Not surprisingly, WSJ published something arguing we don't need to do anything. Surprisingly, it agrees two main points are actually settled science:
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.I don't know how many WSJ readers are dealing with these two paragraphs. Basically, when people say "climate science is settled." they typically meant these two points. If this article can convince the readers that these two points are "settled", it is a good service. We can focus more on how to deal with the climate change, and stop pretending that it is only a hoax by a Kenya born socialist Muslim.
Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.
The article has generated a lot of debates, a simple google can get there. One more thing I happily observed is how people headline their essays. Is Dr. Koonin a former BP employee or a former Obama employee? The pick of which to emphasize in the headline (or firsPublish Postt paragraph) is the most clear sign of which side the essay is going to be on.