1. I check your blog at least daily and find the discussion of your articles interesting and full of information.

    I read all of the exchanges with David Andrews and thought that it was mostly about semantics. Early in that discussion I was convinced that even if his interpretation was right it did not change the fact that CO2 residence time was short compared to the IPCC statements.

    Thus I saw his contentions as so much straining at a gnat. As I have studied this subject I saw the same attempt to critique Salby and Harde by focusing on minutia but leaving the major points and conclusions unexamined.

    I am thankful for your clear language and thought. Please keep up the good work.

  2. Mr. Andrews’ remarks have been an expanding distraction from insightful discussion. His poor judgment to broadcast his ad hominem dribble beyond this site speaks volumes.

    DMA summed it up well.

  3. Since pre print two I also check your site daily. You respond to all reasonable (and some unreasonable) comments and questions in good faith and with integrity and intelligent debate. As a non scientist I learn a lot from these discussions and rate this my most informative site for this subject. Cheers.

  4. David Andrews says (see above),
    “But as long as Republicans let the likes of Ed Berry be their spokesman on scientific questions, the only policy initiative on the table will be the Green New Deal.”

    True science is independent of ideologies and authorities. Berry does make political statements but Andrews is very wrong to imply that Berry’s science is guided by his Republican political ideology. The truth of this matter is demonstrated by Berry’s response to my science.

    I am a traditional left-wing British socialist whose views of climate change are guided by my science. In 2005 I and colleagues published a peer-reviewed paper which concluded the pertinent data can be interpreted to encompass both completely anthropogenic and completely natural causes of the recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration although a natural cause is most likely.

    Subsequently, in 2008 I gave a presentation which explained and expanded on that conclusion. Ed Berry saw the paper I then presented. He published it on his blog at

    Importantly, Ed Berry builds on a finding in my 2008 paper by making a breakthrough in understanding (which I and all others failed to make). This has enabled him to assess the data in a way that quantifies the natural and anthropogenic contributions to the cause.

    So, the science of a traditional British socialist and an American Republican have combined to advance understanding in ways which are informative for all political policymakers who want to benefit people.

    This so enraged David Andrews that he went into full ‘attack mode’ in the thread (linked above in this post) which discussed my paper on Ed Berry’s blog. His attack began with a reasonable comment which is at
    and I answered it in full. Andrews responded to my answer with a blatant lie concerning my reply. The discussion degenerated from there until Ed Berry posted a graph that Andrews had to concede demonstrates his ‘complaints’ at my paper have no substance

    The discussion concluded with my post that said,
    “David Andrews,

    I am not a “shill” for anybody or anything. You on the other hand …?

    As for my “sensitivity”, I object to lies and smears of me and my work especially when they come from an obnoxious troll such as yourself. If you had any decency at all then you would have apologised but you don’t so, instead, you have added another offensive lie.



  5. Did I change something or is the comments list that used to be on the right side of the screen disappear for everyone? I do miss it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.