Climatology is really simple yet almost impossibly complex.
Simple because the greenhouse effect is real, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we have increased CO2 levels by 41%, and when if we increase them by 100%, we sill shove global temperatures up by 1.2C.
So far so good. Everyone agrees that, except people who are properly in denial, who are to be filed alongside flat earthers and creationists.
There is a legitimate debate to be had over climate sensitivity - the magnitude of feed-backs.
Climatologists believe that the ultimate effect of doubling CO2 will result in an increase in global temperature of somewhere between 2C and 4.5C.
"Lukewarmer" sceptics, who follow "Lord" Matt Ridley of Northern Rock, George "all in it together - not" Osborne and Owen "environment what environment?" Paterson, believe that it lies between 1 and 2C.
Basically, the argument can rest there, because all parties are agreed that 2C is on the cards.
If we are getting this amount of weird weather at 0.8C increase over pre-industrial levels, can we really say (as the lukewarmers do) that there is no need to worry about 2C?
No we cannot.
Ridley, Osborne Paterson and all the other "Lukewarmer" Tories are making a huge misjudgment, on a par with Ridley's misjudgment about Northern Rock.
He was overly bullish about his Northern Rock strategy. Instead of being made to pay back at least some of the £100 billions that he cost the taxpayer, he wrote a book, the Rational Optimist, giving more bullish opinions about the future of mankind, has been given a peerage, and is influencing Government at the highest level with his bland assessments of the effects of a 2C rise in temperature.
This is very worrying indeed.