I'm responding only because my views were distorted. I can't expect others to respond for me on that.

Like most people concerned about climate change, I don't have a vested interest in any particular interpretation.

In fact, I have not even written as much as a single article other than book reviews and blog entries on the subject.

I am biased toward getting the best understanding of natural phenomena and responding as necessary. When it comes to policy, there are both liberal and conservative approaches that have promise, and I pay attention to both sides.

What I oppose most vigorously are claims, usually by people who want to wish away the scientific consensus, that most scientists have agendas. Those people, such the anonymous posters here, mis-characterize the ongoing scientific process because of their own agendas.

If you review my blog postings, you will see some where I take people to task for overstating the scientific case. But I also respect the (conservative) process that set up the IPCC so as to prevent political bandwagons and allow a consensus to develop (or not) by the usual process of scientific give and take.

The IPCC consensus that has developed has led to evidence-based warnings (not alarmist propaganda) that we ignore at our peril.

I have reviewed books on weather and climate by authors of varied scientific backgrounds and political leanings, including one by Newt Gingrich.

An objective reading of my blog postings and reviews should lead you to recognize (1) that I view this from slightly left of the political center (moderate to progressive, to quote one of my reviews) and (2) that I respect the IPCC consensus and the process by which it was developed.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)