I’ve been a “climate denier” (even though I’ve never denied that we have climate) for a long time because I doubted that we know enough to show that global warming is (a) substantially man-made, (b) reversible, and (c) catastrophic. (It has to be all three for us to make significant policy changes to try to head it off.)
At this point, I feel pretty well-vindicated for my skepticism. From the Wall Street Journal editorial by Matt Ridley:
First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.
Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.
Pretty much. And if that’s the case, wouldn’t it be the scientific thing to reevaluate our positions in the face of the failure of our models?