[MaxWilson]

Let me put it this way, Edi: it bothers me a lot that all the criticism of AGW seems to come from skeptics. Normally you would expect someone to say, "This is my theory, here are my assumptions. Initially we were concerned because it seemed like A, B, C, but examining the data from experiment X it turns out that Y. We are currently still trying to explain Z but we don't think it's really a problem."

It bothers me a lot that people like you and Dutch address only the quacks instead of real questions (like the ones raised in the article licker cited a few posts earlier, or the ones like "Why is GISS so careless with its data? Why should we trust them?"). This may be because the issue is so politicized that you get better mileage out of criticizing the quacks, I don't know. In theory, AGW advocates should be *raising* the questions as well as answering them. In practice it doesn't seem to work that way.

-Max

Edit: typo fixes, added GISS question.