Over on real climate I spotted this article:
It would not surprise me if the denialists would deny the existence of the new book by Haydn Washington and John Cook (skepticalscience.com) ‘Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand‘. Somehow, I don’t think they will read it – but they are not target group of this book either. Anyway, denialism is, according to the book, a common human trait – we should all know somebody who deny one thing thing or another.
Furthermore, denial is not the same as being skeptical, either, and Washington and Cook argue it is quite the opposite. Hence, the term “skeptics” for these deniers can be described as Orwellian
“doublespeak”“newspeak”. (Source: lizard bunker)Denial is apparently caused by our lizard brainstem. …
And I thought I wrote drivel. Lizard brainstem indeed! Paints a wonderful picture of lizards standing on rocks … “it’s warm, its warming, it global warming” …. then the sun goes behind a cloud …. “its cold, it’s colder it’s global cooling.”
“Warmer colder, colder, warmer … I know how to solve this … we’ll invent something with half the brain that doesn’t have to decide and call it mann!”
And just to be clear this book does not exist – repeat after me …. it does not exist. It is only a figment of their imagination.
ScottishSceptic 
Let me get this straight. RC says they expect “denialists” to deny the existance of a given book (ISBN 9781849713368 for paperback and ISBN 9781849713351 for hardback) at that time in press and to be released June (available as I write now). In late May, you consider that hilarious because the book is only a figment of their imagination. Obviously, the book didn’t suddenly come into existance on the day Amazon shipped the first printing thereof, and it was in pre-print when reviewed as usual.
So I’m looking at a book which you say is only a figment, and which denialists were predicted in advance to pretend doesn’t exist. And you think the joke is on them?
This is your concept of objective reality and how ridiculous the opposition is in their counterfactuality. Is there a distinction between your objective evaluation of climate science, and your objective evaluation of the simple question of this book? When you say that some evidence for AGW is only a figment of the imagination of the researcher who published it, should we give that assessment by you more or less weight than your assessment of the existence of ISBN 9781849713351?
Isn’t it time to apologize and have a laugh at yourself, if you want to be taken seriously in OTHER things you say?
PS: Not so clever ad hominem “mann” reference. Bottom of the creativity barrel as blog filler. As a writer myself, I suggest filtering the raw inspirations more carefully for the top 25% in quality before posting, unless that that level of sniping really is your best understanding of the intellectual tone behind true scientific skepticism in Scotland.
Welcome to my blog.
Do I have to explain sarcasm?
Your a homosexual.