The latest Economist 8th – 14th March explains the many and varied attempts by climate scientists to “explain” the decade long slow down in global warming. The Economist is generally a climate change “enthusiast” so no “denier” slander here please.
Amongst the ironies uncovered is the explanation which rests on the fact that pollution (mother of all sins) comes in handy to deflect sunlight – so - a little more pollution this week please?
More seriously, the slow down – which is not in doubt – has occurred over a period during which carbon emissions have increased throwing further doubt on the link between the two. Showing reliable correlation between warming and carbon (issues around sequence and other inconsistencies) let alone causal links is challenge enough without this relationship emerging.
Something over two thirds of the climate change policy response has rested for its validity on reducing carbon emissions – an easy religion to sell but pointless if it doesn’t get you to heaven.
The most robust conclusion is that our understanding of climate change is up there with our knowledge of why the chicken crossed the road.