1. There is no greenhouse gas signal in the economic or human toll record of disasters.Arguably true, so far. It's a noisy signal, though Eli has an interesting counterargument. As with most historical arguments, of secondary importance.
2. The IPCC has dramatically underestimated the scale of the stabilization challenge.I don't know what IPCC says about this, but I think it is true and a very important point that many people are absurdly confident about this being cheap and easy.
3. Geoengineering via stratospheric injection or marine cloud whitening is a bad idea.I agree to the first, am undecided on the second, which may offer fine-grain controls and is immediately reversible. However, as a substitute for decarbonization it is not worth considering.
4. Air capture research is a very good idea.Sure, though there is a sequestration problem that goes with it.5. Adaptation is very important and not a trade off with mitigation.Certainly. Does anyone dispute this one? It has a straw-man feel to me.
6. Current mitigation policies, at national and international levels, are inevitably doomed to fail.I strongly disagree with the formulation. What succeeds or fails politically is within the capacity of humans to decide.7. An alternative approach to mitigation from that of the FCCC has better prospects for success.This is hopelessly vague.8. Current technologies are not sufficient to reach mitigation goals.I strongly disagree. Again it is a matter of will. But I agree it won't be easy.9. In their political enthusiasm, some leading scientists have behaved badly.This is marginal at worst. The circumstances in which we find ourselves are unprecedented. The right behavior is not always easy to know. I know of nothing that any climate scientist has done that is worth raising to the level of a major public issue. The recent supposed scandals have been a malicious distraction and refer to no important issues of substance whatsoever.10. Leading scientific assessments have botched major issues (like disasters).Roger's historical disaster thing isn't a major issue in my opinion, so that's hardly a good example. I don't know of major issues that have been botched, and I don't know that the fact that Roger's own position is not taken as consensus in IPCC is dispositive. Almost everything is liable to dispute; the main thing is to get the right level of risk represented.
Odd. He presented his points sorted by the ones I would agree with first and the ones I would dislike second. What are the odds of that? (2 * 5/10 * 4/9 * 3/8 * 2/7 * 1/6 = 0.4% Weird.)
Anyway, I'm having trouble extracting a coherent position from all of this. The reader is invited to compare this list with my summary of my position which I think tells a story and describes a coherent and consistent point of view.