This is a very good article.

A "lukewarmer", that is the way to go according to evidence from the real world.

However be sure to forget the CO2 aspect.

Cry wolf comes to mind.
Perhaps another factor or more are causing more severe weather.

Matt. A couple of points which I feel I must take issue with your essay.
Firstly: you state that CO2 Is "normally harmless, indeed moderately beneficial, gas,".
Evidence of increasing biomass on the planet, as a result of increased levels of this gas would put it in the 'definitially beneficial' category. Imagine the decrease in tomato prices were growers able to reduce their cost inputs by not needing so much CO2 to maintain their growing houses at 1000ppm?

Secondly: you state that "I am a ‘lukewarmer’: somebody who has come to think that climate change is likely to continue to be slow and mild". You did not make clear whether your opinion of 'climate change' would result in temperatures going up or down. That temperatures will change is not in doubt, just the direction is somewhat doubtful. With historic records indicating that there is a one to one relationship between sun spot activity and temperature, indications would be that the temperature will lower with a recent reduction of sunspot activity.
Beside these two caviats, I would agree wholeheartedly with your concerns regarding the trashing of 'science' and the scientific method that you have very clearly and simply presented. Not to mention the trashing of 'western' notions of free speech.

Matt, you will get a good response for the most part in this echo chamber, however for those of us that think differently.

My main problem with your article is you write as if we don't live in a world where big corporations haven't lied about the effects of smoking. That haven't lied about asbestos. Didn't delay when birth defects started showing up due to morning sickness drug.
or that the two main western powers that still use land mines just happened to have been the largest makers in the weapons.

Your article should have been about these influences as well as some of the excess on the other side. Fair and balanced shouldn't be a little to much to ask.
As for you not understanding why some climate scientist go in so hard, ask yourself how you feel about people trying to shutdown research into testing with human embryos.

"Most scientists close enough to the topic say: possibly. Some say: definitely. Some say: highly unlikely"
And though the third group is very small, sections of the media give them as much prominence as the (very large) second group.

"The ‘consensus’ answer is that the warming could be anything from mildly beneficial to dangerously harmful: that’s what the IPCC means when it quotes a range of plausible outcomes from 1.5 to 4 degrees of warming.”
Even the 1.5° outcome is far from beneficial, as most of the warming will occur in already hot areas.

"To me, given that most environmental scares never turn out as bad as first feared, given that climate change has proceeded much more slowly and mildly than expected since 1990, and given that there is now a vast vested industry in alarm, thanks to munificent public funding, this feels like an over-reaction."
Many, if not most, environmental scares turn out as bad as the scientists fear unless action is taken. How they compare to the public's fears depends on the how the media stokes or downplays the fears. In 1990 the scienctists knew the warming would be slow, but also that the problem would not go away, and that there were significant threats of triggering positive feedback mechanisms. There still are.
_____________________

Prompete,
The relationship between sunspot activity and temperature used to be significant, but it broke down in the 1980s. That breakdown was (and indeed still is) thought to be the result of global warming.

The last line reveals the credibility of this article as another "puff piece"...

"I meet a lot of people who are skeptical and a lot of people who are alarmed. The latter have all the plum jobs, hefty grants and fat salaries. Yet respect for the scientific method is far more prevalent among the former. I genuinely worry that science itself is being damaged by this episode."

Who are all of these "fat cats", name them! I suspect you are trying to again by stealth create an impression that climate scientists are pushing the cause due to financial advantage and it really isn't a big problem. There are equally many scientists being paid to deny the science, right wing bloggers and media commentators who all have "skin in the game".

There is no freedom of speech impairment on climate change...witness your article and no doubt the other comments to follow in this forum. What is missing is a reputable repudiation of the scientific data. And don't worry about science being damaged; science is just fine and the scientific method continues as usual.

Thanks Aidan, I hadn't heard that one before: that the hiatus in global warming may have been due to sunspot activity, but that global warming has interfered with the effects of sunspot activity. A bit circular, as well as a bit self-defeating ?

Hi Cobber,

You suggest that we don't

"live in a world where big corporations haven't lied about the effects of smoking. That haven't lied about asbestos. Didn't delay when birth defects started showing up due to morning sickness drug. or that the two main western powers that still use land mines just happened to have been the largest makers in the weapons."

So ....... corporations lied about smoking, asbestos, birth defects, land mines - and, are you suggesting, 'therefore', they are now lying about anthropogenic global warming ?

Has it escaped your notice that the vast majority of major corporations have got on board the AGW gravy boat ?

So .... are you suggesting that AGW is therefore a scam ?

Just one other thing: has there, or hasn't there, been an 18-year pause in global warming ?

Cheers,

Joe