"Poor Tom's a-cold!"
"In any case, Lawson's claim of gradual change is simply an artifact of the model he has chosen to use."
The model I prefer is the observed record. And, for that matter, those observations appear to have been exaggerated by surface station site violations by, perhaps, a factor of two.
"It's unlikely to be the case "in reality"."
Why is it any more unlikely than not?
"I would have expected the author of the article, as a critic of the IPCC, to have understood the actual weaknesses of the IPCC model more clearly."
I do not address the IPCC model in the article except to stipulate that it is accurate and point out that it is more conservative than the Stern Review.
"Since he evidently doesn't,"
Oh, I do, I do. But not the way you think I should. It has a number of glaring weaknesses, now that you mention it.
First, they grossly overestimated sea level rise (both ice melt and thermal expansion). Not because of their model or their input, but because they had done their sums wrong. This was pointed out, and they made the correction via supplement, but it's still in the AR4 body that makes all the rounds.
Second, they still cling to the hockey stick, in spite of all statistical problems and contrary historical record. The neo-version is now under discussion, but it appears to be making the same basic errors as the last one did. (The polite term is "data filtering". There are less polite terms. Not to mention the ubiquitous PCA issues.)
Third, the Aqua Satellite indicates (so far) that they are grossly overestimating the positive feedback number, and in fact the feedbacks are negative. That would help explain the slight decline in world temperatures since 2001. The entire AGW theory rests on that positive feedback number. Without it, forcing would be hugely reduced.
Fourth, they do not properly account for the "big six" multidecadal oscillations (PDO, IPO, AMO, NAO, AO, AAO). All six flipped from cool phase to warm (on schedule) from 1976 to 2001. A half a degree rise in surface temperatures would be not only normal, but entirely expected. And at the end of last year the PDO went cold, with the NAO and the AO wavering, and, yes, global temperatures have dropped sharply. These cycles were not even discovered by science until 1998, or over ten years after the genesis of modern AGW theory.
Fifth, they refuse to archive and make available their data and methods for independent review. (Peer review does NOT cut it.) That calls their conclusions into--very--serious question. In fact, it puts them quite out of court.
Not to mention the structural problems regarding data vs. conclusions or the review issues (read "scandals").
"I'm pretty much dismissing this article as yet another rich person in a prolifigate nation trying to wriggle out of their responsibility to live more humbly."
Well, your prejudices would be misplaced. I am desperately poor. I actually earned less than the personal exemption rate last year. I live in a slum built a hundred and twenty years ago, one of the poorest buildings in the city. I drive no car; I have no license. I use mass transit exclusively. I eat little meat (I like it, but I can't afford it) and actually miss meals for lack of funds. I recycle. I do not use much power.
In fact, according to that scandalous Australian "carbon pig" meter, I "deserve" to live to a ripe old age.
Unless I am much mistaken, I can out-humble your lifestyle five to one.
However, I have every hope that things will improve and I will be able join the less humble ranks of those whom you apparently despise. Wish me luck! #B^1