Reason magazine has been among the mild climate skeptics for decades, but Ron Bailey is now more convinced there could be a serious problem. He has been trending that way for a while. Jonathan Adler's article sounds even more dire, but his tone in the headline and at the beginning is a bit of an oversell. Adler's conclusion is more measured than that. My own position has long been that I am convinced there has been slight warming, and I think the scientific consensus for that opinion is considerable. Serious researchers, though they are generally more concerned than I am, are less willing to commit to statements that human-created changes are most of or even a large part of the problem. They are even less willing to commit to the idea of imminent catastrophe.
I am not any kind of expert, and in such matters rely on something I am more skilled at: who is fighting fair, who is overselling what their own data says, who is acknowledging appropriate doubt and caution. I don't listen to people who reflexively say it's all a scam, and I don't listen to people who insist that imminent catastrophe is beyond question. In the current milieu, anyone who isn't disavowing Greta Thunberg loses credibility points with me quickly. We all like to have everyone we can on our side and don't like to kick even allies, but some things are beyond the pale. She is a frightened, sick girl who does not understand that her feelings of dread are not evidence of anything but her own state of mind - and perhaps the state of mind of those around her.
Adler doesn't come near that. He spends a lot of time explaining the controversies among the researchers and why some are more concerned than others. A major problem in the past is that the models predicting catastrophic change in the past have not had a good record when they fed the data from 1990 or 2000 into their models and compared it to what actually did happen later. Those hindsight models are slowly getting better. A few of the researchers leak out a WE HAVE TO ACT NOW AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT YOU FOOL panic in spite of themselves, but there is very little of that in a longish article. Nothing like we see in the corporate press. I don't know if it is actually a fair summary, as it's not my field, but it looks like what a reasonable argument should look like. No name calling or secret sneers, respectful language for all sides.
He now believes there is a small but greater chance of catastrophe than he did before, catastrophe being defined as longer droughts, more hurricanes, more extreme weather in general.
It moved the dial for me slightly.