It’s all in your mind.
Moron.

NO, actually. Depending on which year you pick to start a period, you get various different results. Climate science denialists such as your self pick a year that make it work for them, but that is not how science works.

Also, “corrector,” we know that way over 90% of the total added heat goes into the ocean, that heat is not counted in the “surface temperature,” and it has been increasing in recent years.

So no, not right. Wrong.

17, right?

I missed the implications of Markram’s comments “Why debate X? Why not debate Y and do Z instead? Why not do something else?”, those implications being “you should not conduct research X, you should conduct research Y and Z.”

Though, his tone in his blog entry comes off as anxious; one can almost hear him asking “why oh why did this happen to me?” I’m inclined to think there’s something else going on that he isn’t talking about, and the likely candidate is some type of credible threat: of violence, of lawsuits, of funding cuts, or possibly a threat to “dox” him (release his “documents” i.e. private information: “see, now you agree with us, don’t you?”). Or I’m misreading him (again) and his tone is more accurately characterized as defiant?

In any case, we’re at war for the future of humanity, so what we need in this battle is a conclusive victory such as the reinstatement of the paper along with an apology, plus or minus Markram finding other employment.

In the end, the denialists themselves are merely pawns and shills, whose purpose is to distract our attention and waste our time. The real target, the root cause and core of the entire issue, is the financial value of undeveloped fossil fuel assets worldwide. The necessary goal is to develop, apply, and succeed at a well-founded and realistic strategy to keep those assets in the ground, permanently or until there is truly viable carbon-capture technology.

What, exactly, are the standards that Markram would uphold and live up to, for publishing social sciences research based on internet content?

Describing one’s methodology enables readers to replicate it for themselves, e.g. “we searched the terms ‘blah’ plus ‘blah’ for the year 2012…” enables anyone to find the original material and thus the online identities who posted it. Quoting or even closely paraphrasing the subject material enables laypeople to search the quotes and find the original identities.

Minus being able to describe methodology and cite data, you don’t have a publishable paper. Catch-22.

So, Mr. Markram, how do you propose to deal with that? Be specific, and we expect you to live up to your own standards by accepting papers that meat them.

2) Time for a “JCB campaign”?

Markram appears to be digging himself into a hole, deeper and deeper with every word he writes. One can respond to such cases by emailing the person a picture of a JCB (hydraulic excavator) with a message to the effect of, “You appear to be digging yourself into a hole that will eventually reach China. Have a nice JCB, it’ll make the work go faster.” When lots of people do this, it’s a “JCB campaign.”

3) The “If not now, when?” factor.

A 50% disparity in public opinion over a scientific finding with something like 97% consensus in the field, is automatically a significant “anomaly,” not quite at the level of spacecraft landing in Central Park, but darn close. That makes it a viable subject, a downright urgent subject, for social sciences research.

To put it slightly differently, if a disparity of that magnitude _isn’t_ deserving of ferocious research attention, what the hell is?