Home > Catastrophism, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Policy, Science, Skepticism > Climate: Adulthood (Urgently!) Required

Climate: Adulthood (Urgently!) Required

Whilst Phil Plait struggles with the first example of a non-cause causing a series of effects, and Andy Revkin finds himself for the n-th time marginalized by the rabid section of the Warmist Party, Rob Lyons manages to write a perfect synthesis of what would happen in a world where people were serious about the risk of climate change:

A new approach is required that takes a more grown-up approach to climate change, one that is based on dealing with a potential practical problem of rising temperatures rather than an existential crisis that demands the wholesale impoverishment of society in the name of ‘the planet’. Let’s keep working on the science, without any preconceptions of what the outcome will be. Let’s work on new energy technologies because we’ll need lots more power in the future. Let’s see what rising temperatures might mean and how we can best adapt to them, or even use them to our advantage. Let’s cut out the moralism and the name-calling.

How difficult a concept can that be? And yes, that’s exactly in tune with what I wrote in The Spectator:

This might be the most important lesson of the 1974 report on global cooling: that we need to grow up, separate climatology from fear, and recognise – much as it pains politicians and scientists – that our understanding of how climate changes remains in its infancy.

Advertisements
  1. Luke Warmer
    2010/07/06 at 10:54

    M – this post and subsequent discussion at the stoat is interesting:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/well_write_a_bloody_paper_abou.php

    and one of the commentators has given a link to a fascinating letter from 1970:

    http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/55.pdf

    in which the author -Hu(bert) Heffner – states:

    “One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise from CO2.”

  2. Alan McIntire
    2010/07/05 at 16:33

    A doubling of CO2 would theoretically increase surface flux by only 3.7 watts. That works out to only about a 0.7 C increase. Fighting THAT is not worth a large premium- in fact, our ancestors come from the plains of East Africa, and
    most of us would be much happier in a climate more closely approximating that of our ancestral home.

    • Jay Alt
      2010/07/06 at 03:33

      “Theoretically increase” Huh? What you describe is – A world without water or a water vapor feedback.

      Any takers out there?

  3. 2010/07/05 at 06:30

    Andy writes:

    “They agree that accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases probably pose a momentous environmental challenge,…”

    You are still using the words “heat-trapping” and apply it to CO2 and other feeble so called “greenhouse” gases.

    It will not build credibility when you keep doing that,since it is totally incorrect.

  4. 2010/07/04 at 18:27

    “A third stance is now emerging, espoused by many experts who challenge both poles of the debate.”

    IPCC, CRU, listen to the many experts. Seriously, half a gravy train is better than none.

  5. 2010/07/03 at 16:57

    I wonder if this quote is going to come into play in relation to the ‘climate’ debate: “The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”

    If this is the case, I am excited for the level of thinking with which we will soon be using! 🙂

    With Love and Gratitude,

    The Intentional Sage

  6. 2010/07/03 at 16:25

    Thank you Andy

    Finally some sense! And you may feel vindicated too, with the “not soon, not salient, not certain” quote of old…

    I just wonder if any of this will reach the IPCC before AR5 shows the first symptoms of Progeria…

  7. 2010/07/03 at 15:29

    As I was saying…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/science/01climate.html
    A third stance is now emerging, espoused by many experts who challenge both poles of the debate.

    They agree that accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases probably pose a momentous environmental challenge, but say the appropriate response is more akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old, irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to fighting a fire already raging.

    “Climate change presents a very real risk,” said Carl Wunsch, a climate and oceans expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It seems worth a very large premium to insure ourselves against the most catastrophic scenarios. Denying the risk seems utterly stupid. Claiming we can calculate the probabilities with any degree of skill seems equally stupid.”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: