I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
The McKitrick paper is a piece of what I would call mathematical fundamentalism in statistics. ... 
That may be why Allen and Test didn't see an immediate need to reply. Just guessing, though.

No need to guess - you may have missed that McKitrick wrote:

"I then wrote them again, offering to delay further if they wanted to produce a reply. This time Tett wrote back with some supportive comments about my earlier paper and he encouraged me just to go ahead and publish my comment. I hope they will provide a response at some point, but in the meantime my critique has passed peer review and is unchallenged."

I think there is anthropogenic global warming and I think (contrary to what I thought ten years ago) that it is now making a considerable difference to the occurrence of extreme weather events to the point at which in some places (such as California, as I have expressed in detail) there is a increasing political problem as to how life must change in order to accommodate it. That is my view. Whatever others think I may be doing, I am not arguing that view in public with an intent to deceive. I really believe it.

You may be a great thinker, but I would ask for empirical evidence before engaging into ruining the economy based on hypothetical risks. As has been pointed out in several earlier postings, the evidence for CO2 produced by fossil fuels causing the climate change is inconclusive.

I have no doubt that you are advocating for CAGW and the need for climate neutrality in good faith but as has been revealed, you seemed to have no idea at all that there is actual science behind the contrarian views. I would not hold it against you - the mainstream media is doing everything they can to restrict or at least to ridicule such information and authors questioning the IPCC dogma, therefore people busy at their daily professional activities cannot just stumble onto such information by accident.

Nevertheless, contemporary situation has at least one parallel in history: during Cold War times, many people in the West known these days as "useful idiots" believed Soviet propaganda about that country being peace-loving paradise for their own citizens, and kept propagandizing for the communist cause. Seemingly highly moral ideas were trumpeted by bolshevik sources everywhere while truthful information about oppression, GULAGs, poverty, missing civil liberties, practical slavery of farmers, militarizing all aspects of life etc in "socialist" countries was either not available in details, or believed to be a product of cynical capitalist propaganda. I trust that people who accept that climate science is not settled do not belong to that category, maintaining capability of re-adjusting their position when provided with sufficiently detailed information from trustworthy sources and time to delve into it.   
 

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
The McKitrick paper is a piece of what I would call mathematical fundamentalism in statistics. ... 
That may be why Allen and Test didn't see an immediate need to reply. Just guessing, though.

No need to guess - you may have missed that McKitrick wrote:

"I then wrote them again, offering to delay further if they wanted to produce a reply. This time Tett wrote back with some supportive comments about my earlier paper and he encouraged me just to go ahead and publish my comment. I hope they will provide a response at some point, but in the meantime my critique has passed peer review and is unchallenged."

I think there is anthropogenic global warming and I think (contrary to what I thought ten years ago) that it is now making a considerable difference to the occurrence of extreme weather events to the point at which in some places (such as California, as I have expressed in detail) there is a increasing political problem as to how life must change in order to accommodate it. That is my view. Whatever others think I may be doing, I am not arguing that view in public with an intent to deceive. I really believe it.

You may be a great thinker, but I would ask for empirical evidence before engaging into ruining the economy based on hypothetical risks. As has been pointed out in several earlier postings, the evidence for CO2 produced by fossil fuels causing the climate change is inconclusive.

I have no doubt that you are advocating for CAGW and the need for climate neutrality in good faith but as has been revealed, you seemed to have no idea at all that there is actual science behind the contrarian views. I would not hold it against you - the mainstream media is doing everything they can to restrict or at least to ridicule such information and authors questioning the IPCC dogma, therefore people busy at their daily professional activities cannot just stumble onto such information by accident.

Nevertheless, contemporary situation has at least one parallel in history: during Cold War times, many people in the West known these days as "useful idiots" believed Soviet propaganda about that country being peace-loving paradise for their own citizens, and kept propagandizing for the communist cause. Seemingly highly moral ideas were trumpeted by bolshevik sources everywhere while truthful information about oppression, GULAGs, poverty, missing civil liberties, practical slavery of farmers, militarizing all aspects of life etc in "socialist" countries was either not available in details, or believed to be a product of cynical capitalist propaganda. I trust that people who accept that climate science is not settled do not belong to that category, maintaining capability of re-adjusting their position when provided with sufficiently detailed information from trustworthy sources and time to delve into it.