That's a good point. The conversation is about a history of irresponsible public statements, but the evidence for this history is dismissed with: >actual moder

That's a good point. The conversation is about a history of irresponsible public statements, but the evidence for this history is dismissed with: >actual modern climate scientist With this rhetorical technique, it could be impossible to provide evidence. Who gets to decide what makes a climate scientist 'modern'? Disregarding alleged 'non-modern' climate scientists is the last thing we should do when discussing prior decades of alarmism.