I don't know that I agree with the thesis of this article whatsoever; basically some cherry-picked research estimates "we may only see 1.5 to 2 degree increases, and we haven't had any real warming in the past 10 years; Therefore, we might want to reevaluate the amount of energy and attention we spend on mitigating carbon emissions"<p>That seems like a pretty flimsy argument.<p>1. I don't think there's strong evidence that 'global average temperatures stopped increasing.' Many of the world's largest average temperature readings have happened in the last ten years (2010, especially, but even recent reports show upward trends: <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13</a>).<p>2. Cherry-picking a few people whose models show a lower than average range, doesn't tell me anything other than the author of this article is suffering from wishful thinking.<p>3. The heart of the article seems to be suggesting this: "If climate change isn't that bad, maybe we don't have to do anything about it, " but ignores the opposite proposition. Oddly, I'm not even sure why such an article is necessary since the world collectively isn't making any earnest attempts to curb carbon emissions. Any reductions have been economically based, not environmental.<p>No, I think this is a hit piece on the climate change movement couched as due-diligence and beneficial skepticism.
We seldom address climate discussions from a perspective of geological timescales [1].<p>From this, it is clear that life has existed on earth throughout an extreme range of atmospheric conditions. However, it is quite possible that nature's response to these conditions may be severely limited due to human intervention (clear-cutting rain forests, etc.).<p>I hope that in the near future it will be economically advantageous to transition away from fossil fuels. Elon Musk believes this will be the case [2], and I sincerely hope he is correct. Fossil fuels are a non-sustainable energy source which are being rapidly depleted and already cost far more in externalities than we realize (pollution, war, market instability, etc.). Climate change should not be the only impetus for a transition to a sustainable energy infrastructure.<p>1. <a href="http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg</a><p>2. <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/cars/elon-musk-ted-talk-2013-tesla-spacex-solarcity-and-more.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.treehugger.com/cars/elon-musk-ted-talk-2013-tesla...</a>
The fossils in the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles<p><a href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/03/27/mysteries-of-the-tar-pits/" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/03/27/mysteries-of-the-tar-p...</a><p>provide a rich record of a variety of mammal and bird species going through almost 30,000 years of the last glacial-interglacial cycle. What's remarkable about the fossils is the statis in the body forms of the wide variety of animals trapped in the tar pits. Significant climate change resulted in indistinguishable evolutionary change in those animals. As scientists continue to work on predicting the probable effects of future climate changes, looking back on verifiable examples like well dated fossil beds will be helpful in putting bounds on the predictions.
I can't help but wonder why the economist would mention something and then say "This study has not been peer-reviewed." I would assume there are plenty of peer reviewed literature to look at so why did they bother to even read it? Is this something that has revived little research, because people are still assuming it's a short term anomaly?<p>As to energy-balance models's they don't account for the huge difference in average temperatures between the poles and the equator, it takes far less energy to maintain a 3C increase in Alaska than Florida. As such weather patterns are really important.
Why is it so hard to believe that the Earth is a stable system that can absorb shocks like CO2 emissions? It has supported life for millions of years. Clearly it is not as brittle as the typical climate scientist would have us believe.
Have you noticed that no one talks about 3rd world debt these days? Remember Live 8?<p>There seems to be a hierarchy of problems that the public/media keeps track of. 8 Years ago we were all talking about global warming and 3rd world debt. Then the economy crashed. Now we talk about the economy all day, with climate change relegated to occasional page 4 articles when a new study is published. Nobody even mentions 3rd world debt.<p>And that gives you an idea of how likely anyone is to change their behaviour based off the predictions of climate scientists (or even based off <i>actual</i> climate change, given that it happens so slowly).
I'm not versed in climatology or environmental science, and frankly neither are most people. The issue of global warming really confuses me to the point that I'm now on the fence. I've seen people with no knowledge on the matter become violent when it is challenged. A typical rebuttal might be "Well the glaciers are disappearing" in the same way christian fundamentalists use one liners to negate evolution.
Science shouldn't be emotional, and I find that worrying.<p>---
P.S I have no doubt we are screwing up our environment and need urgent change, but the psychology surrounding global warming is odd and interesting.
Politicians shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the energy industry, period. Questions about the analysis of temperature signals are interesting but often beside the point.
Currently enjoying a foot of snow in my yard in Spring, with this being the 4th greatest snow fall season in recorded history locally.<p>Yeah I'm a skeptic. Global cooling -> global warming -> global climate change. As the climate fails to heat up as predicted, the names and claims will once again shift.