Interesting so you're implying a leading climate scientist is irrelevant because she questions aspects of her own science. That sums up all that is wrong with climate science as science is about asking probing questions and doubting conclusions until there's sufficient empircal evidence at hand, which is what we don't have at the moment due to doubts over how much warming we may see.
The whole concept of this debate is tiresome, well when I say debate I mean arguments put forward questioning the above, as one side distinctly dismisses any evidence laid down and merely sneers at any discussion which dares to rear its ugly head above the pulpit.