> Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with which bit is being argued, and your edit[1] has made it read differently now. Apologies for the bad first draft, maybe

> Sorry, I have trouble keeping up with which bit is being argued, and your edit[1] has made it read differently now. Apologies for the bad first draft, maybe it should have been embargoed. ;- ) > And you are just angry that the NYTimes posted that this report might not be released? Or something? I'm unhappy with the tone and tenor of discussions and presentations of climate issues. The part that "97%" of climate scientists agree on is not disputed by the President or his Cabinet. The agreement is basically a) that the global mean temperature has increased dramatically, b) that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase has almost certainly had an effect, and finally c) that humans have sufficiently affected the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide to consider that these emissions account for a measurable portion of the temperature increase. Almost everything else is very much up for debate, and when people present some additional assertions as verified fact, the curious people notice that they're being dishonest, and wonder what else they're being dishonest about. For example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson once quite regularly told people that if the ice caps melt, the water level will be above the elbow of the statue of liberty. As far as I can tell, this does not match the models, it doesn't make sense, and it makes everything these public "science guy" types say utterly suspect. The gripe I was hoping (and failing) to get across was that even a subtle misrepresentation or overstatement can cast doubt on your entire presentation. This, I think, is a common and grave mistake of people who present on issues which appear to divide people. When combined with smugness, any (otherwise factual) presentation can instantly convert mildly curious people into rebels.