I'm not sure if this is correct spot for analysing the logic in the climate change discussion. But it's about logic and not about global warming. So we give it a shot. Let's meet Stephen Schneider I will not comment here, that would be risking poisoning the well. Only notice that SS is a scientist in the field of climate change. Now perhaps check out http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html [Broken] Now I do wonder if we see either a skillfull logical refuting of the opponents or the most dense concentration of fallacies per sentence ever. What would it be?