Sunday, February 15, 2015

Science deniers try to change the facts about climate

Sou | 10:43 PM Go to the first of 71 comments. Add a comment

Anthony Watts has finally written a promo for a book put out last month by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) (archived here). The book is called, somewhat ambiguously: Climate Change the Facts 2014. Given the publisher and the contributors, the meaning is pretty obvious: Climate - change the facts - 2014.

The IPA is one of the few right wing lobby groups in Australia that campaigns for action to increase global warming and climate change. It tends to be pro-fossil fuel and anti-mitigation of global warming. It panders to right wing science deniers. Although influential in some quarters, when it comes to climate, the IPA gets short shrift by most thinking people in this country. We Australians don't particularly want hotter temperatures, worse droughts, more catastrophic fires or bigger badder floods. Our climate already has more than enough of all that.

This new book looks like it's a follow-up to a 2010 publication, which included chapters by such luminaries (in the fake sceptic world) as Richard Tol, Nigel Lawson, Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon and Ian Plimer. I don't know if anyone read that book. This time the IPA has given their book more publicity, right underneath a plea to support alleged defamer Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn is heading for a tour down under, possibly fighting to extend freedom of speech beyond the acceptable, to embrace the right to defame, if his track record is anything to go by.

Will this latest version of "change the facts" get more readers than the IPA's first (freebie) book did? Maybe by charging for it this time around the IPA will get greater exposure and commitment from deniers.

Given that Anthony Watts wrote a chapter I was wondering why he waited so long to boast about it. The book came out a month or so back. Turns out Anthony was waiting till the book was available on Kindle. That's the only way he's getting any payment for his contribution, according to him. (He doesn't say what his chapter is about. Russian steampipes? Insects?)

The IPA scoured the world for the more prominent climate science deniers and mixed them up with some less prominent and more wacky ones. The editor, Alan Moran, managed to get entries from the following:

  • Ian "iron sun" Plimer who has been fairly quiet since his heaven and earth fiasco (I sometimes wonder who really wrote that book)
  • Patrick J Michaels - one half of Pat'n Chip from CATO, who argue that global warming will be okay because we can just buy air conditioners
  • Richard Lindzen of the flawed iris hypothesis, who spends time these days talking climate science denial to anyone who'll listen
  • Willie Soon who has had to resort to lending his name to a paper by the potty peer Christopher Monckton and the ratbag William M Briggs and scrounging funds from the Heartland Institute to publish some nonsense in a little known Chinese journal (not a climate science journal)
  • Robert M Carter - an Australian who retired from his job as an academic to take up science denial for the Heartland Institute and related organisations. He's recently "come out" as an ice age comether.
  • John Abbott, who I've never heard of
  • Jennifer Marohasy, a denier from Australia who makes silly accusations about the Australian Bureau of Meteorology when she's not campaigning against the environment in general
  • Nigel Lawson, an ex-public servant, who now heads up an anti-mitigation, pro-global warming lobby group in the UK appropriately named the Global Warming Policy Foundation
  • Alan Moran who works for the IPA (he, like Patrick Michaels, is just doing what he's paid to do)
  • James Delingpole, a sensationalist blogger, who doesn't do science and describes himself as an "interpreter of interpretations"
  • Garth Paltridge, an ex-climate scientist turned global warming campaigner
  • Joanne Nova, the pseudonym of Australian Jo Codling, an ex-children's television entertainer turned climate science denier who, with her partner the rocket scientist from Luna Park, promotes Force X and the Notch
  • Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong, who write very dumb papers claiming that the world isn't really warming or if it is it's "natural"
  • Rupert Darwall, who I've never heard of
  • Ross McKitrick, an economics professor who keeps trying and failing to prove there aren't any hockey sticks in the world, or something
  • Donna Laframboise, who thinks that no scientist should be paid any mind if they write or achieve anything while they are younger than 40 - presumably including Marie Curie, Louis Pasteur, Ernest Rutherford, or any of hundreds of other scientists who did some of their most amazing work when they were young - often before they received their higher degrees. (She wrote another "book" putting her instructions on the cover.)
  • Mark Steyn, a sensationalist blogger/hack, who speaks of climate scientists with allusions to child molesters and is being sued for defamation
  • Christopher Essex, about whom I know little except that he seems to be a one man organisation that grandly calls himself the "World Federation of Scientists" and moves and seconds motions decrying climate science then carries these motions himself
  • Bernard Lewin, another person I've never heard of
  • Stewart Franks, an engineering academic from Australia who belongs to the same anti-environment organisations as Jennifer Marohasy (above)
  • Anthony Watts, an american who runs a blog for science deniers and conspiracy theorists and who wonders if global warming is being caused by Russian steam pipes
  • Andrew Bolt, an Australian blogger who got his own television segment here. Similar to James Delingpole in that (so I've been told) he prides himself on his ignorance, confusing ignorance with independence.  His tone and language is usually a tad milder than James, but the sentiment is the same.

