- The first thing that jumps out at me is that Bishop Hill reconstructed his account from Climate Audit.
It's a long tale - and the longest posting I think I've ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle.Therefore it seems it must have an inherent bias. You just can't reply on a single source and expect to uncover the truth.
- I'm a journalist, not a historian, so I only write first drafts. But if reporting in the swamps of climate change science has taught me anything, it's that nothing is ever quite what it seems and there are always reasons on top of reasons and questions on top of questions. I suppose that's true of any good science story, or any good story at all. I'd need to spend weeks deconstructing this to be sure, for myself, that it was all real.
- There are just too many other reconstructions that give the hockey stick result.
- How can we take this "Bishop Hill" guy seriously if he won't even sign his real name to his work?