quote:

Originally posted by John_M:
No, what this story does is show that a lot of people don't bother to check anything, and if the source of this had been an astrologer (after all, lots of people believe), it probably would have spread just as well.

This whole thing was most likely orchestrated by Monckton, and Rob Ferguson of SPPI, to manufacture publicity for a non-story.

Schulte couldn't even do a competent job of plagiarism of bad material. Anyone interested in the facts of the case can start at that Stranger Fruit URL, and especially look at Tim Lambert's Deltoid comments. (Tim was the one who analyzed Benny Peiser's similar attack two years ago.)

So, you can say whatever you like, but a lot of the facts of this case are quite clear, and I don't think you've looked at them, or you would have labeled Bellamy's use of this as a mistake...

John_M - I am not the slightest bit interested in the 'story'. I don't care who Schulte is, what he does, who he rips-off, how many young children he eats for breakfast etc etc. That's all just shrill, caustic raving and totally irrelevant to the point (as your linked pages show). Difficult as it may be, you must let go of all this if your contributions here are to be anything more than an embarrassing reflection of your inability to raise above tyrannising people as a means of winning a point.

I am happy to change the 'Schulte' entry in the Bellamy analysis if you can simply show that the survey he made was substantially different in its methodology and quality of result to the preceding survey 'Orestes' made.

Here are some responses to Bellamy's article so far:

quote:

Sir, The unanimity of the condemnation by the assorted panjandrums of David Bellamy’s article illustrates the dangers of a politico-scientific consensus. I am a historian not a scientist, but history affords only too many examples of an oppressive politico-intellectual consensus which later proves to have been mistaken. The oppression ensures that the mistakes in the consensus are not sufficiently scrutinised.

The errors in the global warming theories derive in the main from the misapplication of computer modelling. In other fields such techniques have allowed claims that the population of the Yemen will outstrip Russia by 2050, that obesity in this country will reach 80 per cent by 2050 (110 per cent by 2100?) etc. Disraeli, who talked of “lies, dammed lies and statistics” would have turned in his grave to see such computer-driven statistics.

John Hardman
Hartford, Cheshire

quote:

Sir, David Bellamy points out that not all environmental scientists accept the more extreme elements of the global warming gospel. Too often we hear politicians echo the refrain of the research scientists employed in these programmes: “the scientific debate is over. There is no longer any doubt.”

But before we start to cover the landscape in wind farms and impose punitive taxes on those who venture abroad for their holidays, we would do well to remember that scientific debate is rarely over. Much of our past scientific development we owe to individuals of the calibre of Galileo, Charles Darwin and their like who saw fit to question the received opinion of their day.

Tom Allan
Godalming, Surrey

quote:

Sir, I commend David Bellamy’s bravery in speaking out against the Johnsonian “clamour of the times” (Comment, Oct 22 ). In his masterpiece, The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia (1759), Samuel Johnson writes of an astronomer who declaims that he can control climate: “. . . the sun has listened to my dictates, and passed from tropic to tropic by my direction; the clouds, at my call, have poured their waters . . .”

Unfortunately, Johnson points out that the astronomer was mad. And so are we if we continue to distort our politics and economics in the hubristic belief that, by fiddling with one factor at the margins, we can both predict and control the world’s climate. As Bellamy shows, the “self-proclaimed consensus” on “global warming” is more dangerous than climate change, and the attempts to smear critics like himself one of the most disreputable aspects of our increasingly illiberal age.

PHILIP STOTT
Emeritus Professor of Biogeography
University of London

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Oh - and btw JL - good tour?

Excellent tour thanks. Black Sea is a fascinating area.

On the main point, part of the AGW theory IS that increases in CO2 cause temperature increase - so it MUST precede it. It cannot cause it if it comes afterwards.

(I am well aware that I have hugely simplified both the AGW argument and that of sceptics)

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

Al Gore is not a climatologist so no, his opinion doesn't have any more validity than anyone else's. Gore is only a communicator, he's not a researcher. The opinions of the IPCC however, do carry a lot of weight, as do peer-reviewed scientific papers. The IPCC report has been explicitly endorsed by the following scientific academies:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Similar conclusions to those reached by the IPCC have been reached by:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

You are wasting your time. Don't you realise that they are all part of the great left/green conspiracy and only the chosen few can see the truth?

Oh no, the great big green conspiracy. I'm shaking in my boots.

In reality, there's absolutely no way to inform the public. We may as well carry on without consequences until the consequences hit us.

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
Oh no, the great big green conspiracy. I'm shaking in my boots.

