Reuters analyst: ‘Study opens new cracks in scientific front on climate change’

Reuters analyst Gerard Wynn writes:

A major recent study has put the cat among the pigeons on climate change, challenging the size of the problem in the near-term and the role of a recent slowdown in warming.

The paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience in May, involved scientists from 14 institutions and calculated that more extreme climate change was now less likely, after taking into account slower warming in the past decade…

But the science shows a complicated problem which is hard to pin down, and is therefore struggling to engage voters. And the more cracks appear in the consensus that climate change demands urgent action, the less political will there will be to do more.

Read more…

10 thoughts on “Reuters analyst: ‘Study opens new cracks in scientific front on climate change’”

  1. thanks Dave, I’ve lately been looking for that to respond to the usual low info posters on various blogs. I’d see it some time ago but couldn’t dig it up again.

  2. A recent article in Deep-Sea Research II (2013) shows that most of the carbon dioxide increase is due to the warming of the oceans. The oceans are loaded with carbon dioxide, which is far more soluble than the other major gasses. It is the warming due to solar cycles that has caused the increase in carbon dioxide, not the carbon dioxide causing the warming.

  3. Interesting article, you guys should try to read it some time.

    Of course, the actual conclusions of the actual article are the precise contrary of the insinuations made by the business analyst quoted above:

    “Recent observations suggest the expected rate of warming in response to rising greenhouse gas levels … is likely to lie within the range of current climate models, but not at the high end of this range,” said lead author Alexander Otto.

    Model confirmed, for those of you with limited reading comprehension, rather than your beloved model denied. You really ought to quit grasping at straws.

  4. The basis for the consensus claim is this: In a landmark survey of 10,257 Earth Scientists, 96.2% (76 scientists), out of 2.5% (79 scientists) selected from the 30.7% (3146 scientists) who responded, agreed that it’s “generally” warmer now than it was in the 1700s at the depths of the Little Ice Age:

  5. “And the more cracks appear in the consensus that climate change demands urgent action, …” What consensus? It was reported but it has never existed. Not among scientists, not among politicians, and not among the public.

  6. I take great pleasure in how much agony Wynn and his ilk are feeling as they slowly awaken to the fact that genuine science is showing the warts on AGW theory. This one is but a taste of the warmists’ disaster a comin….

  7. Less global warming than hyped is a problem because? Well, then we might not do as much, and that would be … ummm … catastrophic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.