re: #35 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

It’s not true. He’s a ‘soft’ denier. He doesn’t directly deny AGW, but he does deny that CO2 is the overwhelmingly main forcer, and he denies that reduction efforts are the best way to combat it, instead parroting the incredible unwise and unscientific ‘adaptation’ idea that is popular in right-wing circles.

You get the difference between a ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ denier, right? And that this guy is not a scientist?

I get there is a spectrum of opinion on exactly what he is. Does a soft denier say what I quoted above? He may be more of a heretic than denier from where I sit. But these terms are fairly subjective. 538 denies he is a denier, soft or hard. I get that he is not a hard science scientist, What do you call a political scientist besides well political scientist?

It appears your opinion of the man is significantly more critical than those at 538. I don’t know who is right.