Brendan, for all of his cautionary words, still employs another canard that is most commonly exploited, for propaganda purposes, by AGW proponents who desperately need to end the scientific debate before the world starts to cool again: “it would be equally unsound and unwise for global-warming skeptics to hold up 2006 and 2007 as somehow disproving the existence of global warming”
Brendan, one more time- name a prominent skeptic who actually denies GW, or even AGW? Where they disagree with the agenda-types like Michael Mann, who have based their entire careers on generating a crisis, is on the degree of AGW (the causation correlations), the likely outcomes based on data rather than hype, the efficacy of the panic general circulation models in predicting 2100 when they are wrong if applied to 1998-2007, the cost-benefits of Kyoto, and the best policy prescriptions.
