The good Bishop had it up first, but here’s the link to an essay by Matt Ridley on global warming and what it would take to motivate him to accept the global consensus.
It’s good and I’ll talk more about his various points later, but I thought I’d put this up to start the ball rolling.
“…the temperature trend remains modest: not much more than 0.1 C per decade since 1979. So I would need persuading that water vapour will amplify CO2’s effect threefold in the future but has not done so yet. ”
“The one trend that has been worse than expected – Arctic sea ice – is plausibly explained by black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide.”
“Nor is it clear that ecosystems and people will fail to adapt, for there is clear evidence that adaptation has already vastly reduced damage from the existing climate – there has been a 98% reduction in the probability of death from drought, flood or storm since the 1920s, for example, and malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.”
If I have time I’ll break each of his ten tests into separate posts for more discussion. I agree with about seven or eight of his points and would quibble on the others.