George Monbiot on climate change, denial and hysteria.
He proposes that instead of arguing for sacrifice, environmentalists should show where the rewards might lie: that understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is the smart thing to do, which will protect your interests more effectively than flinging abuse at scientists.
Quite. So we should look to what the scientists are indeed saying. Climate change is a chronic and long term problem, not a catastrophic and immediate one. We might look at what Drs. Nordhaus, Tol and Stern (who disagree in parts but all agree the basic point) say about Pigou taxation or cap and trade systems. Or at what such scientists say about the technological cycle: we want to influence the next generation of infrastructure installed rather than insist upon the scrapping of that which we already have.
We might also take note of what the IPCC itself says in its economic projections. That globalisation will lead to higher living standards and lower temperatures than not globalisation.
So, as it happens, I actually agree with Moonbat today. The only problem I can see is that Moonbat doesn\’t agree with me.
We might also take note of what the IPCC itself says in its economic projections. That globalisation will lead to higher living standards and lower temperatures than not globalisation.
No it doesn’t, as I have pointed out countless times.
Tim adds: As you have incorrectly pointed out endless times. Of the four economic stories, A1 through B2, The two “1”s involve more globalisation. The two “2”s regionalisation and fragmentation of the economy. The results in the “1”s are better than those in the twos.
I continually find it amusing that you seek to deny this simple fact.
If you read the article, which I wouldn’t recommend, you’ll see most of it is a rant against his own readers for daring to question the Climate Change orthodoxy. When you’re reduced to insulting your audience you know you’ve lost the argument.
Tim adds: As you have incorrectly pointed out endless times. Of the four economic stories, A1 through B2, The two “1″s involve more globalisation. The two “2″s regionalisation and fragmentation of the economy. The results in the “1″s are better than those in the twos.
I continually find it amusing that you seek to deny this simple fact.
No, I’m not going to rehash this yet again. The argument that you misrepresent here has been covered repeatedly to your detriment.