Frankly, at this point that kind of Rovian garbage is all they have left. They’ve reached the point in the cowboy movie where one guy runs out of bullets in a shootout and throws his empty gun. The problem is, even that desperate action will cause further delay, which they see as a win. They prefer money and empty ideology over science and preventing a catastrophe every time.

If anything, I think Joe is insufficiently alarmist. I doubt we have another couple of decades to twiddle our thumbs, given how much quicker the climate is actually changing than we thought. We simply don’t know for sure where the tipping points are or how close we are to them, but the more evidence we gather, the more we have to keep moving the goalposts as we discover that we’re even closer to a runaway state than we thought.

Realistically we are not going to get below 500 ppm - the technical feasibility isn’t there for the wedges described, politically we are way off the mark, socially we have a couple years to go. The thing is with the economic down turn (collapse) waiting in the wings all three areas are going to find it harder (impossible) to meet the mark.

There is only one path forward though and that is to strive for a sustainable society/world, anything else is self destructive and primitive.

Yet all we did was deny, delay and dither. And announce vague plans for future years while doing nothing concrete in present years.

If we actually do things in 2008 to 2018 - instead of just talk and set up planning committees - then I’m reasonably optimistic.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/ openhouse/ 2008/ 06/ have-your-say-9.html?cid=120641500#comment-120641500

The positive side is at least its generating the reaction. A couple of years ago it wouldn’t have been noticed. I guess the general public need some time to absorb the science and how bad it really going to get.

As you say, there seems to be more reation, but I see no increase in the favourable/unfavourable ratio from 5 years ago.

If anything, the louder the pro’s scream, the more the anti’s dig in their heels, citing more and more half baked studies and op-eds, and still recycling stuff that was debunked even before I got interested in the early 2000’s.

I would hope that any enlightened capitalist would welcome government actions that are derived from both science and smart public policy. For a stable world is the best market for any capitalist.

Smart government intervention in global warming protection helps avoid the breakdown of the state into lawless chaos; something any state deserves if it fails to protect its citizens. All the more so for citizens of the planet.

Protestations otherwise seem shrill and dangerous.

There’s often an assumption that worsening extreme weather in the coming years will be a “wake up”. My concern is that the response to a future extreme year will just be another replay of 1998 - i.e. BAU economics and energy policies continue without a hitch.

Why should extreme weather events finally change policy, when they didn’t in 1998?

And meanwhile the earth cools………lol.

This is the best they can do, folks: string together long-ago refuted talking points and strawmen. They have nothing else.

Best,

D

1. Even the professional anti-AGW bloggers acknowledge that climate change is occuring. Your assertion that the “earth cools” is patently absurd.

2. There is no Planet B for the human race.

Have a great day!