Over at Brenda's, commenter John Cross asks a delightfully civil question of Brenda's regular readers, who are -- the lot of them -- as insufferably retarded as she is:
As someone interested in the science, I keep asking what science does this change. I can find nothing about the radiation physics or CO2 concentrations in the e-mails.
Unsurprisingly, no one rises to the intellectual challenge so, a few hours later, John tries again:
Bec: If the science has been questioned, please point to the specific e-mails that discuss radiation physics in regards to CO2.
at which point, commenter "Blame Crash" has had quite enough of this smarmy, high-falutin', academic book larnin':
And tell us John, would any answer, or any truth, result in anything except a repeat of your amateur diversionary comment? I think not.
which we can all safely assume means that BC is a moron and has no idea what the answer is. But all this suggests a simple challenge.
If Canada's intellectually-crippled dingbats, yahoos and whackjobs seriously think that the recently hacked e-mails represent some sort of "smoking gun" with respect to the fraud of climate change, then I propose that they post what represents, in all of those e-mails, what they consider to be the smokingest gun of all.
To no one's surprise, these scientifically illiterate yahoos have been creaming themselves over the thousands and thousands of lines of hacked e-mail, without actually pointing to any specific passage that proves their point. So here's their chance.
Let's have them take their time, peruse the e-mails in question and, out of all of that, select the single line/passage/paragraph/excerpt that they think represents an absolutely devastating refutation of climate change. Since they all seem so giddy with victory, surely it won't be hard to produce a single piece of evidence to bolster their spittle-flecked screeching. That's fair, isn't it? But there are going to be a few conditions.
First, I'm after one example. I'm not interested in the "shotgun" approach, during which you fling about pointers at countless pieces of text, hoping to inundate the poor reader with sheer quantity. If your case is as strong as you claim, then it should be easy for you to find what you think is the absolutely best piece of evidence there is.
Second, you will not be allowed to annotate or interpret your example. What you provide should be capable of standing on its own, without any help from you. The text you quote should be clear and unambiguous. You will not be allowed to reinterpret, redefine, mangle or sodomize the English language in order to have it mean what you want it to mean. In short, you will not be allowed to pull a "Patrick Ross."
And, finally, once you've taken all the time you want to select your favourite smoking gun, and you publish it, and we here in Not-Crazy-Ville demonstrate that it is utter shash, you will accept your defeat gracefully, and not run off shrieking, "Oh, yeah ... well there's this other example that's even better." No. You can have as much time as you want to make your choice, but once you've made it, you don't get to start moving goalposts and being a sore loser.
So ... howzabout? Hunter? Dodo? Kate? All of you have been creaming yourselves over these e-mails as if you actually understood the science (and we all know that that's pure bollocks). So, let's see it. Take your time. And choose carefully. And when you're done, drop your pick in the comments section, at which point my regular commenters will be happy to go to town on it.
And now ... we wait.