The elephant in the room is not what effect CO2 has on climate per se, but what effect is the CO2 having on the pH of the oceans. It would appear that a considerable percentage of the man made emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and while this is mitigating against change of global temperatures, it is having a significant effect on other things such as our own coral reefs.

We still need to be taking steps to reduce our carbon emission before some other unforeseen catastrophe overtakes us.

When I read an article like this one, and yesterday's one by the same author, sometimes I spend the time (and it takes quite a lot of time) to investigate, read the cited articles, etc, to try to decide whether it should be taken seriously.

Mostly I don't have the time to do this. Fortunately on this occasion Aitkin has saved me the trouble.

His article is about Dr Roy Spencer. Aitkin praises spencer's website (but doesn't tell us where it is, it's http://www.drroyspencer.com/). In the list of Spencer's research articles (http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/) the first one is Spencer & Braswell (2011). For further info on this, see http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf. Note in that document how the journal editor says "I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have exaggerated the paper's conclusions ..."

This is actually a common denialist tactic - to take a paper which is of no great significance to the public debate, and pretend that is it hugely significant.

More telling about Spencer's quality as a scientist is http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model. I'd challenge any reader to find a mathematician/statistician who doesn't agree with me that Spencer's blunder is astoundingly naive.

This of course doesn't say that everything Spencer says is wrong. But what does it say about Aitkin? That he is more interested in writing about climate change than learning about it? Or that he simply can't find scientific work by someone with a better reputation than Spencer which supports his point of view?

Either way it seems to justify putting Aitkin on your "don't bother to read" list.

When the author quotes Roy Spencer and the Uni of Alabama we know this is going to be another tirade against AGW.
As the release of the IPCC report comes closer, there is an increase in the shrill screaming of the denialists as they try to hold the ground against the landslide of facts that are overwhelming them.
It will of course be to no avail. It is like trying to fend off the Titanic from hitting a wharf by holding your hand out.

So VK3AUU, one scare story isn't working so let's switch to a second scare story that can be carried on a while longer?

The 15 year pause in temperatures is proving a major problem for the global warming community. To keep up the funding they need observed global average temperatures to start increasing..

Yes, ocean acidification has effectively doubled in just the last 16 years!
So simply doing nothing is not an option!
Lord preserve us from climate skeptics who merely masquerade as credible scientists or cherry pick their data, or worse, hack into the personal musing of some scientists?
Who all to often, in private, play the devils advocate, to arrive at a properly considered, thoroughly examined opinion!
That opinion tells us, we should at the very least choose to use locally available hydrocarbons, rather than those we currently import, to power more than 85% of our traffic. On the credible grounds, that just that much change, will lower our transport carbon footprint by some 75%! Or don't we actually want to save what's left of our reef?
Rhrosty.

When humans have to choose between profit and prudence they choose the former everytime. They are greedy by nature.

Forget all the scenes you've seen of devastation caused by extreme weather! They didn't happen. No matter the deaths and destruction, just tell yourself you imagined them or dreamt them.

Yeah, let's dig all the fossil fuel out of the ground, have ourselves a fun time while the fuel lasts.

Humans are incredibly stupid. That's why we have oodles of nukes I guess, and Wall Street.