DPF accuses me of misrepresenting him in my latest post on the BRT's strapped chicken. And looking at it again, he's right. DPF did not explicitly say that he regarded the BRT's bogus study as proof positive that we should do nothing about climate change; instead, he simply said it implicitly. Clearly, I was utterly mistaken in drawing the obvious and invited conclusion from the statements "there is a tradeoff", "we must look at the costs and benefits", and "the costs are too high", and I apologise unreservedly for misrepresenting DPF as an honest man who might stand by what he says, rather than a crawling spindoctor who hides behind plausible deniability in an effort to dogwhistle denial.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and I look forward to DPF engaging with the actual substance of my post.
