| > One of the problems cited: the temperature/CO2 graph probably came from an antarctic ice core sample ... and temperature leading/lagging there is different than in non-polar locations. Specifically, he points out that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years in the southern hemisphere, but that temperature lags CO2 by again hundreds of years in the northern hemisphere. CO2 is claimed to have accelerated natural warming through a feedback loop - until it didn't, and temperatures began drifting down again. That's fair enough. That's reasonably nuanced. I'm missing the extent to which this feedback loop actually made an impact though, because clearly it can't be the dominant driver or ultimate control lever. Otherwise, we'd have had a runaway greenhouse already. > Nobody is saying AGW is going to kill off all life. One might get that impression from the media narrative though. > But in the short term we humans are going to have to deal with the consequences: displacement of millions of people through crop failures and loss of coast, disruption of economic systems, and more civil unrest. I don't think that's such a big deal, all things concerned. Sometimes, people have to move. Sometimes, crops fail. Sometimes, coasts move. Sometimes, there's civil unrest. Telling people in China or Brazil that they'll have to cut down on their emissions is going to cause civil unrest. "Vote for me, I'll make you poorer" is not a winning political provision. > The US military is gaming out these scenarios because they believe the science, not because they are pinko tree huggers who hate freedom. They're also gaming out scenarios of mass epidemics, or political secession. What do you expect them to do? |
If the ebola infections started appearing in all the major cities with airports and seaports, would you want the experts to try their best to stop it, or would you shrug and say, eh, sometimes people live and sometimes they die,
> One might get that impression from the media narrative though. (that AGW is going to kill all life)
I have two responses: one, as potholer likes to point out, we all know that press headlines are sensational. Don't deny the science because you don't like the way the press reports it. Second, I don't personally get the impression that even the press claims AGW will sterilize the planet. It sounds like a strawman to me.