James Randi stands corrected. Phew, that was close

Randi is on the right side often enough to give him some slack when he pops off without thinking or makes a typo.

I support Randi. He is not a scientist, or a climatologist. He approaches things from a layman's view, albeit skeptically. If a skeptic like him cannot separate the wheat from the chaff, it tells us what sort of a job the scientific community has done compared to the denialist industry.

That was close?

In his post he states that GW is describing warming caused by heat release from human activities and then wonders if this warming is anthropogenic.

Unfortunately, I think this shows how effective the denial crowd has been in spreading their disinformation on the net. If you were say, a high school student, doing a research paper on global warming where you likely go for information? The Internet right? You would be hard pressed not to be exposed the worst information about AGW there is from people who make their living denying it. Randi probably has some leanings that caused him to look at, other than reputable sources, or maybe he really just didn't know better.

In his post he states that GW is describing warming caused by heat release from human activities and then wonders if this warming is anthropogenic.

Yes, either he doesn't get the whole concept of how GHGs heat the world, or he's muddled up this post very badly, too.

These comments:

If a skeptic like him cannot separate the wheat from the chaff, it tells us what sort of a job the scientific community has done compared to the denialist industry.

Unfortunately, I think this shows how effective the denial crowd has been in spreading their disinformation on the net.

I think point to the most worrisome thing here...

On the other hand, it's important that even Randi isn't beyond criticism, and gets the full force of it when he says something that's wrong. No sacred cows, no prophets.

It still kind of weirds me out that he's all 'Oh look at me I'm a prominent skeptic but with no scientific training whatsoever let's make a comment on global warming'.

Dude's good at calling out magic and superstitiony bullshit. But let we who have the scientific training do the calling out of the unscientific bullshit.

JR deserves at least as much.

Doesn't he- I dunno- deserve being called out for his bullshit?

If you took his posts and simply substituted Intelligent Design or Jenny McCarthy anti-vax "doubts" in place of his about anthropogenic warming, who would be sticking up for it?

Coddling him because of either his "status" in the skeptic community or his age/health seems like the most insulting thing people could do in this situation.

You know what I find most interesting while reading about this subject, and the posts here, which are representative of many so called skeptics? The fact that many people seem to equate being skeptical with being right.

Skepticism does NOT mean being correct.

Skepticism is asking questions, and looking for evidence rather than blindly accepting what one is told.

Skepticism will not always lead one directly to the right answer to any question, be it scientific, moral, political or what not.

Skepticism does not constrain one to stating an opinion unless one is right.

Skepticism allows one to change their mind in the face of evidence, not in the face of browbeating, political pressure or snarky comments and ridicule.

Skepticism is not being afraid to ask stupid questions, and not being afraid to seem stupid to others while asking them.

Skepticism about a topic does not require you to be an expert in that topic.

I think many "skeptics" would do well by understanding these realities.

A skeptic being wrong is NOT a close call. ("Phew that was close")

Sounds like Randi's a hedgehog, not a fox.
(in a Berlin/Tetlock way of speaking)

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, nicht wahr? Not true believers and defenders of the faith. Persons with a BS or BA in some peripherally scientific topic should not consider themselves experts on political topics such as climate disaster.

Burn the heretics! Just trying to fit in with the crowd.

I see you don't undersand what it is to be a skeptic, Michael. Skepticism of done right fights off the propencity to defend the true faith. Lol!

Bullshit. Randi spouted off on a topic without bothering to actually know much about it. That is generally considered to be expressing an uninformed opinion or, less politely, talking out of one's ass. Apparently skepticism has become a euphemism for opinionated ignorance.

Public attitudes in Canada have changed hugely over the last couple of months. Call-ins to the majority of MSM radio programs all mainly stating that CC is critical and we need to do something about it. This is very promising. I think the email hack issue backfired.

I like how Randi admonishes PZ for posting first and asking questions later. I guess PZ should learn to be moreless like Randi...

(I'm not sure if I got the right tag, but preview's still busted on this site. James, if you need some help, let me know. It looks like there is at least one missing template file - "HTML Head", or else some code is still trying to load a template you were hoping to avoid.)

I think Randi is leaning too much on Penn and Teller and sharing in their Libertarianism. His waffling insistence that those who corrected his BS simply didn't understand him is pretty much how every pseudoscience nut handles such an event. And that's sad, because he's personally seen this done by at least a hundred dowsers, blinfold see-throughers, and others by now; he should know better.

"PZ isn't satisfied and makes some good points about why JR would bother to write about a subject he admits he isn't really all that up on."

At least JR admits he's not really all that up on a subject he writes about. PZ goes on for post after post about things he knows nothing about but won't admit to his willful ignorance.