What a ragtag bunch. According to RenewEconomy last year, the book was to have been mailed out hither, thither and yon for free. (I've yet to receive my free copy.) People who aren't important enough to get a free copy and want to lap up nonsense like this have to pay for it. You'll have to cough up $AUD24.95 for a hard copy. You can pick up the Kindle version for a mere $US9.95.

I first wrote about this early last year when it was revealed that Australian taxpayers are helping to subsidise the book. (The IPA is registered as a non-profit organisation, therefore tax exempt. Also, donations to it are tax-deductible. This equates to a subsidy by Australian taxpayers. To rub salt in the wound, the IPA has over many years used the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as its freeby publisher. More subsidisation from Australian taxpayers.) 

Anyone who was dumb enough to donate $400 or more would get their name emblazoned for all to see on the back cover. So if anyone has donated more than $400 to get this silly little book published, feel free to let me know and I'll give you some more free publicity :)

From the WUWT comments

Quite a few commenters at WUWT are well aware that this book won't go anywhere. That most of the people who'll buy it are science deniers who want to have their wishes "confirmed" by other science deniers. John Francis wrote:
February 14, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Excellent book. I read it as soon as I got it on Kindle. If only the general public read it!

jon sutton seems to think the only way to get it out there is to give it away for free.
February 14, 2015 at 9:36 am
I reckon this should be freely distributed……………… like the Gideon Bible :-)) 

Tom J  likes the writing style of deniers:
February 14, 2015 at 10:11 am
Is it just me? Is it just my biases? But it seems to me, just looking at that list of authors, that members of the skeptic community (gawd, how I hate that tribal generalization – but it is convenient) are hell’s bells better writers, and possess far better senses of humor (actually ‘better’ is an inaccurate term when the comparison is to, well … nothing) than the dour, self righteous, nose-in-the-air, humorless, screeds who populate the CAGW opportunistic industrial complex. I’ve enjoyed the clever humor of Michaels, the smoothness of McKitrick, and the others, and then, there’s … Mark Steyn. 

pauline young doesn't think the freebies sent to Australian politicians had any impact:
February 14, 2015 at 6:56 pm
A copy was sent to every member of the federal government in Australia….. sadly I don’t think it has had much impact. 

George McFly......I'm your density  liked it so much he read it out loud to his poor wife.
February 14, 2015 at 8:40 pm
Great book Anthony. I got a copy a few weeks ago and have read it already, some chapters twice! One section I read out aloud to my wife….seriously clever and funny. Worth every cent

Phlogiston is missing someone
February 14, 2015 at 4:45 pm
Where is Matt Ridley? 

JDN notices the ambiguity of the title:
February 14, 2015 at 2:57 pm
The alarmistas are always saying the skeptics want to “change the facts”, now it’s the title of their new book. Maybe you can hire an editor who knows how a ‘:’ is used. 


  1. A rare feat of publishing to open yourself up to ridicule in just the title. It's tempting to think the editor wanted to signal his opinion of this sorry production.

  2. Mark Steyn crusading for his version of "free speech" you think - I wonder if his definition extends to Michael Mann's right to freedom of expression without being harassed.

    Various parties prevented Sherri Tenpenny from speaking in Australia - probably too much to ask for something similar to happen to Mark Steyn :-)

    1. I doubt many people have heard of Mark Steyn here in Australia. Most "free speech" wails in Australia are from people complaining they aren't allowed to incite hatred against people of varying ethnicities. The legislation nearly got watered down, but IIRC the government backed down.



      I don't think we've had too many people touring the country bemoaning the fact that in the USA they are not free to tell lies about climate scientists, without risking a defamation suit. This is probably a first - and it's from someone no-one here knows, much less cares about, (except some of his fans in the climate denial business whose favourite blog is WUWT).

