I don't blame him. He appears to know a lot more about the politics of this issue than he knows about the physical geography involved. TB is not an expert on climate change, he's an expert on discrediting climate change. Apparently, Hansen is a respected scientist as well as pro-AGW activist with AGW policy views anathema to conservatives. That makes him TB's enemy. Why do I need to know this?

Unfortunately, all he really knows about Hansen is his policy proposals for handling AGW's consequences, which he obviously loathes, but which we are not even talking about here. They are quite irrelevant to this discussion. You can't discuss solutions unless you both agree there's a problem.

So he has the Rearden Metal casters to suggest that because I am not familiar with Hansen's political program, or the Right's campaign to demonize him, I can't read a satellite photo, do simple statistics, or draw conclusions from well-presented scientific data from reputable sources which I am perfectly well-qualified to evaluate. By extension, he implies no one else here is qualified either, not even the (at least one)other earth scientist who posts here.

In other words, he is telling me what I need to know to be competent in my own field. He even has the patronizing arrogance to suggest what I need to bone up on so he can change the subject to something he'd rather talk about instead. Here's his statement, and my response.

TB: To claim to be able to seriously discuss the global warming controversy and have no idea who Hansen is, is like someone pontificating on the chances of their favorite football team and having no clue who the quarterback is.

ER: He [Hansen} contributed no data to my argument, his opinions did not influence my analysis, my reasoning was not guided by his in any way.

So which statement makes the least initial assumptions, unfounded declarations, and inappropriate comparisons (football, my ass!)? Hansen is TB's bogeyman, he's not MY champion. And I never claimed to know shit about football.