In reality, there's absolutely no way to inform the public. We may as well carry on without consequences until the consequences hit us.

Fortunately govts (even that of the USA) listen to scientific advisers and don't pay disproportionate attention to the fraudsters and crackpots that are so popular with the masses. Things are being done, but are they enough and are they being done quickly enough?

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:
David Bellamy has just written a rebuke to critics in the Times on his being branded a "heretic" for being sceptical about AGW.

He writes:

quote:

I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests. But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming. Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models.

Name-calling may be acceptable in politics but it should have no place in science; indeed, what is happening smacks of McCarthyism, witch-hunts and all.

He tells us that he is worried about the lack of scientific rigour currently being applied to the topic of AGW.

quote:

Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers.

Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air

Pity Bellamy didn't apply a bit of scientific vigour on his 'facts' before writing that article.

Roger, I have a little time to cherry pick some paragraphs.

quote:

PARAGRAPH 2 "No, because..."
CRU graph: Since 1998 the global temperature of the planet has not risen - objective truth

But it has risen - the ocean has warmed - and the ocean contains more heat than the atmosphere. The atmosphere has got as warm as it was in 1998 (a year in which a large amount of energy was released into the atmosphere from the ocean due to an El Nino). As long as you keep cherry-picking 1998, you cannot accuse others of cherry picking.

quote:

PARAGRAPH 4 "I am happy to be branded..."
Similar dogma in history - objective truth
*"Bangladesh" "imminent catastrophe" your emotional contamination of science.
Unreliability of computer models - objective truth

In what way is pointing out the predicted flooding of Bangladesh an "emotional contamination".

quote:

PARAGRAPH 5 "Name-calling..."
Ideal scientific process - objective truth
Available data resources - objective truth

I would like to see one article by an serious AGW proponent where Bellamy is described as a "heretic" and not simply disrespected for his lack of intellectual rigour.

quote:

PARAGRAPH 6 "The last peak..."
20th century temperature fluctuations - false*
*although US temp records are likely to be the most reliable records in the world
1970's ice age scare (involving James Hansen) - objective truth

www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

quote:

PARAGRAPH 8 "But the computer model..."
Hockey stick graph as devalued - objective truth
IPCC relegating use of the graph - objective truth
*In their 2001 report, the IPCC deliberately highlighted the hockey stick. It appears five times, each time brightly coloured and often occupying at least half a page. No other graph is so prominent. In 2007 the hockey stick appears once, buried in a graph amongst 12 other measurements.
*In "computer model" Bellamy is probably referring to data fed into a computer which arrives at the hockey-stick shape. It has since been demonstrated that a computer can arrive at the same shape from random series of data.
* In "historical data" Bellamy is probably referring to the hockey stick using data from one tree to represent total global climate for periods prior to the 1850s.

Since the curve is in the 2007 report it has not disappeared and nor has it "disappeared" (why the quotes David?). Surely the fact that many of the other 12 curves substantially back up the fact that the northern hemisphere is now warmer than it ever was in the last 12 hundred years and thus "buries" the hockey stick is hardly important.

quote:

PARAGRAPH 9 "n the Sixties..."
Constantly fluctuating climate - objective truth
Warmer climate coincides with UK's industrial revolution[/b] - objective truth
* "so what?" school boy response.

I am a school boy . Anyway the response is shorthand for "Yes, the scientists already know that the climate fluctuates for natural reasons. And yet they still believe that CO2 is largely responsible for the last 30 years' warming and will be responsible for substantial further warming in the future".

quote:

PARAGRAPH 10 "The Romans..."
Medieval warm period and Little Ice Age - objective truth
*MWP/LIA "Irrelevant nonsense" Not a scientific response - there's plenty of evidence MWP/LIA was global

I've read many of the citations from the co2science.org MWP project. In the period 900-1400, many areas experienced warm periods of decades that are comparable to now. But the periods do not coincide in any meaningful way as the current observed warming does. So it is not an objective truth.

It is likely that without CO2, the LIA would have lasted into the 20th century. That may be good for the 20th century, but may not be good for the 21st.

quote:

PARAGRAPH 11 "There is no escaping..."
CO2 is rising - objective truth
Temperature not increasing in step with CO2 - objective truth

That's because there are other contributions to global temperatures.

quote:

That's because there are other contributions to global temperatures.

Soot from China?

quote:

You are wasting your time. Don't you realise that they are all part of the great left/green conspiracy and only the chosen few can see the truth?

