Professor of Environmental Studies Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado:
Pielke Jr.: Of course IPCC AR5 is a draft but the scientific literature it is reporting is available for all to see, and AR5 has it presented accurately
IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature
IPCC AR5 Draft: “we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records”
Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: “generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record”
on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)
On XTCs “unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones”
Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: “low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust”
More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency”
IPCC on trop cyclones “AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends”
IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: “The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts”
More IPCC Ch2: “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
More IPCC draft report: Ch2: “there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding” excpt timing of snowmelt

And that search was with just one minutes effort kost. Honestly he is focused on certain aspects. There is a lot more out there of how deep their retreat really is.

also my quote was from a telegraph online article, which took me 10s to find with a google search.. the whole article shows the depth of ignorance on actual science and what scientists say and how it all works

I did say that fundamentalists on both side misunderstand science

You can always find some scientists to skew interpretations of data or falsify the data themselves to suit their benefactors, namely big oil companies.

"fundamentalists on both sides"??

Jim claims he can fart himself over the Eiffel Tower

do I have to find "middle ground"?  Is saying "no it is physically impossible for you to fart yourself over the Eiffel Tower" a form of "fundamentalism"?

I never claimed I had a contrary competing and superior model of global climate, i said nobody had one that worked.
I'm proved right. 
I am to be embarrassed for being right?

This is more about avoiding the social cost of admitting a mistake to the "wrong people" than it is practicing science, and has been for decades.

Yell: people like flint are fundamentalist, because they don't understand what they are talking about. It would be like you preaching how Jim can't fart himself over the Eiffel tower by claiming that he can't because the Eiffel tower is 10,000 km tall. There is a middle ground where rational thought exists...

Nor in Oregon where Zero-Impact(ers) live. Some people have no clue.

I will love the recognition that I was correct when this canard finally ends.

I was against the claims before even my party was. And it is statistics which was my firstclue they were liars.

Take three days, July 3rd, July 4th, and July 5th, find 50 towns and cities recording the temperatures to as far back as the Revolutionary war. Check the spectrum of possible weather and temperature results. The variation is so severe that we are easiky within natural variation.

Since then so much evidence has come forth to ravage the lie it beggers the imagination!