In “The Bourne Ultimatum” Scott Glenn plays the CIA Director, a corrupt but coldly practical man. Bad as he is, he makes one statement that is spot on for climate change scenarios:

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

If we don’t plan that way, hindsight from 50 years hence won’t provide us any comfort.

I have one question for you. If the scientists are underestimating Anthropogenic Global Warming, as you believe. What are you actually prepared to do about it?
It seems to me if we are facing the level of calamity that is being dicussed, the old CFL and Hybrid really are not going to cut it.
We need a complete shut down of all CO2 emissions by 2025 so we can start a cycle of reduction not sustainability, as CO2 has 200 year atmospheric lifespan, leaving the earth in an elevated temperature, such as the sustainable levels of 550ppm suggested by the IPCC, will cause all the same disasters just in the next generation (maybe this one).
Ice will not stop melting at the new temperature, storms will not subside, droughts will not disappear. So would you a writer and advocate of AGW put pen to paper in your Blog and advocate the complete elimination of CO2 emissions from all fossil fuels by 2025, with all the implications that will come with said stance? If not, then are you saying the effects of AGW do not warrant this action and it is not the single biggest threat to the planet we have ever faced.

One of the most thoroughly studied of these, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, was inititated by an unusually active period of volcanic activity. Using isotope analysis we can trace the amount of carbon introduced and its rate.

The PETM was catastrophic — sea level rise was more than 20 meters; extincition rates were off the charts. And yet we are introducing carbon into the atmosphere at more than 30 times the rate that volcanic activity did back then.

Hansen cites other examples of warming in the geologic record and notes the consequences of that warming was far worse than IPCC projections.

At some point when the experiment keeps yeilding the same results, isn’t it time to chuck the models and deal with reality? Or at least adjust them so they reflect reality?

And one last note: I can see some denyer pointing to these geologic incidents and saying, “See, it’s natural; it’s all happened before, so we don’t need to worry.”

Well, here’s the deal: the real question is what happens when human-induced warming ocurrs on top of one of these cycles? We don’t have the vocabularly to describe this — it’s a nightmare.

We are a long way from fully understanding how climate works. Real scientists will tell you the same thing. Even most of the devout AGW believers admit to a lot of uncertainty.

I’m not saying the failure of an arctic sea ice model or hurricane season model is proof that AGW is a farce. In fact, you can’t use an inaccurate model as proof of anything.

Come on, guys. Let’s do some scientific thinking here.

I wouldn’t bet my savings that the models have it right; but more importantly, I wouldn’t bet my savings that they’re wrong. But by refusing to take meaningful action, that’s exactly what we’re doing: betting the farm that the models are wrong - when there’s ample reason to believe they’re getting it essentially right. I hope they’re wrong (on the high side). But from a risk management perspective, I’m going to behave as though they’re right. And the beauty of it is, it’s a no-regret approach: we come out on the other end with cleaner, renewable energy. What’s the down side?

The Government can prohibit the opening of new power plants, or refineries, or steel mills, that’s something that can be done. As a consequence - people will suffer blackouts, and will install home generators, producing 3 times the CO2 saved. And will use Chinese steel… no carbon reduction here….

I know Joe has written a book on it. Writing books is the easy part.

Part I Part II Part III

or “First” and “Last” and “Next” and “Previous” or something — as links at top and bottom of the multiple page articles, to make it easy to get the whole article and read back and forth? Rereading helps comprehension.

With this one, the one link to “next” at the bottom of parts I and II is hard to find and only one-way navigation, unless I miss something. This would be a kindness for all multiple-page articles.