Little harsh, dontcha think?
There were *many* cautions in that article, and extensive use of the words "might" and "may." The author noted at least once that more data is required, and made it abundantly clear that he was dealing with the predictions of a model.
I know you believe the politics of the controversy have eclipsed the science, but I still have faith in our ability to seek truth. Science will eventually point us in the right direction.
But I also understand the call to begin taking action now, just in case human activity *is* having a measurable effect on the global climate. If that's imprudent, I don't see it.