There are many in the climate debate who intentionally conflate AGW and CAGW. Poll questions are most commonly worded in a way as to make no distinction – doubting that AGW is “primarily” causing current warming, or that it will have catastrophic results, becomes by implication “denial” that the earth has warmed since the last ice age, or that CO2 (all other things being equal) can cause warming.
Those who intentionally conflate the two are almost always the CAGW activists. They seek to marginalize their political opponents as anti-science.
But there are many who conflate AGW and CAGW because that is what they see done all the time. They are for the most part what I call default progressives, who follow the group think, without really analyzing it. I get the impression that Seitter falls in this second category. Everyone he works with believes that AGW is C, everyone he socializes with ditto. And CAGW just happens to call for the kind of political action he favors politically by default. He is likely rarely exposed to dissenting opinion.
To fully and fairly articulate the variety of opinions among skeptics, he would have to actually read what they write, think about their arguments, and understand them. And for most of his tribe, that is simply asking too much. Skeptical positions are to be ridiculed and dismissed, not considered and debated.
I think he genuinely sees himself as reaching out to those with whom he disagrees. And for someone in his tribe, he is. Publishing and commenting in a courteous tone on Dr. Curry’s writings is, for a CAGW believer, a major achievement.