There is nothing basic about climate science. You're talking about a massive, chaotic, nonlinear system. Case in point, from the article: >present thinking ho

There is nothing basic about climate science. You're talking about a massive, chaotic, nonlinear system. Case in point, from the article: >present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical Yet decades later that window continues to shift. This was an unverified theory in the 70s, and rightly so - we had spatially sparse measurements at the very tail end of a time series which naturally cycles on the order of hundreds to millions of years. For example a consensus has only recently formed that the oceans have been absorbing energy and delaying atmpspheric temperature rise. Finally, the sources for that Scientific American are InsideClimate and Greenpeace, which are at least as biased as any oil company, just in reverse. I know that oil companies are the Philip Morris du jure, but this article is just retroactive demonization.