On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 00:34:56 UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:
Mark Steyn:

A *self-described* "right-wing warmonger".

Any background in climate science? Any college education? Hm.

Described by the Boston Phoenix as "the most toxic right-wing pundit you've never heard of" with ""a shrill, mocking tone of moral certainty that consigns those who disagree with him to the status of appeasers or even terrorists; and a willingness to distort, misrepresent, and omit facts in order to advance his argument."

And from his own mouth: "Now I don't consider myself a big credentialed expert or anything. I simply looked at a graph Michael E Mann hadn't been anywhere near and drew the obvious conclusion. Gave it two minutes' thought, if that."

Two minutes thought, if that.



Stephen.

No he has no back ground in Science and that's why he was never made the chair of the IPCC unlike the Pachurri who if I remember correctly although he had a fantastic back ground in science-a railway engineer, he is now an expert in finding a place to park his choo choo train whether its wanted in a particular tunnel or not.

However Stephen Mark's book is chocced full of remarks and criticisms of Mann by Mann's fellow scientist. The scientific content of the book isn't Mark Steyn, its Mann's pier group and is therefore untouchable.

Mark Steyn toxic? He fought under great pressure the Canadian governmental machine and the totally intolerant of everyone else's actions bar their own Islamic Canadian caliphate and thanks god he won. But if you feel he is toxic because he is against stuff like this

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4558.htm

Then thankfully that makes you a prophet as you advocate such behaviour and Mark a racist fascist because he doesn't.