Climate Change: A Status Report

Regular COTTonLINE readers know we take the view that climates change without human intervention, have done so in the past and will do so in the future. That much truly is settled science. Writing at The Federalist, Robert Tracinski raises the following key question:

What It Would Take to Prove Global Warming

By which he means the issue that concerns climate alarmists, namely:

“Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”: i.e., global temperatures are rising, it’s our fault, and we’re all gonna die.

Tracinski concludes proof would require three things:

1. A clear understanding of the temperature record. 
2. A full understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms. 
3. The ability to make forecasting models with a track record of accurate predictions over the very long term.

None of those is completely available today. If you have questions about the magnitude and causes of climate change, this article provides a very unhysterical, cold-eyed look at what would constitute proof upon which all reasonable, intelligent persons could agree.

We cannot get good answers in the short run, as demanded by alarmists. If the research isn't underway now, it certainly should be.