I don't know about sober (there's quite a lot of emphasis used, underlines and italics that makes it seem a bit shouty), but it certainly lays out some kind of coherent argument.

On first reading though I'm struck by an extreme level of nit-picking that almost strikes me as anti-science, but accompanied by cheerful acceptance of any scientific theory that supports her position.

For example the self-limiting effects of CO2. Seems plausible enough to someone reading about it for the first time, but I'm guessing this is a theory produced by climate researchers. Why does this get a free pass when other theories get demolished for using computers, creating models, assumptions and other basic tools of science?

If you need that kind of certainty to believe anything then I'm guessing your looking for truthiness rather than the truth.

Also, out of the 4 basic points, point 3 (the earth hasn't warmed since 2001) seems incredibly weak even at first glance.

Well, sober or not, I felt it pretty thoroughly laid out the argument for the sceptic position.

> For example the self-limiting effects of CO2. Seems plausible enough to someone reading about it for the first time, but I'm guessing this is a theory produced by climate researchers. Why does this get a free pass when other theories get demolished for using computers, creating models, assumptions and other basic tools of science?

I didn't understand that? I don't recall theories being demolished for doing those thing?

> Also, out of the 4 basic points, point 3 (the earth hasn't warmed since 2001) seems incredibly weak even at first glance.

There is some satellite data going back around 30 years that doesn't register any statistically significant warming. Obviously, there are some other that does, and "Climategate" and "hide the decline" seems to be about this. I'm not qualified to evaluate the arguments about which datasets can be processed how or left out or given different weights, but there's a lot of language in those e-mail that you wouldn't expect to hear from someone confident in the completeness and soundness of their own argument.

Actually, I'm mostly interested in the politics, more than the science. IPCC is a political body disguised as objective science, and quite frankly, that should piss of all scientists, whether or not they agree with the conclusion. The politics-disguised-as-science is then being used to push a very expensive and very ineffective agenda, and that should piss off the rest of us.