cwon14 and Laurie
IMO it is not reasonable to bash our host here for being too “PC” regarding expressing doubts of the IPCC AGW dogma.
She has explicitly gone on record that
- the magnitude of AGW is uncertain, as we are unable today to clearly differentiate between natural and anthropogenic past warming
- even in its worst incarnation AGW will not become an existential problem over the next century
- we should better clear up all the uncertainties before we rush into mitigation actions whose unintended consequences we cannot foresee
These statements (which were made under oath to a congressional committee) may sound too “PC” to some.
While I also would like to have heard more explicit skepticism of the IPCC “mainstream consensus” view, I realize that (in view of her position and the high level of sensitivity here) she has been cautious in her choice of words. [This may prove to be the best approach in the long run.]
Her recent formal challenge of the IPCC “most…very likely…” claim on attribution of late 20th century warming is another indication that she is not going along with the PC mainstream flow.
I’d give her the benefit of the doubt – as I think she can do more good for exposing the real truth as a questioning insider than as a challenging outsider.
Just my take on this.
Max