Today, in fact Neil Lyndon writes in the Sunday times the following - having been part of a group of communist sympathizers in the sixties.

quote:

Bolshevism and the Russian revolution may have disintegrated in ruins but the generation that raised its toast in the direction of the Kremlin 40 years ago has triumphed. Leninism has been defeated almost everywhere in the world, but the postwar generation of baby boomers who went so far left in the 1960s now control this country’s leading institutions. Their taste for totalitarian simplicities and weakness for millenarian terrors has been digested into modern feminism, environmentalism and global warming. Many remain absolutely unrepentant about their past because they have been so successful in the present (one of the sweeter fruits of victory is never having to apologise).

I was stupid too - but at least I admit it, comrade.

Steve_M

quote:

But it has risen - the ocean has warmed - and the ocean contains more heat than the atmosphere. The atmosphere has got as warm as it was in 1998 (a year in which a large amount of energy was released into the atmosphere from the ocean due to an El Nino). As long as you keep cherry-picking 1998, you cannot accuse others of cherry picking.

So if I look up Sea Surface temperatures I find that it looks different to what you suggest see

Sea Surface Anomolies

Looks similar to Average global temperature chart CRUT3 and it is cooler now than in 1998, so have I cherry picked the wrong sea temperature? Looks like it's now going down like the global average temperature has started to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:

Looks similar to Average global temperature chart CRUT3 and it is cooler now than in 1998, so have I cherry picked the wrong sea temperature? Looks like it's now going down like the global average temperature has started to do.

Ho hum - from me surfing as BB doesn't like posting links.

1998 was an unusually hot year as it featured the strongest El Nino of the century. In fact, from Jan to May, 2007 is tied with 1998 as hottest year on record. The World Meteorological Organization reported in August that January and April 2007 were the hottest on record.

However, when determining trends, you don't pick one month or year out of isolation - particularly if that year features a short term weather anomaly like El Nino. By this method, based on the fact that 2005 was .17°C hotter than 2000, you could conclude that the rate of global warming doubled from 2000 to 2005.
When considering long term climate trends, you need to filter out short term weather anomalies like El Nino or volcanic eruptions - an easy way is to plot a 5 year average. This shows the trend hasn't reversed at all.

A more rigorous statistical method to determine any trend is to apply a line of best fit to the data.

A line of best fit calculates the temperature trend is 0.16°C per decade from 1998 until July 2007. This is a close match to the temperature trend over the last 30 years (0.15°C from 1975 to 2007). So even starting from 1998, we find the planet is still warming at the same rate.

quote:

So if I look up Sea Surface temperatures I find that it looks different to what you suggest see

SoM,

Sea surface temperature is going to be closely related to atmosphere surface temperatures. I was referring to ocean heat content. In figure 5.1 of chapter 5 of the IPCC report this shows ocean heat content (down to 700m depth) rising well above the 1998 levels (and well above anything for the last 50 years when measurements were available.)

After 2003 the temperature dips. This was confusing because it did not square with satellite observations of sea-level rise that ought to have been due to thermal expansion. However, earlier this year it was found that some of the buoys that measure temperatures were faulty, and it is more likely that the temperature has levelled out rather than falling. "Convenient" I hear you say, but there you are.

I've also just spotted figure 5.4 which looks at the energy change of different components of the earth's system. The increase in ocean energy is 15-30 times the increase in atmosphere energy, so a blip in air temperatures here and there is nothing compared to the ocean.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
Roger, I have a little time to cherry pick some paragraphs.

- the ocean has warmed - and the ocean contains more heat than the atmosphere. The atmosphere has got as warm as it was in 1998 (a year in which a large amount of energy was released into the atmosphere from the ocean due to an El Nino). As long as you keep cherry-picking 1998, you cannot accuse others of cherry picking.

Bellamy is referring to the IPCC SPM using surface air temperature to define a warm year: "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).” His observation is that surface air temperature has not rising in almost a decade. (As a side issue, deep ocean temperatures have been recorded in only a small area and are likely to reflect only regional variations).
PARAGRAPH 2: Since 1998 the global temperature of the planet has not risen - objective truth

quote:

In what way is pointing out the predicted flooding of Bangladesh an "emotional contamination".

Drowning, helpless polar bears tugging at the old heart-strings again?
PARAGRAPH 4: Similar dogma in history - objective truth

quote:

I would like to see one article by an serious AGW proponent where Bellamy is described as a "heretic" and not simply disrespected for his lack of intellectual rigour.