  3. Essex as in Essex and McKitrick

  4. Rupert Darwall wrote a book called "The age of global warming. A history". He's also been writing articles for right-wing magazines promoting Murry Salby. From various Twitter exchanges he thinks that it's all some kind of conspiracy/groupthink. He recently asked me why global warming wasn't an issue in the 1930s. My response "because it wasn't" was not satisfactory. His view seems to be that we can understand the current "scare" by just considering history.

  5. We really should welcome this compendium, it will help us when the time comes to allocate responsibility ....

  6. Interesting that the IPA's update of its 2010 book came out just ahead of the Australian Academy of Science's updated 'The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers', released today.

    If I were a conspiracy theorist I might be wondering whether this timing was a tactic to muddy some water ahead of the AAS publication.

  7. There are no free bailouts for intellectual bankruptcy: if somebody has been (stupidly)wrong again and again, they need to earn their way back to zero before anyone ought to take them seriously.

    The authors if this as a group have accumulated a huge negativity debt...

  8. This book must be bad. They can't even find space for Murry Salby.

  9. I admit to being a bit surprised that some of the authors are willing to be associated with others. For example: Richard Lindzen with Mark Steyn and James Delingpole. I'd have thought Nigel Lawson, too, would not want to be seen with the riff raff and utter nuttery. (Ian Plimer and Bob Carter gave up their self-respect long ago.)

    Perhaps it's because there are only a few loud mouthed deniers left these days that class distinctions no longer apply and pride is put aside for the sake of the denier "cause".

    1. That's exactly right, Sou; if you're demonstrating denial it doesn't matter what you think and say, you're on the right side.

      It's long surprised me that there's so little discussion or argument between those denying the necessity for climate action. Compare that relative agreement—or at least a refusal to criticise—between those blogging their latest denial theories, with the noisy discussions between climate scientists over their latest published papers. A casual observation should tell you which is the 'religion' and which is a search for scientific reality.

  10. https://twitter.com/RichardDiNatale/status/551960116321189888/photo/1

    1. :)

      For people from elsewhere, Richard di Natale is a Senator in the Australian Parliament (upper house). He is from the Greens Party and the state of Victoria.

  11. The Australian Academy of Science has replied with a publication using actual science, not a circle-jerk of self-contradictory cherry-picked waffle and bluster.


  12. lloydcliplef@yahoo.caAugust 4, 2015 at 10:56 AM

    I am trying to make an earnest effort to understand the topic of "climate change", which I understand used to be referred to as "anthropogenic global warming". I arrived at your hotwhopper site after a google search looking for reviews of the target book "Climate Change: The Facts", and was hoping for a discussion of the substance of the book. Rather it appears you do not find that the reputations of the contributors to the book warrant any reading of it. Could you recommend a different book or article to assist me in trying to gain an understanding of the issues involved in "climate change"?

    1. I would recommend the skeptical science website, particularly The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism, or anything else from their resources: http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

    2. lloydcliplef.

      No, it has always been called "climate change". The CC in IPCC stands for climate change.

    3. lloydcliplef

      An excellent overview of the history of climate science and the evolution of the understanding of AGW is available here. Or get Weart's book if you prefer reading longer texts offline (I do).

  13. You call people who disagree "Science Deniers", but I'll bet you think Bruce Jenner is now a a woman.

    1. Gee, HotWhopper usually attracts a better class of troll.

    2. Congrats, Anon; you win Non Sequitur of the Day.

    3. Who is Bruce Jenner and why would I think she's a woman?

    4. Sou, it's a Kardashian thing - it's a continual source of amazement to many that some of us live our whole lives without giving a damn about them, or celebrities (i.e people famous for being famous) generally.

      (Extra points are awarded if you just said 'who?' again.)

      Former Olympian Bruce, for the record, is now Caitlyn, which is all very nice but has bugger all to do with anything...

  14. It’s interesting that a sixties-something woman with an "interest" in climate science, a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours), and an MBA presumes to claim a position of unchallengeable infallibility on climate change and, thus endowed, to peremptorily dismiss contributions to that subject from anyone whose conclusions or hypotheses on this subject diverge from the teachings of her Climate Church.

