Simon Singh, climbing onto his high horse over the the Dellers-Nurse interview, produced 2 excellent bits of projection.
First, he says:
I would suggest that people who take part in the climate change debate are all intelligent, honourable and reject manmade climate change, but they never possess more than two of these qualities at once.
Substitute 'embrace' for 'reject' and you have an instant portrait of the typical Warmist.
Second, addressing Dellers directly, he says:
I think my most insightful tweet alluded to the likelihood that you suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect (whereby unskilled people reach flawed conclusions, but are not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to realise their mistakes.)
This seems like a good character sketch of Nurse.
The other thing that bugs me about Nurse, Singh and just about every Warmist who ventures an opinion, is this bogus 'consensus' they keep trotting out. Singh takes a very broad brush
Editors of the world’s foremost science journals, Science and Nature. The most senior science editors in UK national broadsheet newspapers. The overwhelming majority of science Nobel Laureates. All the world’s national academy’s of science. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists.
You'd think that Nurse and Singh would have enough science to realise that a consensus only carries weight if it is independently arrived at. I could poll the Korean Central News Agency, the Chinese Ministry of Culture, Vietnam's Fatherland Front, the Lao People's Revolutionary Party , and the leaders of the Shining Path and I'm sure I would get a consensus that 'Communism is good'.
In the same way, the AGW consensus is in no way independent; for financial and ideological reasons it is a consensus of the committed, but Nurse and Singh cannot see this due, perhaps, to the Dunning–Kruger effect.