That there is much greater uncertainty in localized predictions of climate change than in the more general conclusions is well within mainstream understanding, so what we have here -- at least as you're describing it -- is a straw man. Which fits well into the unoriginal loopiness cited in the Sourcewatch entry. Or does Paltridge name some names?
And as far as taking Lovelock's reading suggestions on the basis of his non-denialism, consider that he has often counseled the inaction of despair, which gives aid and comfort to all the wrong parties. But with this interview he seems to be shifting off his mounts, repeating without any actual knowledge the slanders against the CRU (now officially vindicated) and vague slamming of models without indicating what the hell he's talking about. He reminded me of Freeman Dyson, another nonagenarian who also gives good interview provided you're not burdened with too much background.
......
You're right.
The uncertainty of localized predictions is indeed "well within mainstream understanding". The trouble is -- at least in the climate change activist circles I've been spending time with -- this uncertainty isn't always understood or acknowledged at the non-specialist level.
What I tend to hear (and again, I'm talking about my own experience with activists, not the entire field) is a series of horror stories about catastrophe everywhere, all the time. And the same sorts of catastrophes: super hurricanes - everywhere...super tornadoes - everywhere...and so on.
In some cases, this is the result of a misunderstanding of the complexity of and difference between global climate and local weather effects. In other cases, it's a conscious effort to spur people to action via fear (understandable but...).
So, in a very precise and limited way, I appreciate when people like Paltridge -- despite my many disagreements with them otherwise -- write about these issues in an accessible way. Even though there is the danger of giving aid and comfort to denialists. But what can you do?
Similarly, I appreciate our own James Heartfield's work dissecting "green capitalism" even though I object to his dismissal of climate change. ("Green Capitalism" helped me make sense of the combination activist/futurist/green product salesman work of John Thackara and others in his wide circle).
As for Lovelock...
I'm not as comfortable as some of the Science Blogs commentors apparently are completely writing Lovelock off as a past-his-prime old man and climate crank.
I do think (and again, this is an instance of finding a point or points of agreement in the midst of debate) that he's right to remind those of us who're focused on climate change that there are many unanswered and difficult questions.
This might be second nature to you and I suppose me and many others but there are quite a few people for whom it's something of a revelation. That is, it's a revelation to break out of the denial/acceptance dual and into a state, closer to the way science is done, of accepting the reality of climate change while also accepting the reality of uncertainty.
.d.