Wikipedia’s climate doctor

I don't know about sober (there's quite a lot of emphasis used, underlines and italics that makes it seem a bit shouty), but it certainly lays out some kind of coherent argument.

On first reading though I'm struck by an extreme level of nit-picking that almost strikes me as anti-science, but accompanied by cheerful acceptance of any scientific theory that supports her position.

For example the self-limiting effects of CO2. Seems plausible enough to someone reading about it for the first time, but I'm guessing this is a theory produced by climate researchers. Why does this get a free pass when other theories get demolished for using computers, creating models, assumptions and other basic tools of science?

If you need that kind of certainty to believe anything then I'm guessing your looking for truthiness rather than the truth.

Also, out of the 4 basic points, point 3 (the earth hasn't warmed since 2001) seems incredibly weak even at first glance.

Depends on their location I would presume.

"1. No one denies that the climate changes.

2. Most people don't deny that the earth seems to be warming."

This article seems to do just that, by implication if not by outright statement. If they're saying that the Medieval Warm Period has to be treated as a global phenomenon rather than a localised effect, then they're basically insisting that no change has happened.

On your second point, I think some people would characterise the current situation as aggressive geo-engineering rather than doing nothing.

I don't think there's any such thing as "avoiding any action until we know what's going on".

What are these extreme actions though? Are you saying that it's a bad idea to do things like focus our attentions on more renewable forms of energy? Even if there is no Global Warming whatsoever the idea that 'Texas Tea' will gush forth from the Earth until the Sun engulfs the Earth is a bit 'out there' to say the least. I don't even care if you believe that 'peak oil' is still 200 years off. The idea that we should greedily waste as much oil as we can, procrastinating on looking for alternative energy sources is juvenile at best.

There is a big difference between attempting geoengineering and trying to reduce carbon emissions. Don't conflate the two.

I'm pretty suspicious of geoengineering with its promises of "we don't have to change our habits, we can just funnel a lot of money into government contractors to dump stuff into the atmosphere".

Now assuming climate change is indeed man-made:

The great thing about reducing our emissions is that we know we won't screw up the planet worse by doing so.

The problem with reducing or "greening" our economic activities is that there are people who stand to lose a great deal from it, even if the majority would profit. Geoengineering is being sold as an alternative that would mean more economic activity (and hence more profit).

As for our limited resources, we currently spend far more of them on cheap trinkets from China, bailouts, bonuses and pork than we do on anything like malaria.

I'm pretty suspicious of the sudden flare of "global warming is a lie / is not man-made" stuff that's come up conveniently at the same time as the Copenhagen conference. Lots of people with lots of money stand a lot to lose, and those kind of people tend to employ PR firms that aren't above a bit of astroturfing.

Even so, it is of course possible that climate change is misunderstood and that reducing carbon emissions won't help. But I don't think I want to do a wager on the whole planet.