An excellent article. Well worth the read and worth passing to any “warmists” you may know.
The truth is probably between the more extreme positions on either side. There is a slight human effect on climate. It is not as great as claimed by some, but more importantly, the rate of change in the future will be far more conservative. The atmosphere has ways of feeding back against attempts to warm from below.
Nor is there much real evidence for increasing frequency of severe weather events. The truth is probably steady state or maybe even a slight reduction over historical levels.
On the other side of the coin, there is no natural trend towards an impending ice age just because of a few winters with unusually cold temperatures recently in a few places. While that counter-attack is understandable from a political point of view, it is no more scientific than the IPCC hysteria.
The best guess is probably that temperature trends will be very slowly upward against chosen 30-year normal periods in the past, 1951-80 is what the science is using as their comparison on the assumption that greenhouse gas levels in that era were not very much increased over previous decades.
That is the period against which you hear all claims made about this or that year being 0.8 degrees warmer than average globally. And I think this is probably not being manipulated, the whole debate in this complex field is about future trends anyway, not so much about present indications. If we stayed close to the current modest increases for 20-40 more years and phased out of fossil fuel use, there would be no huge impact on polar ice and therefore only marginal sea level rises.
This is what I expect to happen and I believe that dislocating the economy to guard against fictional alternative outcomes is dangerous and pointless.