The models and loud voices on the 'hot side 'say what? The loud voices (unencumbered by models) on the other side say what? Probably you have all had a taste of this controversy. A new paper in 'Global Environmental Change' http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008 May calm the waters. Or not. Looking for your opinions.
I seriously doubt that will calm any waters from the abstract. I was not willing to pay for the paper. Certainly in each IPCC are papers that are not alamist. The accusation of alarmism doesn't come from the peer reviewed science, but from the summary for policy makers that often misrepresents the research, and from non-peer reviewed gray lituratures included in the reports. We simply have to look to the quick melting of all the ice in the Himalayas to see the prime example of this alarmist dribble entering into the IPCC through gray literature. Many of the problems were addressed in the review of the IPCC and its methods, but we have to wait and see if any corrective action has actually taken place from what comes out of the next report. If it again claims ghg are causing increases in huricanes because some gray insurance claim data was used, then it will have again failed. If the author includes the current peer reviewed liturature, that is far from the dire predictions of the summary for policy makers then it will regain some credibility.
if everybody agreed on climate change, would anything be different? there are a multitude of bad reasons not to attempt reversal.
