“The Royal Society: Still Embarrassing Science“. Indur Goklany tries to gets some digs in at the Royal Society’s new publication about Climate Change. It’s an embarrassment to science! Anthony Watts, of course, agrees. His argument seems to devolve into a series of nit-picking over particular word choices and hostile semantic interpretations. That’s it?
He gets his big whopper in right off the top, for attention-challenged readers. Is it true that, as he tries to suggest, the Royal Society “now acknowledges that climate science may not be as settled as it previously implied”? Nope, that’s just a standard denialist straw-man. Like most science-based organizations the Royal Society has always made reference to statistical and historical uncertainties in the evidence of AGW.
Play on.
Wott's Up With That? 
Could it be that long term acceptance of denialist contradictions will turn a mind to mush? Or, just turn it off? (vis a vis the second paragraph)
Or maybe they just choose not to read what Indur Goklany presents to them. From a quick scan of the denialist comments, the only parts of the article addressed were ‘climate models’ (a free-standing, no-priming-needed topic) and ‘prediction’
They know that the typical definition of ‘climate’ is 30 years.
And they understand the inconsistent position of complaining about the poor performance of computer models with precipitation and at the regional level. When you’re rejecting the continental-temperature computer models.