Bravo Don, bravo

So, assume that climate change is real, that it\’s all the industrial revolution which is causing it.

Being no physical scientist myself, I accept Mr. Muller’s claim. But contrary to most people’s reaction to this news, my reaction is “What a deal!”

Quite.

10 thoughts on “Bravo Don, bravo”

  1. And all that extra CO2 in the air is good for agriculture too! What’s not to like about global warming?

  2. “assume that climate change is real”: but almost every sceptic assumes it’s real (though some express derision at the warmmongers ‘inability to report competent and honest measures of global mean temperatures).

    “that it’s all the industrial revolution which is causing it”: which is where the sceptics differ from the warmmongers, since sceptics ask to see competent, honest evidence for this claim. So far they ask in vain.

  3. @ dearieme
    Quite
    Actually this sceptic is more nitty-gritty: I argue that the umpteen billions of tons of coal burned in the last 40 years *must** have increased the global temperature. So the industrial revolution has contributed something to global warming – where is the evidence that “greenhouse gas” has produced the rest (or anything).
    *Laws of thermodynamics, anyone?

  4. I’m not sure what argument is being made here. Sure, industrialisation has created a lot of benefits, but that doesn’t mean that global warming is also a benefit. It’s an unexpected side-effect.

    A warming rate of just 0.2 degrees C per decade (the smallest figure the scientists are prepared to run with) might sound like a small rise in temperature, but ten years is also a short time. 4 degrees in 200 years will have a big impact on the Earth’s climate and on the human population.

    This doesn’t mean that industrialisation is bad, but it does mean we need to deal with the unexpected consequences.

  5. “Where is the strawman?”

    I think William probably objects to the argument that we’ve already paid the climate-debt of our past growth. I.E., Temperatures will continue rising for years even if we were to stop further development at this point.

    I think it’s a legitimate complaint, but I also agree with Don on a large basis: I’d be willing to pay much more in terms of temperature rise for the same development we’ve seen.

    The conversation we need to be having is whether the future catastrophes are worth the future economic growth we will see from crude carbon-based growth. I’m on the fence on that one, living in China, but would support further restrictions for developed nations. But that already classifies me as a skeptic, technically.

    I’m actually truly astonished that William would point to the current drought as evidence for climate change. He always struck me as one of the more rigourous advocates for warnings of catastrophic climate change. Which makes pointing to current weather effects, which on average are benefiting agriculture for the next couple decades, very surprising to me. William: Are you seriously pointing to current effects that have been seen historically as evidence? Isn’t the fundamental argument that the rare negative effects we see from weather today will become much more common in the coming decades?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *