If that ability can be swept aside as sneering, patronising and infra-dig then Gawd help us.
Note that when he addresses Loehle's corrected graph, he doesn't point out that Loehle's results are the pink line, and that the pink line does not make a hockeystick. He omits to say that the warming does not show in the proxy record itself.
He knows very damned well that the skeptics who are in the top tier shouldn't be compared to some of the flashier and sloppier bloggers.
That smarmy know-all voice, the grating in-crowd assumptions, and worst of all the blatant and sickening ad hom prolonged stillframe of Monckton's thyrotoxicosis damaged eye.
The video contributes nothing useful to the climate change debate, but tells us plenty about Hadfield. The first few minutes of that droning, patronising voice put me off.
Honestly, I was not familiar with some of the skeptics he was castigating.
I thought I was the only skeptical person who felt that way about Monkton.
By that logic, surely we are able to say that MBH was based on just a few trees in NA. Now, he really is a denier - I'm just a sceptic. So much hand waving, internal contradiction, and "see, look at that, I told you so" - (eh, yes, just what exactly is the point you're making?