Some facts the author glosses over, which may not be scientifically dispositive, but which I find persuasive.
As Nova writes (but doesn’t acknowledge in precisely this way), a great deal of the apparent “global” warming looks to be evidence of an observation bias. The placement and protocols of the observatories relied on to show evidence of global warming are mostly sited in the United States. Approximately 40% of the fraction thus far assessed by the Surface Stations initiative have been shown to exaggerate the extent of warming — mostly due to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
Also somewhat glossed over in Nova’s text are the timeline facts of the AGW hysteria.
From 1750 to sometime late in the 1930s, there was some warming. In fact, the warmest temperatures in the 20th Century were observed in the 1930s — long before the AGW hysteria was drummed up.
Then, from around 1940 to 1979, temperatures actually fell. At the time that James Hansen made his apocalyptic predictions of catastrophic warming to the Congress in the 1980’s, actual observed warming trends (uncorrected for the above-noted biases) were a mere blip on the historical record.
Since sometime around the turn of the 21st Century — different reporters choose different start-and-end points — global temperatures have actually fallen. Say, over eight years.
Now, the warmistas will try to tell you that a mere eight years does not a trend make, but the whole AGW hysteria was ginned up on the basis of a trend of about half that. After forty years of cooling, on the basis of a three- or four-year warming trend (and remember: it is suspect that the trend actually existed), we were to believe that massive public policy action was to be required in an effort to avert a potential catastrophe. But now, after a mere twenty-plus years of a dubitable warming trend, an eight-year reversal which negates the entire warming of the prior century, is a mere blip and does not a trend make.
Somebody bullshitting you, here.