Nicely written FUD.
"Warming" is not necessarily temperature related, it mostly manifests as phase changes. ie. melting ice, and system wide circulation changes. There is ample evidence that these changes are happening much faster than the conservative estimates. Global warming=Temperature increase is a nice over simplification to argue about, but it is the tip of the iceberg in reality. When all the ice has gone (!) *then* extra heat = extra temperature.
Yes, the climate science is messy and hard to understand. This is why we need years of training and super computers to get accurate daily/weekly weather reports. We now take 7 day forecast for granted and they are remarkably accurate. The same physical models can be run over and over again with many different assumptions until a "phase space" of potential futures is mapped. Up until recently the politics was such that only the "safe" forecasts have been considered. New data suggests the "safe" models are *way* too conservative. Ice sheet collapses seen in Antarctica were expected in another 20-60 years time, not last year.
The longer term forecasts are indeed subject to *much* more uncertainty and may indeed be way off but: theory tells us something must change when energy balance is altered. Theory and data show it will not happen linearly, but in a jumpy fashion. Theory and data show that we have pushed the dynamics *way* further than nature has managed for a few million years (Deccan Traps, Gulf of Mexico crater, etc)
Over-simplifying an immensely complex topic, cherry picking data and relying on ignorance is a common tactic. It is also a common assumption that science can be dumbed down for the a non-professional and still make sense.
I agree with the author on one thing though: We will have to deal with the changes as it is way too late to stop it. He is also correct that the media hypes complex topics and hence makes them seem dubious to rational, skeptical folks.
The doubters should be asking for more science, not more ignorant opinion and amateur analysis.

A little experiment for the home climate skeptic:
Fill a glass with crushed ice, top it off with water.
Stick a thermometer in it, it should read about 0c or just above.
At room temperature (22c) the ice will melt, but the temperature will remain close to 0c, the heat of the room will be going into the latent heat of water (more water, less ice), *not* increasing temperature.
Provide a gentle heat source and note: rate of ice decrease is faster, temperature remains much the same until all ice is melted, *then* the temperature rises. Google "latent heat" to find out more.
This is just a sample of the complexities that journalists like to ignore. Moral of story: talk to climate scientists about climate, not journalists or even clever people.
Another moral: Money talks loudly.

Ozandy

As I understand, the author (Mark Lawson) also goes by the tag curmudgeon and curmudgeonathome (sic). Having read a few of his responses, I am of the opinion he really does not understand the science, let alone time-series analysis.

It's true, if you try and simplify it, you run the risk of getting into a circular argument - creating 'noise' and playing for more delay.

Ozrandy - I regret that I didn't really understand your point about the ice in the glass, and I don't see its relevence, but thank you for making it. The problem remains that if we look at the real physical system in measurements of temperatures and sea heights, then AGW simply isn't happening. If the models of rates of glacier melting are proving conservative its a problem with those models which include temperature as one variable (there are several). As we can measure temperatures directly, we don't need to infer them from glacier melting rates.

Q&A - I'm glad to see that in some way you find me notorious, but it is best to remain courteous in these discussions.
The science quoted in the article, such as it is, is not in contention. No one is arguing the point that the direct warming effects of CO2 is limited due to a saturation effect. No one is arguing that the models assume some sort of feedback on that additional warming to get the big results. The discussion about climate "sensitivity" to CO2 is being batted around in the science journals as we speak.
But the bottom line is this. Temperatures seem to be coming off a peak. The trend is not confirmed yet, but if temperatures continue to fall for the next couple of years many scientists will be very embarrased indeed.

I agree that you seem to have not understood Ozandy's point Curmudgeon.

The ice in the glass experiment shows that neither the water level nor the temperature of the water in the glass changes very much, but there is a net input of energy being retained by the water within it. Temperature is usually a good guide to energy transferrence within phases, (solids, gases and liquids), but when they are changing phase (ie solid to liquid, liquid to gas), the temperature doesn't change even when there is a net energy input retained in the system.

I think it's a valid point, because that does superficially explain the melting rates of glaciers and ice sheets without the corresponding temperature rise. It's about energy, not temperature.

"We now take 7 day forecast for granted and they are remarkably accurate."

Not where I live they're not. They are very often wrong.

Besides, the whole global warming hysteria is based on the idea of forecasting hundreds of years into the future. You know, 'save the planet' and all that jazz?

The climatology is not the only science that's relevant. Even if all the climatology were not in issue, that does not justify the conclusion that *any* policy action is justified.

Why not? To understand that, we have to understand the ignorance of economic science that underlies the alarmists' reasoning.

It is simply not valid to assume, as they do, that because there is a problem *therefore* we have only to concentrate enough power and enough desire for central planning in government, to be assured of the solution. This is an utter fallacy - exactly the same fallacy underlying the 20th century's disastrous experiments with socialism.

The new version aspires not just to government control of everything in the economy that might affect the environment - in other words, every aspect of human life. It also aspires to manage the world's ecology as well: the distribution and abundance of species. But species are made up of their individual members.

The scale of the arrogance, the moral vanity and the technical stupidity of what is being suggested is truly staggering.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that the results could be worse from their own point of view.

The vested interests, like Exxon, government-funded climate boffins, and carbon futures speculators - these I can understand.

But the ones who really frighten me are those who are doing this not from some material interest, but the belief that by urging for the destruction of economic activity that is keeping millions of people alive, we would actually be making the world a better place. A fanatical deluded religion of state-worshipping human-haters.