A decade later. I think it’s past time to look at what was said here and elsewhere a decade ago, to see how well we all held up.
My thesis will be that we Lukewarmers decisively won the debate about most elements of the climate conversation–that our acceptance of the basic physics explaining anthropogenic contributions to climate change was appropriate. That our identifying a number of actors that were over-hyping the climate ‘threat’ as existential and demanding of our utmost efforts was useful and that our criticism of these actors was proper–indeed, necessary.
But most of all the Lukewarmers’ win needs to look hard at atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2. After all, this was Steve Mosher’s stake in the ground–that given an over/under bet on sensitivity of 3C, he would take the under. That’s really all it takes to be a Lukewarmer, but it’s kind of a big thing.
Our next post will look at the estimates of sensitivity generated by CMIP6 models and the criticism those models have received.
Ooh, it’s nice to be back!
