Climate clarity or climate blather?

Debating climate

Peter Smith argued: 

There is no substitute for clarity of thought and communicating the results plainly and consistently. The sceptics are not doing that. They might have truth on their side. It is being lost in the blather. 

Bob Carter and Alex Stuart disagreed. 

Bob Carter: 

If losing the debate means that the UK adopts a sensible policy of adaptation to climate change, Canada rejects emissions limitation legislation, and the Cancun meeting ends in disarray, then I for one shall be quite happy to keep right on blathering. 

Alex Stuart: 

We know that the high temperature of early 2010 was also caused by an El Nino event – so the two peaks should be comparable: if one is an outlier, so is the other; but both are data, so if one is either included or excluded, the other should be treated in the same way.

Read more: 

Peter Smith wrote "Sceptics losing clarity"

Bob Carter responded in "Science is about testing hypotheses"

Alex Stuart responded in “Debating physics”

Peter Smith replied in “Climate riposte”