    The objects of her disdain include several scientists who, with apparently little or no regard for the sentiments she would one day express towards them, somehow managed in past years to chalk up rather impressive qualifications and academic records. Her cute distortions of their work, courageously playing to her gallery, add immeasurably to her scientific credibility.

    Armed with her daunting Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours) and MBA, this apostle of climatic correctness (possibly self-appointed) decides whom we should and should not be listening to. She even provides a helpful list of heretics and dissidents who have the temerity to challenge the dogmas of her Climate Church.

    I must say, though, we do appreciate knowing that she’s never heard of John Abbott, Bernard Lewin, or Rupert Darwall. Heck, if they lack even that most basic qualification, where do they get off presuming to talk about climate science?

    Praise the Lord for sending Bachelors of Agricultural Science (Honours) and MBAs to save humanity from itself.

    1. I don't know what you're talking about, Antoine. Are you one of the unknown authors feeling left out? Are you under the mistaken impression that the IPA's book is about science? Which bits did you "believe" in?

      BTW, I've never claimed infallibility. This blog isn't about me, or religion. It's about climate science, and the silly things that science deniers come up with.

      (Deniers are not the best at comprehension, are they.They are good at dishing out logical fallacies, though.)

    2. The sad thing is, dear Antoine, that the woman you so disdain for her BAS and MBA as compared to those other supposed luminaries...gets the science much better than your supposed luminaries!

      The reason I call it a "sad thing" is because having a PhD myself and training the future PhDs on a daily basis, I know what is expected from academic training, and what those people with a PhD should be able to do. Your supposed luminaries may have in some fields done some reasonable work, but in climate science only two of those listed have done reasonable work. Ironically, one of those is best known for being mostly wrong (but in interesting ways - Richard Lindzen) in his science and completely bonkers in his op-eds, and the other is best known for a hypothesis that is at best disputed, and at worst just outright wrong.

    3. Albertus from ElthamMarch 19, 2016 at 7:45 PM

      Is that you Anthony?


    4. Gee, 'Antoine', you're really a bit riled about this, aren't you? Things haven't been going too well for your lot lately, have they?

      Has it occurred to you that comments like yours just boost the morale of your opponents? Not only are we winning, we know we're winning, and, most importantly, you clearly know we're winning, too.

      No matter what your few little exceptions to the overwhelming rule might say.

      To use a true Australianism - suffer in yer jocks!

      You sad, sad little man.

    5. So far we don't know if Antoine is:

      a greenhouse effect denier like some of the authors or

      an ice age comether like others, or

      an "iron sun" advocate like one of them, or

      A Force X and a Notcher, like Jo Nova and her Rocket Scientist from Luna Park, or

      Someone who thinks that the bulk of scientists and research organisations have been engaged in "fraud" for the past several decades, as some authors claim, or

      an "I'm not allowed to believe in science because of my political views" denier like the nutty notions of James Delingpole and Andrew Bolt, or

      Just plain old garden variety "climate science is a hoax" conspiracy theorist.

      He hasn't said anything about which bits he found in the IPA nonsense that so appealed to him. He'd probably be stuck with too many contradictory notions to promote. And perhaps he is afraid we'd laugh even harder at his pompous science denial or his paranoid conspiracy theories.

    6. You have a live one here. A "diversion troll" if I have ever seen one.

      Yes, I am also waiting for Antoine's scientific arguments. All we will get is the company of crickets I expect.

  15. I think comments like Antoine's mark a subtle change in the "debate" - that I have noticed recently

    which can be summed up as

    "why do you lot keep on going on about it!"

    after all they have so little science or data to hang any cogent argument on

  16. Dear Sou, I'm not an author but if I were I'd be delighted to feel bad that you'd left me out if that's the sort of thing that makes you feel good!

  17. Dear Marco, I'm rather impressed that your Ph.D. qualifies you to decide, and categorically declare, who's right and who's wrong on this issue. I'm quite miffed that mine didn't come with any such authority!

    1. It seems Antoine was trained to let his personal bias lead his analysis of data; although I hope that his grad advisor is now seriously miffed to see his training of Antoine has failed so miserably.

      Only people who led their personal biases rule their analysis of information would read my comment as saying that my PhD qualifies me to decide and categorically declare who's right and who's wrong on this issue.

