Whether or not we experiencing anthropogenic climate change is not the interesting or difficult issue; rather, what could or should be done to adapt to, or prevent global change - of all sorts, not just climate mediated change - is where we should have information, and debate.

But the consensus-mongers among us are trying to push the view that consensus on the former issue, is the same as consensus on the latter. Any why? Because they are the latest in the long, and never ending string of religous essentialists. You know their story: once upon a time there was a blissful state of man in harmony with nature - paradise, in fact - but then came the fall, and it is our fate to struggle endlessly with the consequences.

The earth - and life - have survived through many, many, many different states - climatic and otherwise - and will survive through many, many more. In fact, the only thing we know without a doubt is that the current state of the earth is transient, and has never before occurred, and will never again occur.

Yes, but the point is to not be irrationally stupid, and build lots of coal power plants (in the words of Arrhenius -- "evaporating our coal into our atmosphere"). With the result, or a significant chance of result, that we raise the average temperature of the planet by something like 10 degrees f, transforming it completely. The great mistake of environmentalism is to speak of nature as a static thing. Environmentalists can be fools and romantics. But that doesn't change the physics of atmosphere. An earth devoid of life would be just as natural as this one, a point which we agree on. But surely we like this one the way it is. Even a temperature rise of 4 or 5 degrees f would probably put an end to blog posting. Following Harvard economist Martin Weitzman's assessment of a 5% chance of total catastrophe, more economists are now engaging in the risk assessment debate, part of that discussion can be found here: <link>

But how de we know - a priori - that an earth 5 or 10 degrees F hotter would be worse than the current earth? It would be different, probably profoundly so, but we cannot say that it would be better or worse without injecting some kind of specious ethical judgement...and - another thing that is incontroverably true - Mother Nature ain't ethical.

I would gladly evaporate the last ounce of coal into the atmosphere in order to give a single human infant the chance of a full life, one that partakes of all of the fruits of our civilization. There is a heavy, heavy burden of persuasion on the shoulders of those who advocate otherwise.

We don't know that it would be worse, and we don't know that it would be better. Given that it represents a huge change, I think that the onus of proof lies on the shoulders of those who would allow it.

Your assertion that our choice lies between using coal and falling back into the dark ages is a false dichotomy of absurd proportions. It's not entirely clear that our enormous use of fossil fuels is benefiting the poor parts of humanity at the moment, given their stagnant situation, and the modelled perils to them of climate change. In the spirit of pointless dichotomy - are you honestly willing to flood Bangladesh to run your 6 cylinder car? Or to watch your 60 inch plasma screen TV?

For the record, I don't drive a six cylindar car, or own a plasma TV.....and, by-the-way, if I did own one, I would use it to watch endless replays of "An Inconvenient Truth"...;) !!All Hail Planet Gore!!

As we all well know, the problem with Bangladesh - climate change or no - is poor governance.....and, accept the challenge if you dare: how would Kyoto, or Bali change that?

As for Mr. Coal and his virtues, China is the proof: there we have had the greatest alleviation of human suffering in the history of mankind, and largely due to coal, and in only twenty-five years. Oh, I forgot, we are supposed to prefer the Tibetan feudal theocracy....my bad.

to respond to

"I would gladly evaporate the last ounce of coal into the atmosphere in order to give a single human infant the chance of a full life, one that partakes of all of the fruits of our civilization. There is a heavy, heavy burden of persuasion on the shoulders of those who advocate otherwise."

Find persuasion here, in a book that won the Royal Society's prize for science writing:

<link>

Lynas's book is methodical and straightforward; it's a compilation of peer-reviewed science about changes at each ascending temperature increment. The obvious point: not much civilization left, for the infant you speak of.

Hopefully China may be more interested in Denmark's approach to energy over the long term than the U.S. approach.

<link>

a brief explanation.

<link>


"By the time global temperatures reach four degrees, much of humanity will be short of water for drinking and irrigation: glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas, which feed river systems on which tens of millions depend, will have melted, and their rivers will be seasonally running dry. Whole weather systems like the Asian monsoon (which supports 2 billion people) may alter irrevocably. Deserts will have spread into Mediterranean Europe, across most of southern Africa and the western half of the United States. Higher northern latitudes will be plagued with regular flooding. Heatwaves of unimaginable ferocity will sear continental landscapes: the UK would face the kind of summer temperatures found in northern Morocco today. The planet would be in the throes of a mass extinction of natural life approaching in magnitude that at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65m years ago, when more than half of global biodiversity was wiped out.

Four degrees of warming would also cross many of the “tipping points” which so concern climate scientists: the Amazon rainforest would likely collapse and burn, as part of a massive further release of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems – the reverse of the current situation, where trees and soils absorb and store a good portion of our annual emissions. Most of the Arctic permafrost will lie in the melt zone, and will be steadily releasing methane, accelerating warming still further. The northern polar ice cap will be a distant memory, and Greenland will be melting so rapidly that sea level rise by the end of the century will be measured in metres rather than centimetres.

Hence the current effort – led by scientists, in the main – to drop the two degrees target and talk instead about getting carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere back down to less dangerous levels.."

Lightly adapted from the Book of Revelation.

This kind of millennial apocalyse porn has been around for a long, long time...and - damn it all anyways! - we're still here, living better than ever, and being joined in prosperity by more and more of humanity every day.

Isn't the UK - far from suffering "heatwaves of unimaginable ferocity" - heading for a deep freeze because the Gulf Stream is shutting down due to all the melting ice?

Love those "tipping points", read: discontinuities that can't be predicted. Hardly the stuff of science, but fodder for religion throughout the ages.

You seem to have a religious need to believe that climate science is religion. Discount it, and hope for the best. But to the majority of top scientists, and every reputable body of science in the world, including all the major U.S. universities, climate science is just science. Nothing so glamorous as religion.

It is just boring, ground-out science like that which drove the insights behind the internet we type on, or, for that matter, the invention of coal powered electrical plants. All part of the continuous fabric of science that we have used to change the world. And, grimly, as shown by the Royal Society, scientists concur with Lynas's book. Not that it is inevitable, but that we have to do something about it. Doctors knew about the link between tobacco and cigarettes for fifty years before much changed, let's hope things move faster.

It strikes me that the idea that now is better than ever is a pretty tough assertion to defend.

I think that the burden of proof on the relative quality of life now, as opposed to the quality of life at some time in the past rests on those arguing for the past. GDP per capita? Life expectancy? Infant mortality? Percent of world population that is free, or partly free? Literacy rates? Poverty rates? Access to knowledge? All of these are at unprecedented, and rising levels. Are there any other measures worth considering?

Until the environmental movement decisively purges from it ranks the humanity loathing anarchists who only want to see fewer humans, living meaner lives - and who would be more than happy to construct and get their hands on the power that would bring their nihilistic fantasies to fruition - the rest of us are more than justified in ignoring their nanny-shrill bleating. (They have such a massive contempt for their fellow man that the only tactic for persuasion that they can conceive of is crude scare mongering....just like every other psychically crippled priestly caste in the history of humanity).