I'm sorry you feel that way however what I wrote wasn't about you nor was it an attack on you. It was about what you said.
Rationality left the room in this discussion long ago when the oil and coal companies decided to get involved with using PR to counter the irrefutable science being peer reviewed and published. PR companies don't need actual science to influence public opinion, they just need to confuse the issue. Unintentionally, you helped them.
Whilst what you were saying was pretty clear to me, it is obviously not clear to you that what you say will be twisted in much more sinister ways than you claim I have. If you ask yourself how likely it is that this is a consequence of AGW could you indeed state that it's unlikely? Intentionally or not you politicized your own argument. No one is going to do the science on the walrus' coming ashore en-mass because no-one cares about them, not even you. That's the reality.
You've largely backed up my point about the political elements in these topics. You are not a positive influence on rational discussions. You promote factionalism, tribalism, political gainsaying, and other primate pissing contests into what should be a rational scientific discussion.
I never claimed anything I said was science, nor did I launch into an ad hominem attack as you have demonstrated. You claim this "should be a rational scientific discussion" but what you don't realize is we are no longer talking rationally about this and many other things. This is a "gloves off, take no prisoners" battle for survival on one side and a "You won't be taking me alive" fight for a perceived way of life ending on another.
If you want rationality, you should be prepared to demonstrate it as I have, because billions of people are going to die in the changes and resources wars in the coming years. That is the discussion we are having. If you are not equipped to have the discussion you shouldn't complain to me because of it or blame me because you take it personally.