Bishop Hill comments about how
the Charities Commissioners have taken a dim view of an FoE leaflet that claimed that silica – that’s sand to you or me – used in fracking fluid was a known carcinogen.
Up pops a FoE activist making all sorts of comments, including attacking the hosts book The Hockey Stick Illusion. Below is my comment
Phil Clarke’s comments on the hosts book are an insight into the Green Activists.
He says Jan 30, 2016 at 9:58 AM
So you’ve read HSI, then?
I have a reading backlog of far more worthwhile volumes, fiction and non-fiction. Does anybody dispute a single point in Tamino’s adept demolition?
Where did I slag off HSI? I simply trust Tamino; the point about innuendo certainly rings true, based on other writings.
So no, I won’t be shelling out for a copy of a hatchet job on a quarter-century old study. But I did read this, in detail
Tamino’s article was responded to twice by Steve McIntyre. The first looks at the use of non-standard statistical methods and Re-post of “Tamino and the Magic Flute” simply repeats the post of two years before. Tamino had ignored previous rebuttals. A simple illustration is the Gaspé series that Tamino defends. He misses out many issues with this key element in the reconstruction, including that a later sample from the area failed to show a hockey stick.
So Phil Clarke has attacked a book that he has not read, based on biased review by an author in line with his own prejudices. He ignores the counter-arguments, just as the biased review author does as well. Says a lot about the rubbish Cuadrilla are up against.