Monbiot is on the run in the Graun article and has moderated swathes of scientists in an effort to stall the inevitable.
Now, why should my comment be cast into The Black Hole of Orwellian Nothingness that is the Guardian?
Is it because I am too academically qualified to be allowed to make a dissenting comment?
Is it because he knows that his citing of Popular Mechanics, in relation to the first time downing of skyscrapers in a fire, is hardly evidence of academic credibility?
' The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions.'
Could it be that he was jet-lagged after one of his junkets at my carbon-footprint expense?
We will never know.
What I do know is that he has certainly lost the argument, big style.
Former Neutrals, such as myself, will certainly think that the tipping point is seen where any dissent is immediately made history - though, in my case, immediate was a day and a half and 85 recommends later.
16 Sep 09, 3:59pm (1 minute ago)
I studied Environmental subjects at post-grad level and, for a long time, I followed the official line.
Now, I don't - though what brand of denier I am is not quite clear, even to me.
What I do know is that Mr Monbiot's attacks on anyone who disagrees with the official line - on such things as MMGW and the question of how three steel framed buildings fell down in a fire - are becoming increasingly desperate.
Just do the debate without an army of spin doctors to give you pro-forma answers in advance and you may have more credibility.
And, on no account cite Popular Mechanics as an informed source.
Moonbat is a gatekeeper and as such does his best for the Nuclear Industry.
Unfortunately, people like him will be advisors doing CRB and ISA checks.
What a thought.
On second thoughts, that is his proper level.