Bellamy is drawing attention to the generic name attached to those who have "stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests" throughout history, he goes on to cite "denier" as a specific example of AGW name-calling directed towards him.
PARAGRAPH 5: Name-calling - objective truth

quote:

www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

"pop science and the media to cry wolf about an impending, devastating Ice Age" This must have referenced the scare (involving James Hansen). If serious scientists knew this information to be wrong, they should have made efforts to correct its reporting in "pop science and the media". But then again, the scientists involved in the IPCC appear equally reluctant to issue statements withdrawing their previous mistakes of the challenging "pop science and the media" - in fact, the IPCC appear to collaborate in encouraging media exaggeration and distortion of its 'findings'.
PARAGRAPH 6: 1970's ice age scar - objective truth

quote:

Since the curve is in the 2007 report it has not disappeared and nor has it "disappeared" (why the quotes David?). Surely the fact that many of the other 12 curves substantially back up the fact that the northern hemisphere is now warmer than it ever was in the last 12 hundred years and thus "buries" the hockey stick is hardly important.

Bellamy never states the hockey stick is absent from the IPCC 2007 report. He says ""disappeared" from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s armoury of argument in 2007." Meaning serious doubts surrounding the accuracy of the hockey stick (which, curiously, it took a few people outside of the ICCC's "thousands of scientists" to bring to light and make public) has led to the IPCC being forced to "disappear" (as in: conveniently lose in the crowd) the graph from its previous status as poster child for AGW theory. Will the IPCC now be issuing a statement to "pop science and the media" apologising for crying wolf?
PARAGRAPH 8: IPCC relegating use of the graph - objective truth

quote:

...scientists already know that the climate fluctuates for natural reasons. And yet they still believe that CO2 is largely responsible for the last 30 years' warming and will be responsible for substantial further warming in the future.

A 'belief' is not the same as an 'objective truth'. Scientist's 'beliefs' are in a constant state of flux - it's only climate scientists who (for some reason) appear reluctant to modify their 'beliefs' even in the face of compelling evidence.
PARAGRAPH 9: Beliefs - objective truth

quote:

In the period 900-1400, many areas experienced warm periods of decades that are comparable to now. But the periods do not coincide in any meaningful way as the current observed warming does.

The evidence shows "In the period 900-1400, many areas experienced warm periods... comparable to now". The length of these periods cannot be accurately determined, but they existed.
PARAGRAPH 10: MWP/LIA - objective truth

quote:

...there are other contributions to global temperatures.

Exactly what Bellamy says.
PARAGRAPH 11: Temperature not increasing in step with CO2 - objective truth

Steve, filtering through all your diversions and cherry-picking, it appears you have no choice but to agree that the content of Bellamy's article has (to use your measurement values) 90% certainty of being objectively true. As someone who works in, and values, science you must therefore agree with the article - as it stands - and support it.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:
A === has led to the IPCC being forced to "disappear" (as in: conveniently lose in the crowd) the graph from its previous status as poster child for AGW theory.

B === , and values, science you must therefore agree with the article - as it stands - and support it.

A === Disappeared as in covered over by the hoard of other studies showing the same trend.

B === This I've got to see.

quote:

it appears you have no choice but to agree that the content of Bellamy's article has (to use your measurement values) 90% certainty of being objectively true. As someone who works in, and values, science you must therefore agree with the article - as it stands - and support it.

Very funny Roger,

Objective truths do not make an argument.

It is true that 1998 is currently the warmest year in the surface temperature measurement according to HadCRU. It is not, however, an inconvenient truth because of the reasons I have given. And it is not true that "research shows...the average temperature of the planet" has not risen since 1998, since research shows that ocean temperatures have risen. It is true that temperatures do not move "in step" with CO2 levels. It is incorrect to conclude that CO2 has no effect. It is true that other things affect the climate. It is also true that climate scientists do not think that any of these other things are significant over the last 30 years or so. It is true that the hockey stick is less prominent now. However it is also true that the conclusions of 11 other studies cited in the IPCC report suggest that the northern hemisphere is notably warmer than it has been for 1200 years. It is true that somebody has failed to find references to "catastrophe" in abstracts of papers in the last few years. It is also true that one would not expect scientists to write in such terms even if implicitly they are predicting them. It is true that James Lovelock has said mankind is not doomed. It is also true that the death of 5.9 billion human beings tomorrow would not doom mankind since there would still be 100,000 left over. It is also true that, while James Lovelock ploughs his own furrow with regard to this discussion, he substantially believes the consensus position on CO2 causing warming - hence his advocacy of nuclear power.

Come back when you've learnt to distinguish the stringing together of a set of objective truths from meaning.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
Objective truths do not make an argument.

I'll take that as your tacit agreement then?

quote:

It is true that 1998 is currently the warmest year in the surface temperature measurement according to HadCRU. It is not, however, an inconvenient truth because of the reasons I have given. And it is not true that "research shows...the average temperature of the planet" has not risen since 1998, since research shows that ocean temperatures have risen.

