I should have been clearer by stating: "Dangerous AGW is an hypothesis".
And that will always be the case until such time we have enough information to validate we are indeed heading up or towards the IPCC's "conservative" 2 degrees, 3 degrees, 5 degrees /century slippery slope.
Butcherboy, the comparison with that group was to demonstrate the bizarre underlying logic of your claim, viz. that one who performs activities A and B can't be much good at performing activity C.
Speaking of that illustrious group, Charlie Munger has come to the conclusion that humanity is taking the wrong course in how it is dealing with global warming. He maintains that the costs of adapting to a changed climate, net of the positives resulting from higher temps, does not warrant the enormous costs in trying to stem the emissions.
