You obviously read a pack
of pseudoskeptic sites, why not read what the science is actually saying and predicting instead of the nonsense that would appear to fit your prejudices?
Till E. seems a particularly bland brand
of pseudoskeptic.
There is, as far as I know, still a subset
of the pseudoskeptic community that persists in calling the email release the result of a «leak,» rather than a hack.
It's got every element
of pseudoskeptic sophistry, all in one neat package:
Not exact matches
Of all the
pseudoskeptics, I find her the least insightful.
Denialists or
pseudoskeptics (e.g. you) keep revisiting the same subject over and over and over again, never understanding anything and deluding themselves that their confusion is a sign
of wisdom.
Tietjan Berelul, There's not even anything that all
pseudoskeptics agree upon — and indeed, most
pseudoskeptics don't even maintain consistency with their own beliefs over time, so it's kind
of a moot point, don't you think?
Quite frankly, the various arguments on consensus (and denial thereof by the
pseudoskeptics) are equivalent to discussing the number
of angels who can dance on a pin, given that by any measure the scientific consensus on AGW is as high as that on ozone depletion by CFCs, acid rain, or the dangers
of smoking tobacco, in all
of which we found the consensus sufficient to act.
So instead
of what Annan & Hargreaves are actually saying, which (if I am reading their paper correctly) is that we can more confidently (though still not completely) rule out possible climate sensitivity greater than 4 °C,
pseudoskeptics & contrarians appear to be reading it as supporting their notions
of climate sensitivity (which vary, but as far as I can see a sensitivity
of 1.5 °C appears to be the ceiling).
Genuine scientific skepticism is not just the unmoving rejection
of evolution or climate change by fake skeptics, called
pseudoskeptics.
Skeptics give new questioners the benefit
of the doubt as possible skeptics trying to learn, but if it exists,
pseudoskeptic behavior appears eventually.
There is
of course some evidence that many climate
pseudoskeptics can be prone to believing the silliest conspiracy theories.