I’m sorry, I’m not supposed to say that. All news on the climate is a bad.
I might get accused of being a Denier. You know, like the Holocaust deniers. Same thing. As a Jew, particularly, I don’t want to be any kind of Denier. I accept what I’m told to by the Left and will watch my language. I deny that I’m a Denier.
Oh shit, that makes me a Denier. This is confusing.
Maybe we should be able to have a rational debate about this. Things are too heated. We need to change to climate a bit. I mean, wait, that’s not what I meant. I’d better stop.
Anyway, from Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal:
We’ll quote a passage in an exemplary French report that begins, “But uncertainty about how hot things will get also stems from the inability of scientists to nail down a very simple question: By how much will Earth’s average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?”
“That ‘known unknown’ is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and for the last 25 years the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the ultimate authority on climate science—has settled on a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C.”
The French report describes a new study by climate physicists Peter Cox and Mark Williamson of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the U.K.’s Center for Ecology and Hydrology. Not only does it narrow the range of expected warming to between 2.2 and 3.4 degrees Celsius, but it rules out the possibility of worrying outcomes higher than 4 degrees . . .
This question of climate sensitivity goes not just to how much warming we can expect. It goes to the (almost verboten) question of whether the expected warming will be a net plus or net minus for humanity. And whether the benefit of curbing fossil fuels would be worth the cost.
Jenkins sounds like he might be a Denier, so this is the last time I’ll run his stuff in my publication. I promise. I heard he even questions whether meteorologists can predict tomorrow’s weather, let alone the weather 50 years from now.