    2. I forgot to include the option of Mark Steyn, and how Searching for the truth on climate change can be hard if you’re a reptilian illuminati overlord. Maybe that's why Antoine is too shy to tell us the specifics of his own "opinions" about climate science.

    3. @Marco - I've never found clear thinking to be a strong suit of climate science deniers. Logical fallacies - yes, critical thinking, no.

    4. Antoine, I wonder why your PhD did not come with the same authority. Perhaps you got it from here?


    5. Antoine, can you - with the power of your apparent PhD - explain where Sou is wrong, and thus where the overwhelming consensus of climatologists and physicists are wrong?

      You've pulled a red herring from your hat, but you haven't actually said where any of Sou's postings are wrong. Nor have you specifically identified the "several scientists" whom you seem to feel need defending from Sou, and worse than that, you haven't explained how their "impressive qualifications and academic records" actually do anything to refute, contradict, or otherwise invalidate the consensus position that Sou supports and that has been arrived at by the hundreds and indeed thousands of professional climatologists with which you seem to take exception.

      So, what's your point, and what's your case to support it? An ad hominem drive by is hardly a thrown-down gauntlet: it doesn't even rate as a frilly lace handkerchief fluttering onto a muddy puddle.

      What do actually you have, big fella?

  18. Dear bill, you're a model of joy and exuberance, not to mention humility. Thanks for sharing!

    1. Yawn. Do you actually have anything of substance to offer, or did you just pop in to offer us your winning smarm and deploy your feeble 'you all think you're so clever, don't you?' ad hominem sneer?


    2. For me he did not make me yawn. I found him rather creepy with his personally directed abuse with its misogynistic overtones. As you say bill, without offering anything of substance. He would benefit from some serious self reflection on his bigotry.

  19. Dear Marco, I'm awfully sorry for wrongly inferring that it was your Ph.D. that endowed you with the authority to declare that X "gets the science much better" than Y. It seemed a reasonable inference, given that it was the only qualification you adduced. But if that authority flows from some other qualification you possess then do please share it with us.

    1. Antoine, you still haven't given us a clue about:

      a) what you find offensive about the science written about here (other than the fact that climate science offends your (non)sensibilities), or

      b) which of the many denier notions promoted by the various IPA authors that you embrace. Perhaps all of them = contradictory though they be?

      c) how long you think that scientists have been engaged in the climate hoax. (Two centuries? Longer?)

    2. My *training*, Antoine. It really isn't that hard to get that. It is clear from yourself and from several of the people in the list that having obtained a PhD isn't enough - you also need to have had the proper training as a PhD...and then also use that training.

      Grandstanding and inflating uncertainty isn't that hard to spot, and many on the list almost scream both at you. People who so willingly associate themselves with political think tanks, as so many on the list, are not doing so because they have a scientifically convincing message. They have a political story to tell/sell.

  20. Sou, your cute invective on all those nasty dissenters is an entertaining polemic but I wouldn't call it science, and I hope you wouldn't either!

  21. It's a nice symmetry, Marco — politics on one side (if that's what you want to call it) and religion on the other (what I'm calling it)!

    1. Antoine, you don't even know we have one thing in common: neither of us want AGW to be true. I am just not in the habit to want my desires to rule the facts.

  22. I'm so sorry, bill, I seem to have missed all those ad rem comments in Sou's invective!

  23. Dear Jammy, I had no idea I was misogynistic. This is utterly devastating news! That "logic" of which Sou speaks is potent stuff, to be sure.

    1. As I said Antoine, you should reflect on your bigotry. As you appear to still think you are not being mysogynistic even after it is commented on shows how self-unaware you are.

  24. Dear Jammy, if you'd be kind enough to identify my specific misogynistic infractions I'll be happy to embark on a program of self-improvement. While I appreciate your penetrating diagnosis, it would be helpful if you could share your clinical notes and in particular your observations of any relevant symptoms.

  25. Evidently no one's prepared either to back up Jammy's imputation of misogyny or to dissociate themselves from it. Not that I care particularly but I'm almost certain I heard someone talking about ad hominem attacks a few paragraphs up!

    1. Why would I or anyone dissociate from alleging that your post has misogynistic allusions? It is plain to see in the words you typed.

      And what is wrong with an ad hominem comment about someone coming onto a blog with the only intention to be obnoxious and who shows no desire to make any point of substance?

