But not by me.

Here is an open invitation to my loudest critics. I'd like to invite ... [them] ... to engage in a substantive debate on the following 10 conclusions that I've reached about the climate issue, based on the fact that the human influence on climate is real, serious and deserving of significant policy attention:

1. There is no greenhouse gas signal in the economic or human toll record of disasters
2. The IPCC has dramatically underestimated the scale of the stabilization challenge.
3. Geoengineering via stratospheric injection or marine cloud whitening is a bad idea.
4. Air capture research is a very good idea.
5. Adaptation is very important and not a trade off with mitigation.
6. Current mitigation policies, at national and international levels, are inevitably doomed to fail.
7. An alternative approach to mitigation from that of the FCCC has better prospects for success.
8. Current technologies are not sufficient to reach mitigation goals.
9. In their political enthusiasm, some leading scientists have behaved badly.
10. Leading scientific assessments have botched major issues (like disasters).

Actually, it's only 3 and 4 that seem debatable to me, and that's mainly because I'm not sure that anyone has a sufficiently good grasp of those subjects. I agree with them as stated, but not with confidence. I'd like to hear an informed debate or at least a honest discussion by informed participants.