Evidence on the effect of recent warming on disasters is inconclusive. Pat Michaels book is very good at looking at the actual consequences of climate change, and he makes a compelling case that we shouldn’t be so worried.

the science is pretty clear to me.

Most scientists I’ve read are happy to admit that the earth is quite cool by dinosaur standards. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether or not the warming we potentially will see is going to result in catastrophic consequences/ costs.

Natural disasters cost a LOT of money. Global Warming has the potential to cause “natural” disasters such as the flooding of cities of low altitude and turbulent weather conditions (hurricanes, cyclones, etc). The cost of prevention (through reducing human input to temperatures) may well be cheaper than the cost of rebuilding/ relocating cities that could face these kind of consequences.

While the debate is framed around CO2 emissions, I bet that world governments would still want to act on Global Warming even if it was an entirely natural phenomena. In fact, if Global Warming was natural I bet the government would have an even stronger mandate to act and there wouldn’t be anywhere near the same level of debate.

Governments act to try to prevent or fight natural disasters all the time. Even most libertarians would agree that governments spending money on combating volcanic eruptions, rescuing people from floods, etc is worth it.

That said I’m not trying to make any kind of judgement call on the Climate Change debate. I’m still undecided on whether or not I think that government should act; I’m still somewhat sceptical on parts of the science. But I think it’s important to realise that despite the heavy politicisation, scientifically it is an issue that could have dramatic human cost- even if it is natural- even if we are still in a “cold” period.

That said we also need to be aware of the human cost that stifling industry may have. It’s fossil fuels that have allowed our life expectancies to increase from 50 to 80. And if Global Warming is a natural occurrence then we might be targeting it in altogether the wrong way.

And while it is true that temps have been higher in the past with lower levels of greenhouse gases, nobody has ever denied that, and it is perfectly consistent with the idea (accepted by all mainstream scientists) that there has previously been many natural climate changes.

JC — the point you raise is Fielding’s issue, so it doesn’t add to it. The answer, as outlined by McHugh, is that temperatures vary in response to many causes, including El Nino and the sun.

We are currently going through a period of low sun-spot activity, so that will naturally put a downward pressure on temperatures. Given that they are remaining constant (not decreasing) that seems to give support to the idea that we still have an upward trend.

I certainly hope that there is no more warming. But I think it is far too early to make such claims.

To add to Fielding’s question, Co2 levels have been going up by record levels and yet the temp has basically not moved.

Attributing this to just noise is hardly an answer we should expect from the science that says the debate is over.

Viewed over a significantly longer time period than since 1880, the current increase in global temperatures (assuming it is real, as McHugh claims) is not unusual. Temperatures have been much higher in the past when human produced greenhouse gases could not possibly have been the cause. They also fell all by themselves.

It’s good to be friendly and rational, but it does not improve accuracy.

But then, people have been dismissing skepticism for so long (which is why Fielding is at pains to pretend he isn’t one), that it’s possibly just force of habit… or maybe they don’t want to lend credibility to the skeptics amongst us after declaring the debate over for so long.

It really is a weird game they’re all playing, where nobody says what they’re really thinking.