Bombshell: The Science is Unsettling and the Debate is Heating Up.
A critically important debate is roiling the field of climate science and journalistic and political engagement of the issue. A group of distinguished climate scientists has published a study in the journal Nature Geoscience concluding the major models relied on for climate projections are flawed and the predictions have been wrong since at least 2000. Warming is slower than expected. Carbon’s effect on trapping heat is lower than assumed. Therefore, humanity has time to avoid a critical predicted 1.5 degree Celsius warming targeted in the Paris Accords, which and to stave off projected environmental disaster.
Responses and characterizations of the study have been all over the map. The Washington Post sounds a hopeful, noncommittal note: “New climate change calculations could buy the Earth some time — if they’re right.“
Climate writer James Delingpole gloats at Breightbart: “Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming‘”
Scientific American is notably declarative: “Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time,” with the cautionary subhead: “Slower warming than predicted gives the world time to develop better energy technologies.” The piece observes the new study provides a middle option between “really dangerous right now” and “it’s all a hoax.” It notes that slower than feared warning means temperatures do not become hazardous under the models for about a century, giving humanity several decades to improve energy technology and pursue better mitigation.
Popular Mechanics rains on the party and scolds: Sorry Skeptics: The Earth is Still Warming.
Under the satisfied heading: Global Warming: Who Are The Deniers Now? Investors Business Daily points out that if the models have been generally and consistently wrong, and warming has been flat, then how can researchers be so sure they are getting it right now? How much credibility was invested in, how many skeptics have been mocked, marginalized, and denied publication, tenure, or grants, merely for raising questions about predictions—and policy demands—that the climate catechism insists are settled and beyond discussion?
The New York Times inexcusably but unsurprisingly so far has found this story not among the news that is fit to print.
One difference I have with any skeptics who now feel triumphalist or in a position to gloat is that the Alarmist Army is not in the least throwing in the towel on the anti-carbon agenda. The study and discussion represent a retrenchment and recalibration. After so many years of crying wolf, warning of thresholds, tipping points, and points of no return, that just aren’t materializing, the alarmists know they are losing credibility and public attention. This seems a strategy to step back, reset the clock, and keep hammering.