Hi -- I agree with this skeptical assessment of certainty, especially with
regard to impacts on regional and subregional climates and biomes critical
to human life society, but as many on this list argue, the issue i
choosing between
a) BAU emissions with high confidence of major impacts 3-5C
Robert, I partly agree with you but totally disagree when you say, I quote
:
Clive naïvely asserts that we can't understand enough about how the Earth
system operates in order to take control of it. This is a religious
argument that ignores global realities. This statement is more religious
It seems to me what would hopefully be the case (well, I wish we’d do
better, but realistically) is that mitigation involving both is able to
limit CO2e to 550 ppm (so, say a 3 C warming)--this would require, if
emissions were kept constant at the present rate, having fossil fuel
emissions go to
I was pleased to read Clive Hamilton’s analysis of thepolitics of
geoengineering, since I am one of those right wing technologyadvocates he
usefully but wrongly describes. I would really welcome intensive Republican and
military and big oilinterest in carbon dioxide removal, as that is the only
