I very much appreciate your comment as this clears up our misunderstanding. I had come to respect your over 20 years of excellent coverage of climate science, so I was surprised by this one article. This clearly was an unfortunate
aberration resulting from miscommunication between both of us. I respect your professionalism for following up with your reply, as this demonstrates that you are an excellent journalist who admits mistakes and corrects them.
It is clear now that the misrepresentation of my views on climate change in the NY times article were entirely inadvertent. There was no political or other motive, which needs to be recognized by everyone. The politicizing of the disagreement on other blogs and in the media that has occurred is completely inappropriate and any derogatory personal characterizations by others from this event are abhorrent and have no place in this issue or associated with my blog in any way.
This unfortunate public exposure of our disagreement was not intended to initiate a firestorm of e-mails by others. Indeed, these exchanges compromise the focus on climate science, which is at the core of the weblog. Your response to my post is very constructive to move us forward.
Since the misunderstanding has been completely clarified, we will retain our exhanges on the blog, but all comments will be removed and no future comments accepted for these specific blogs. I look forward to moving forward and to continuing to read and learn from your articles.
You asked a few science questions and I will answer in a follow-up blog.