There are THREE paragraphs in the post. This is a small number. TWO are clearly attributed to Yoram and Steve. Turns out that there is only ONE possible statement that you could possibly be attributing to Brad. One is a VERY small number. And it also turns out that he actually said that thing. Twice. And denied it publicly.

And re: “As you would know if you could read?” Seriously? What’s next “I know you are but what am I?” Mama jokes? I’m dying to know.

But that is a lie: itt does not support an agnostic position. It is grossly, grossly misleading for Dubner and Levitt to talk about how the relative flows are “a surprising fact and one worth mentioning.” They know damned, damned well that what is relevant to the “agnostic” positon are not the flows but rather the stocks. And they know damned, damned well even though only 2% of the new CO2 molecules created are of human origin, a full 30% of the stock of CO2 molecules existing is of human origin–with that percentage climbing every day.

I guess I think it’s clear in my quote that I am quoting you quoting Yoram (and Levitt). And then addressing the comment that you wrote at the end. And repeated again on your blog. Unless Yoram has taken over your blog, I’m pretty sure that’s you.

Care to address the substance at all, though, or just stick with the finer points of blog citation style?