Link'"Maps of yearly heat content anomaly show patterns of warming commensurate with ENSO variability in the tropics, but also show that a large part of the trend in global, oceanic heat content is caused by regional warming at midlatitudes in the Southern Hemisphere... a strong, fairly linear warming trend is visible in the Southern Hemisphere, centered on 40°S. This region accounts for a large portion of the warming in the global average.” Thus the actual global ocean warming reported in the IPCC SPM over the last several decades occured in just a relatively limited portion of the oceans and through depth such that the heat was not as readily avaiable to the atmosphere as it would be if the warming was more spatially uniform.'

quote:

It is true that temperatures do not move "in step" with CO2 levels. It is incorrect to conclude that CO2 has no effect.

Bellamy is not concluding this.

quote:

It is true that other things affect the climate. It is also true that climate scientists do not think that any of these other things are significant over the last 30 years or so.

Your first sentence is an objective truth, whilst it may be an objective truth that climate scientists think (although that is open to some debate), their thoughts are not objective truths - just influenced and fluctuating opinion about them.

quote:

It is true that the hockey stick is less prominent now. However it is also true that the conclusions of 11 other studies cited in the IPCC report suggest that the northern hemisphere is notably warmer than it has been for 1200 years.

It also suggests northern hemisphere temperatures have been higher than today and - for long periods - only a cat's whisker cooler.

quote:

It is true that somebody has failed to find references to "catastrophe" in abstracts of papers in the last few years. It is also true that one would not expect scientists to write in such terms even if implicitly they are predicting them.

Nonsense. What do they do... whispers "the C word"?

quote:

It is true that James Lovelock has said mankind is not doomed.

I'd imagine that even you would acknowledge Lovelock is a crank and would rightly dismiss his quasi-religious blather out of hand if he didn't keep tossing you very juicy cherries to pick from it.

quote:

Come back when you've learnt to distinguish the stringing together of a set of objective truths from meaning.

No meaning can be sought without a set of strung-together objective truths on which to seek it from. Unless, it seems, you work as a climate scientist, where the formula appears to be: arrive at a meaning first... then seek out and shoe-horn together a few cherry-picked objective truths to give it a semblance of authenticity.

quote:

Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
On the main point, part of the AGW theory IS that increases in CO2 cause temperature increase - so it MUST precede it. It cannot cause it if it comes afterwards.

(I am well aware that I have hugely simplified both the AGW argument and that of sceptics)

But on the other hand, just because there is a temporal relationship, doesn't make it a causal one. Also, there may well be a double feedback loop going on - and the historical record may have no relation to what is occuring now that humans are involved in the equation. I therefore think data from the last 300 years is going to be crucial in clinching this one for AGW - but it might be too late for us given the CO2 lag...

quote:

Maps of yearly heat content anomaly show patterns of warming commensurate with ENSO variability in the tropics, but also show that a large part of the trend in global, oceanic heat content is caused by regional warming at midlatitudes in the Southern Hemisphere...

Roger,

The most comprehensive studies of ocean temperatures are by Levitus, and the parts of the IPCC report I referenced show results from about 1950-2005 of pretty much continuous warming.

The study you reference looks in more detail at a 10 year period. It confirms the Levitus result over the same period, but using detailed analysis it asks perfectly valid further questions about the contribution of decadal variability in certain ocean basins to that 10 year period.

Since the study backs up the Levitus study, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Levitus trend is likely to be correct, but that it may contain variations around the trend relating to decadal variability observed by this study. ie. it may be incorrect to draw a firm conclusion from 10 years of data, but that 50 years may be enough.

Regarding temperature reconstructions. Statistical analysis of the reconstructions show that there is a 10% chance that northern hemisphere temperatures were, for a short period (about 30 years) around the year 1000, comparable to current temperatures.

Regarding Schulte. A 2004 paper called "Threatened loss of the Greenland Ice-sheet" published in Nature does not use the word Catastrophe. It says:

quote:

...we conclude that the Greenland ice-sheet is likely to be eliminated by anthropogenic climate change unless much more substantial emission reductions are made than those envisaged by the IPCC. This would mean a global average sea-level rise of 7 metres during the next 1000 years or more.

I would say that this is "whispering the C word". Be interested to know what category Schulte would have put it in.

Regarding Lovelock. I know little of what he says and with the above exception, I've never quoted him or paraphrased his views here. That said, the little I know of his views suggests that his point of view deserves respectful consideration (unlike certain other writers).