    2. Antoine, you bore me. You've said nothing of substance in any of your 12 comments so far.

      If you just want to moan about yourself, go do it somewhere else. This a a science blog, not a notice board for self-aggrandizing, attention-seeking, "climate hoax" conspiracy theorists to punch out from their keyboard whatever is the first notion that pops into their otherwise empty head.

      Others - let's not give him anything more to eat. He's just what we, in this part of the world, call a greedy guts.

    3. Heh, I responded to Antoine above in the order in which I was reading today's exchange with him, to subsequently find that others had already made the same points that I did, and that Antoine has no argument other than the fluff of a vacuous troll.

      Sad little person, who must be sadder still that his denialism has failed to bear fruit and he now has to deal with the serious implications of the warnings that science has given for decades. I'm sure that he won't give up his cognitive scotoma without a fight though: he'll need to be dragged kicking and screaming to reality, and probably won't acknowledge its presence until it personally lands a boot in his backside.

    4. Sou - since the subject of "sixties-something woman" has come up, you might want to consider a slight deviation from your normal WUWT fare and see if you can do a biographical sketch and interview with Makiko Sato - Hansen's longtime collaborator.

      Never has so little been written or known about one of our generations most prolific and important scientists. Frankly, I didn't even know Sato was a woman until today - yet I've probably referred to "Hansen & Sato" or "Sato et al" dozens if not hundreds of times in discussing climate.

      The most informative webpage I can find simply lists where she earned her degrees: GISS Personnel Directory: Dr. Makiko Sato

    5. In a similiar vain I was reading up on Hansen's 1981 paper recently and it is remarkable how accurate the predictions were and indeed where the areas of uncertainty would be

      Obviously denier science stands still, I mean Darwin made a few errors re some aspect of genetic inheritance in his original theory of evolution - enough for creationist to question it

      But the beauty of of real science is that it is always capable of adapting when new evidence and better data become available

      Denier science uses this as a means to attack it

    6. Thanks, Kevin. Good suggestion. I have noticed that some of the long time GISS authors, except for those who do a lot of outreach, rarely get any mention outside of the papers.

  26. Crikey, somewhere in all this someone said it was about science...can't see any science here. You do yourself no favours with a catty little blog which seeks to put down those who appose your views, including Thatcher's chancellor and science advisor. Give us the science and educate us to a proper view. Play the ball, not the man.

    1. Look harder, Jack. There is plenty of science to be had at HotWhopper. Check the blog archive in the side panel to the left, or use the search bar for a topic that interests you.

      You might not like how I treat climate science deniers, which says more about you than me :(

      PS I said nothing about any science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Are you speaking of the person who advised her on this speech she made to the Royal Society? Who was that?


      As for her Chancellor, assuming you mean Nigel Lawson - he's an active climate science denier who agitates for more global warming. He deserves all the mockery and contempt he gets.

      PS by your terminology (catty) and complaint about me dissing conspiracy nutters, I'm guessing you're a "climate hoax" conspiracy theorist as well as someone who regards today's women as feminazis (though you seem to have a fondness for the iron lady).

    2. It is interesting this blog gets driveby comments months or even a year later. It must be because of the comprehensive list of names in the article.

    3. "Play the ball, not the man."

      Jack, Jack, Jack deary me, if the faux skeptics and their websites were playing the ball instead of the person, then the reactionary pro-AGW blogs such as this one would not exist. We would all be having a nice civil discussion about climate science around a pot of tea.

      Sou backs up her snark with plenty of well-reasoned science.

    4. Jack

      "Sou backs up her snark with plenty of well-reasoned science

      ... whereas you didn't!

    5. Jack, when has Thatcher's science adviser, George Guise, ever been criticised on this website? George had a background in research physics amongst other things. Thatcher had an honours degree in science (Chemistry), did her research dissertation (x-ray crystallography) under Dorothy Hodgkin (whose fame you'd be aware of) and worked in the fields of glue and food chemistries before taking a law degree.
      Coincidentally, Jack, you appear to be confirming Thatcher's view that "opinion outweighs knowledge" when it comes to the greenhouse effect.

  27. Jack
    You appear to be confirming the theme of this article: that deniers deny the facts.

  28. Jack
    You appear to be confirming the theme of this article: that deniers deny the facts.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.