You might like to look up the difference between coercion and deception. One of them is almost always a crime; the other, not so much.

Now would be a good time to say "Gee, thanks Layzej for correcting my preconceptions!": http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Wow! You've even opted to ignore most of the more optimistic projections! Good job! Perhaps you were projecting when you talked of "true faith"?

So do you reject all but the most optimistic projections? Time to find out who is the real "True Believer".

So you're saying that repeating fallacies is the act of a skeptic? Seems like a skeptic would try to learn from her mistakes.

It may not be an issue. It depends on how quickly we react and how high climate sensitivity is. Obviously. You seem to have dismissed all but the most optimistic projections?

From the statement: "As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration."

Right. Exactly what the skeptics are pointing out is that being skeptical is good! Denying radioactive physics however is not skepticism. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics."

At some point the media should be called to task for saying something like: "The senator, a prominent round Earth skeptic...", when instead they should just say: "The senator is delusional." Keep in mind that this statement was prepared by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Their name is tarnished when science deniers co-opt it. It was not signed by climate scientists - rather it was signed by physicist and science communicators. (and of course the members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry).

The third link, and the page that the statement was published on, is by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry . They feel that the media is giving undue credibility to the deniers by allowing them to co-opt their name. "The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims."

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

Hardly a reason to presume he is exaggerating.

How do you figure? Have you read the literature? Have you even read the relevant IPCC section?

Methane is a feedback of CO2. If the feedback is as strong as some say then CO2 could be game over. Also, you didn't read through to the other links. Clearly scientists are doing a good job of presenting the science even in the face of those who would distort it for political ends.

Is Hanson wrong? Should we expect to have seen a statistically significant change in storm intensity already? Did I not show many cases where scientists corrected journalists who overstated?

I think you may have tinted glasses. I'm a lay person and I certainly didn't get the impression that the sky was falling after reading Mann's essay. Regarding the two other links - Cook isn't a climate scientist and Hanson didn't say anything about tornadoes except that he had been in one and that heat is the fuel for tornados but that we don't yet know if frequency will increase and we didn't have enough data to tell if there has been a trend. On the other hand, look at these links:

David Archer on methane increase: "Is this bad news for global warming? Not really, because the one real hard fact that we know about atmospheric methane is that it’s concentration isn’t rising very quickly. Methane is a short-lived gas in the atmosphere, so to make it rise, the emission flux has to continually increase " - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

What about that Arctic methane bomb? "Shakhova et al (2013) did not find or claim to have found a 50 Gt C reservoir of methane ready to erupt in a few years. That claim, which is the basis of the Whiteman et al (2013) $60 trillion Arctic methane bomb paper, remains as unsubstantiated as ever. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

The fact that the ice core records do not seem full of methane spikes due to high-latitude sources makes it seem like the real world is not as sensitive as we were able to set the model up to be. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Here's William Connoly betting against an arctic death spiral (and trying to engage in a bet against arctic ice recovery): http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/...

Here is the head of the NASA climate team explaining why he and others publicly mocked a colleague during a presentation where the colleague suggested that we may be experiencing an arctic death spiral. His excuse seems to include the fact that he was mocking both sides (read further for examples): The negative engagement stemmed both from the “green” end (which we would characterize as “things are worse than they seem”) and from the “blue” end (“things are not as bad as they seem”). We were actively deflecting negative criticisms from both blue and green “wings” throughout both meetings. - https://drive.google.com/file/...