Last climate change post, I promise
Jan. 31st, 2010 04:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleAmidst the shitstorm over the IPCC report errors, I am pleased that at least one conservative commentator has seen fit to lay out what he does think is correct about climate change instead of merely throwing stones. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler explains why he believes that human activity is influencing the climate in significant ways. This in the context of a post that is mostly about slamming the IPCC. The guy is very well informed, and is firmly in the anti-alarmist camp, having written a book arguing against the Kyoto protocol, among other things.
His critique of the IPCC is relatively sober and honest, though I think he exaggerates the importance of the current scandal. This is in stark contrast to the wingnut strain of global-warming denialism, which refuses to acknowledge the aspects of climate research which are not at all politically driven and which rely on the most well established science - specifically, that given current trends, man-made CO2 will most likely raise temperatures by 3C by 2100. This is not a very spectacular claim, and of course, a lot can happen in the next 90 years which could render this projection wrong or irrelevant. But to deny its premises is either ignorant or dishonest.
He's harder on the IPCC report than I think is necessary - I am certainly disappointed by its flaws, but I think most of it is still on the mark. Is "95% right" good enough? I don't know. Nevertheless, he has done what few critics will do, which is to avoid paranoid, black-and-white, us-versus-them thinking, and establishes a middle ground on which, I hope, most reasonable people can agree.
His critique of the IPCC is relatively sober and honest, though I think he exaggerates the importance of the current scandal. This is in stark contrast to the wingnut strain of global-warming denialism, which refuses to acknowledge the aspects of climate research which are not at all politically driven and which rely on the most well established science - specifically, that given current trends, man-made CO2 will most likely raise temperatures by 3C by 2100. This is not a very spectacular claim, and of course, a lot can happen in the next 90 years which could render this projection wrong or irrelevant. But to deny its premises is either ignorant or dishonest.
He's harder on the IPCC report than I think is necessary - I am certainly disappointed by its flaws, but I think most of it is still on the mark. Is "95% right" good enough? I don't know. Nevertheless, he has done what few critics will do, which is to avoid paranoid, black-and-white, us-versus-them thinking, and establishes a middle ground on which, I hope, most reasonable people can agree.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-01 03:46 am (UTC)Despite all this noise I don't actually support emissions controls all that much. As the author suggests, a steep carbon tax is not all that bad and would extend the availability of fossil fuels without undue pain. I would suggest, instead of an additional tax, use it to replace a portion of existing taxes in a revenue-neutral way. Because a dollar of tax on carbon is probably more efficient than a dollar of tax on income.
But as far as climate change is concerned it's rather too late to be doing much about total CO2 emissions. Even granting that it's technologically possible, it is still politically doomed. I think Western civilization could run on about 50% of current fossil fuel use without much effort if the motivation was there. Unfortunately, it's not.