https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1248585358318751744

Probably you are too? I’ll go and check now!

Ah, the usual suspects then. Thanks for that. For a moment there I was worried that RPJ might be garnering fresh support from new quarters.

Which, given all that has passed, would never do.

Off the top of my head Matt Nisbet, Reiner Grundmann and Matthew Kahn.

Probably one or two have slipped my ageing mind!

P.S. And of course Judith Curry and Ryan Maue!

A few (moderately) well known academics have been coming out to support him.

Who? Didn’t think he had many friends left, after alienating most people with his incessant shirt-ripping nonsense.

I’ve been following Junior’s “meltdown” on Twitter very carefully.

A few (moderately) well known academics have been coming out to support him. As of this morning (UTC) not one of them has answered my $64,000 question:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1229323526936678401

And still nobody, least of all Roger himself, has provided any evidence to support his (now invisible!) claim that “the @skepticscience science team is spreading lies about me on social media”

Ah… I almost linked to a Chris Crocker video. Not quite, but very nearly…

I suspect that there’s an interesting story here. Unfortunately I’ve been buried in ARC forms the last week and missed the conversation in the RPJ department – anyone know the background?

Not on social media, so no idea either. RJP is a fan of the shirt-rip, sharp exit riff and he’s got pressures – father maybe ill, a history of climate minimalising coming home to roost. Enough to make someone a bit fragile and snappy.

“Gross Domestic Product” – the PRODUCT is the key issue here. Do we grow the economy by producing clean energy, housing for the homeless, better schools and healthcare, etc., or do we expand the economy by more often having to replace buildings destroyed by storms?

This always troubles me. That for rightwing economists, growth is absolutely paramount, even to the extent of implying an upside to the costs of climate impacts.

And if the tax-averse think that they will end up better off backing inaction, they will be in for a nasty surprise when the bills for rebuilding hit their insurers.

“GDP increases with increasing devastation by major storms. This is because when a major storm comes along and wipes out cities or coastlines or whatever, there is so much economic activity spent on recovery that GDP goes up.”

“Gross Domestic Product” – the PRODUCT is the key issue here. Do we grow the economy by producing clean energy, housing for the homeless, better schools and healthcare, etc., or do we expand the economy by more often having to replace buildings destroyed by storms?

I suspect that there’s an interesting story here. Unfortunately I’ve been buried in ARC forms the last week and missed the conversation in the RPJ department – anyone know the background?