Interesting article and an evident exercise in damage limitation by the AGW camp.
I'm not sure it represents the journo's thinking for them selves yet but rather that they are on the same page as the proponents of AGW.
This is in no way an admission but rather an attempt to distance the AGW camp from the extreme claims made "by both sides" simply to appear reasonable and right.
Hmm. I'm not sure that there has been such an extent of well suported and well propagandised extreme claims against AGW but we'll let that pass.
The sudden "reasonableness" in the face of contrary evidence is a subtle attempt foster the view that these events are not evidence against global warming but the sort of minor glitches we ought to expect and that underneath it all Global Warming is bubbling away as deadly and as sure as ever.
This is just a new form of hype.
I am minded of the previously commented on methods of Gordon Brown (what I have called the "French approach") to delivering unpalatable legislation or taxes: trail it in advance, let everyone get thoroughly upset about it all, relax a lttle and when everyone is too tired to worry any more, re-introduce the measure in an equally pointless, equally damaging but more (marginally) palatable form.
Agreed, but as soon as you admit that there might, after all, be some slight doubt that the Sun revolves around the Earth, people start to think that they might not, after all, need to pay you large sums to shorten their stay in Purgatory. The AGW scam relies on the TINA principle - There Is No Alternative - to persuade us to act against our own interests.