Remarkable stuff from Michael Mann and Dana Nuccitelli: Hey, did we mention that natural variability is important, and maybe we didn't account correctly for volcanoes, and maybe the heat is hiding in the oceans, and maybe even small amounts of warming might be devastating to human civilization?

How The Economist got it wrong – Opinion

One likely culprit is that the role of natural climate variability, which is particularly important on timescales of a decade or less, was not properly accounted for in the analysis.
...
Yet another recent study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters has argued that previously unaccounted-for effects of low-level volcanic eruptions may have offset more of the warming than scientists realised over the past decade.

And still another study published recently in Geophysical Research Letters suggests that any slowing of surface warming during the past decade may have been associated with a recent accelerated penetration of heat into the deeper oceans.
...
The instrumental temperature record alone, it turns out, is an especially poor constraint on climate sensitivity because it is so short, and because there are multiple natural and human factors at work over the past century.
...
Given that it will take a significant effort to avoid doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from a policy perspective arguments about the precise climate sensitivity are somewhat irrelevant. Even at the lower end of the estimated sensitivity range, the projected impacts of climate change are likely to be devastating to human civilisation and our environment...