Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Seems like two of the biggest issues for many of the well known skeptics are how the problem is constantly overstated.... and how failed predictions are quietly brushed aside or excused.

How about the IPCC's first report projected warming of 0.2-0.5 Cº/decade.

Left axis?

It shows radiative forcing from 0.0 to 3.0. 2013 appears to be 2.9.

How does it show ".63 watts/m2"?

See the climate science PR division (haha) has done a huge disservice to the actual science through catastrophic sensationalism and doomsaying.

LOL!!! You really cant make this stuff up.

The problem, I think, is that there is actually no sensible middle ground. If you have sufficient knowledge to understand the science and how science works, and have a sufficiently open mind, you end up largely agreeing with the mainstream position. The alternative is to simply look like a crackpot; sometimes with enough knowledge to make a fool of yourself, but not enough to know that you’re doing it. Clearly not everyone who agrees with the mainstream position agrees about everything or about all the details, but they agree about the basics and broadly agree with the IPCC projections. There are some who are seen as being on the more skeptical side of the spectrum, but most of this is healthy skepticism, rather than yes, but conspiracy theory.

So, that’s the problem I’m facing at the moment. There are certainly people with whom I can have interesting and worthwhile discussions about the science, but when it comes to people like Rose, Ridley, Montford, Keenan, Webster, it all seems rather pointless. They either don’t know enough to know that they’re wrong, or they’re being dishonest. In either case, it’s really not worth taking a discussion with them seriously. Of course, one could choose to not take it seriously, but I’m not sure I can really be bothered or have the stomach for that. All I can say is that I’m looking forward to the end of this week, when I start a two week holiday

Yes, shut your trap.

I don't know this "climate science PR division (haha)", but among actual researchers the talk gets pretty gloomy. Don't take my word for it, or the media's -- check out the contents in a few issues of leading journals in any climate-relevant field to see what scientists are saying to each other. They're often not good at PR, but unhappily learning about what happens if you don't engage with this hyper-partisan information environment, while others spin your work.

Many scientists talking to each other or looking up from their data say we're in trouble. They see real problems, with climate not the fastest among them. Is that "doomsaying?" Should they shut up?