Changing Positions on Global Warming

If the science were settled, this wouldn't be occurring:

THE CERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINTY: Great juxtaposition by Mark Steyn:

Nine years ago self-proclaimed “climate hawk” David Roberts was contemplating Nuremberg trials for deniers:

When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.

But in his latest piece, at Vox.com, he’s singing a rather different tune:

Basically, it’s difficult to predict anything, especially regarding sprawling systems like the global economy and atmosphere, because everything depends on everything else. There’s no fixed point of reference.

Now he tells us.

Roberts isn’t the first “climate hawk” to charter multiple flight paths over the years; here’s the late Dr. Steven Schneider versus Dr. Steven Schneider:

(The whole “In Search of the Coming Ice Age” segment from Leonard Nimoy’s cheesy late-’70s paranormal In Search Of series is online here; and I’ve rounded up plenty of other Not-S0-Final Countdowns here.)

Update, 10/31/15:  Faking climate change data?  Say it ain't so!