Henry, I agree with the Lindzen quote in your post. I think I can summarize what he says in it as:
The Greenhouse Effect is real. Human activities have likely increased temperatures beyond what they would otherwise be. But we can’t accurately quantify the size of this effect, and therefore we can not accurately predict the magnitude of any future warming.
In other words, because the relationship between CO2 and temperature is so complex, negative future effects of global warming are not a certainty, but they are a risk.
This is how I characterized Gore’s, Milloy’s, and my positions in the post that you reference:
So I guess, Milloy, Gore and I all agree that the relationship is complex. Complex here is a synonym for “not well understood”. Apparently, Gore thinks “not well understood” means “will definitely destroy us”, Milloy thinks “not well understood means “no big deal”, and I think “not well understood” means “I don’t know how big a deal this is”. Or as I said in the article: “Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.”
As I indicated in my NRODT article, as well as the second part of my reply to Steven Milloy, I think this risk justifies a limited insurance policy, not reengineering our entire economy pronto through emissions abatement.