extensive research on paleoclimatology.

    5. Trying to deflect, Tom. You know Jones has no publications in paleoclimatology. So why do you elevate his opinion over the 78 co-authors of the PAGES 2k study?

    6. Why are you pronouncing on the subject if you have no publications of your own?

    7. Pronouncing? I cover science, and I know what it -- and the experts -- say.

    8. Not if your statement about the MWP and LIA are any indication.

      And why should we believe someone who has been shown to tell lies?

  14. Oh, by the way, in addition to the observations I made above, it might also be worth while reminding everyone that the claim Lynne made that seems to have touched off this torrent of words was that existence of the MWP and LIA were beyond dispute.

    I thought her response to this was reasonable and has been supported by many commentators above. David, inasmuch as Lynne's original statement seems to have upset you so much, perhaps you could clarify your own views on this. I don't think you have, or maybe I just missed it. Are you saying that the existence of these periods is in dispute, or are you saying that they existed but would have had no impact on Dr. Mann's so-called hockey stick graph?

    1. My views -- again -- are that the science does not support Lynne's statement, she doesn't know the science, and she isn't even interested in learning it or discussing it. She was only interested in writing a fawning book review. Who knows why.

    2. But the IPCC does support Lynne's statement. It is only when you exaggerate the claims of your opponents that you can make any arguments at all.

      There's a word for that.

    3. No it doesn't. The IPCC doesn't say the MWP was global. And its assessment is 10 years old -- a lot of newer science has come in since then, like PAGES 2k and Marcott et al.

    4. Thanks for making my point for me. Lynne doesn't say the MWP was global. Stein doesn't say the MWP was global. And nor does the IPCC.

      You introduce the word global to the conversation and then say that the IPCC doesn't say it was global.

      It doesn't say the MWP was chocolate, either.

    5. Just curious -- how long have you been following the climate debate?

      Because you really are clueless about the genesis of this line of debate.

      No one cares if it was warm in Greenland for a decade or two. The entire reason for the debate is that some people want there to be a global MWP so they can attribute modern warming to the same thing and eliminate concerns about CO2 and fossil fuels.

    6. Steyn complains that Mann, Bradley and Hughes erased the MWP. Why would he (Steyn) do that? Why does he care?

    7. As always you've got it backwards, Appell. Some people want there not to be a MWP so they can state it hasn't been warmer in the past 1,000 years. Witness David Deming's testimony to Congress where he testified that he received an email from a senior climate scientist (probably Trenberth, before he started calling for RICO prosecutions for dissenters) saying 'we have to get rid of the MWP.')

    8. My impression is you haven't followed the climate debate very long.

    9. Your impression is as sound as your reasoning and feeble attempts at justifying your foolish pronouncements.

    10. And if there was a multi-decadal (> 2) period in some continent when it had warmed.... so what? Bradley, Hughes and Mann weren't calculating by continent.

    11. "Your impression is as sound as your reasoning and feeble attempts at justifying your foolish pronouncements."

      Again, when did you start following the climate change debate?

    12. Skeptical Science gives the same motivation for the MWP debate as I did:

      "Climate Myth: The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made."

    13. Why do you want to know when I started 'following the climate change debate?' What possible difference could it make to the salience of my arguments?

      Especially when arguing with a Kultist. You are weak.

    14. Citing SS as a source does not bolster your arguments nor anybody's estimation of your intellect.

    15. When you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging.

      And now I have somewhere to be. Have a denial-free evening.

    16. Brave, brave Sir Roger!

  15. Err, Robin. Apologies Mr. Python.