http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/87/8751cover.html, cover story from Chemical & Engineering News which is a weekly magazine published by the American Chemical Society. It tries to deal with the science (and related evidence) rather than just relying on the usual authority arguments (there is a scientific "consensus").
I find, after reading this 17 page paper, that:
- Global warming is really complicated and even in 17 pages the evidence can't stand on its own. The article has way to much he says, she says and not enough look at this graph, look at that graph.
- My main take away is that CO2 concentration is definitely rising significantly (see graph below). This is the best hard evidence I've seen for man-made global warming.
- The impact of this CO2 increase remains not well understood. Estimates for the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling in CO2 vary from .6%C (for the warming skeptics) to 2.0%C to 4.5%C for the global warming adherents. This value seems to be the key value in the climate models (and the estimates for the impact of continued CO2 increase).
- As far being "On-Topic", that is, how does this affect investing, I conclude that there seems to be enough real science behind global warming that I don't expect global warming skeptics to make any significant progress against the entrenched "CO2 is pollution" establishment and investments in CO2 producers (e.g. Canadian Oil Sands, Coal Miners) have significant political risk. Should be somewhat bullish for nuclear power (Uranium miners).
P.S., The case for Peak Oil is much, much, much clearer than for Man-Made Global Warming. Seems like a definitely tradable situation. Just wish I had gotten back in with oil in the 60$ last month.