Note that this was published in the Economist, which has a reputation for overusing puns. This edition also has articles titled "T Time" and [amyloid] "Beta testing" .
vannevar, could you take a moment to explain why you are so intent on understanding this article as an attack on science instead of what it really is (namely, an attack on politics)?
Because the article's premise is based on the author's skewed interpretation of the science. Ironically, if you look at the article they site for the claim that warming has slowed[1], you'll see that the rate of warming is still within the margin of error for the estimates. If anything, it should reinforce our confidence in the models that the actual curve matches so well with the prediction. And that's just surface temperature, ignoring ocean temperature and the simple fact that during this supposed 'hiatus' there has been a massive net ice melt[2].
As much as there ever was, yes. Look at the range of estimates in the chart your article cites. There's never been a consensus on the actual number, only that it's going to be significant. And so far, that consensus has been correct, as the chart shows.
No, it's not wrong. You are reading it at its simplest level. Further, you have 3 replies saying the exact same thing. The quantity of saying something by the same person does not increase its quality.
As of right now, you have 30% of the comments in this submission. It really seems like you have a strange bias here to argue over something so trivial.