re: #264 Aceofwhat?

I will continue to defend the assertion that the science relating to the predicted future effects and consequences of AGW is somewhere between tenuous and a joke. I maintain that is a different question than the science relating to the phenomenon of AGW, which I believe is well-documented and beyond question.

I think that is close to your position as well, Walter, and I’m not apologizing for either of us. We conflate our ability to diagnose our impact on the atmosphere with an ability to diagnose nebulous future consequences. They’re not the same thing at all.

You are stating my position exactly… but, here is the kind of comments I get for taking this position…

re: #283 Charles

That’s ridiculous, Walter. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I said using any one of these trumped up incidents to try to show global warming is a “hoax” is below you — not that specific article. And you know it.

The four articles in questions above were written by one of the most vocal climate change advocates in Britain, Fred Pearce of the Guardian… hell, he certainly wasn’t trying to say climate change is a hoax.

But he was questioning the process, procedures and policies of a number of people and organizations… the same way Kevin Trenberth does in the AP/MSMBC article I linked to above.