It’s hard to take your arguments seriously when you try to pretend that there is a difference between Annan’s estimate of the sensitivity of about 3, with the IPCC’s estimate of 2-4.5.

Tim adds: Umm, there is a difference between a range of 2-4.5 and a point estimate of 3. That was rather Annan’s point, wasn’t it?

And we are still waiting for you to correct you previous post where you complained about the BBC correcting a misleading article.

Tim adds: Tim, this post is about what FoE complained about. There is nothing in their complaints that I see should or could be complained about. As I pointed out.

Hansen complained about, say: bugger, I can’t get cut and paste to work from his piece. Para two here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hansen_letter.pdf

Each of the things he complains about is in fact, as I argue, something which should indeed be debated.

Just for the record, do I think AGW is happening? Yes. And now come the interesting discussions: how much, what do we do about it and how much will those things cost? As opposed to the benefits we get? Those interesting questions are exactly the ones that are not being discussed but shoould be.

Perhaps you’d like to help Tim? Explain why Nordhaus is wrong, Stern correct? Or the other way around, perhaps?

Tim adds: I badger people, leave comments and generally make fun of factual inaccuracies just as much (actually appreciably more than) the average monomaniac. It’s “which” corrections which are important to me. As here: what factual inaccuracies are FoE insisting should be corrected? I’ve been through there all of the complaints they mark up on their site and cannot see anything wrong with any of the original statements.

Perhaps you could help me out by pointing out which of them are in fact in error?

As your previous post points out the populace might start noticing the emperor has no clothes. Once that happens they will be held in contempt and politicians will stat to steer a very wide berth.

This will (hopefully) deny them public money (public money being good, private money bad) and unfettered access to politicians. Politicians might even take the unnatural step of listening to skeptics and carrying out a cost benefit analysis before introducing legislation and regulation.