I know the problem with blowing one’s own horn…but then I merely want to note that

I do have the experience to recognize a variety of common uses of mathematical

notation in a variety of fields. (Calculus, Differential Calculus, Statistics – Distribution

functions, Statistical Mechanics, Finite Element analysis and “stiffness matrix”

derivation, heat transfer notation, multi component chemical reactivity, population

modeling, need I go on?)

The website had ABSOLUTELY BOGUS AND TRANSPARENTLY SILLY notation.

I expected something more convincing.

This is something SO SOPHMORIC as to rate for a 14 to 16 year old, but not an adult.

Do you think the hoaxter could perhaps NEXT TIME try ACTUAL NOTATION with some hint

of meaning? (Stephan Boltzman constants, black body heat transfer formulation,

Monte-Carlo Modeling coding flow, ANYTHING connected with reality. Even application

of Z-transforms to population modeling would have been impressive.)

Again, CHILDISH…I wish in some respects that I HAD recieved a pointer from some

of my fellow “skeptics” superficially thinking the work had merit. (I did not.) Then I could

have “evaluated myself” on credulity. Alas, I was “tipped off”…but again, my reaction

was: “Childish gibberish..”

Wait a moment…

In answer he refers me to the LowCarbonKid blog. Where we find that David has been promoted from the occasional column to Official Guardian UK Freelance Enviro-Journalist(tm)!! Now, if it’s true that he accepted this status on November 4th then he may have just found himself in a trick-bag. It explains much of his denial. Even the Guardian is going to wary of hoaxers after the last several years of journalists being caught “making” news. I don;t think he is afraid of losing his job, rather he is afraid of losing his new higher visibility soapbox. Look what the Guardian has doe for George Moonbat Monbiot.

One thing that reading Thorpe’s blog is that he tells you the _real_ agenda behind much of the Green movement.

“Basically economic growth and sustainability are incompatible. It’s like trying to get cats and mice to get on with each other.”

I published a spoof website in an effort to smoke out some climate change sceptics – not genuine ones, but ones who are highly vocal and yet do not understand the science.

And:

I was beseiged with calls from Science magazine, Nature and Reuters.

What is Thorpe implying here – Science, Nature, and Reuters are not genuine climate change “sceptics”? Perhaps that is why they “beseiged” him. Wow – who knew the MSM was a bunch of GW deniers?

BTW: Didn’t it used to be called “global warming” instead of “climate change”? I wonder if GW cultists like Thorpe aren’t hedging their bets a little in case we get a cold snap. The narrative must be preserved, even if the facts are wrong!