Bishop Hill The Economist goes all lukewarm and pragmatic
Apr 3, 2014 Climate: WG2 In a must-read article, the Economist has decided that climate is no longer the only problem in the world and that decarbonising the economy in a futile attempt to stop climate change is a fool's errand.
Until now, many of them have thought of the climate as a problem like no other: its severity determined by meteorological factors, such as the interaction between clouds, winds and oceans; not much influenced by “lesser” problems, like rural development; and best dealt with by trying to stop it (by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions). The new report breaks with this approach. It sees the climate as one problem among many, the severity of which is often determined by its interaction with those other problems. And the right policies frequently try to lessen the burden—to adapt to change, rather than attempting to stop it. In that respect, then, this report marks the end of climate exceptionalism and the beginning of realism.
On the policy front at least, we seem to be getting somewhere.
Reader Comments (61)
he's messed up UNTHREADED aswell
The Economist blows both hot and lukewarm. Last month, in an article titled "Inescapable truths" they made their position quite clear - "So those who favour significant action on climate change (as The Economist does)"
The article went on to cite the notorious William Connelly on the subject of climate skeptics, which would be no less inflammatory than citing Michael Moore in an article about capitalism.
Meanwhile over at New Scientist, Bob Ward is busy again:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25353-muddled-impartiality-is-still-harming-climate-coverage.html#.Uz7d9VczLZk
"Why is feeding your egos (by engaging with a known offender) more important than keeping the discussion on track?"
Because it can be equally entertaining.
Why is keeping the discussion on track important? If the ongoing discussion is more interesting, then having it derailed is annoying. Getting derailed down the same well-worn tracks time and time again on every single thread is annoying. But the occasional brief digression for a game of whack-a-troll can relieve the tedium when things are otherwise quiet - and it'll all get deleted later anyway. Like many things, everything is good in moderation.
Apr 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterNullius in Verba
--------------------------------------------------------
"Like many things, everything is good in moderation"?
Well, thanks for sharing your logical skills with us.
There are numerous sites where playing "whack-a-mole" with opponents is the principal entertainment. This, thankfully, is not one of them.
And a YouGov survey, for what it's worth:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/04/trust-climate-scientists-recovered/
(Full results linked from article)
Rhoda
"1.2°C? Equivalent to a hundred and twenty nautical miles nearer the equator for most of the inhabited world. What's not to like? Is it really such a nightmare in Bordeaux?"
I can achieve that temperature change simply by driving 35Kms. from my house in the country to the city center, Calgary Alberta. The temperature at my house location is consistently 1-3 degrees cooler than the city center, elevation difference is about 300 feet. I can also experience a 65-70 degree temperature change between a summer high and a winter low without any records being broken. The wildlife around here seems to do just fine, especially the squirrel I'm watching right now and the skunk that ran past the house this morning.
Envy your wildlife. Just one day, and you get to see the squirrel (Paul Johnson) and then the skunk (Lewandowsky).
How long before the MSM labels sceptics as 'denying' the same pragmatic policies the sceptics wanted openly and honestly evaluated, with the MSM-supprted Warmists suddenly labelling as their own?
The very recent Newsnight with Paxman interviewing James Lovelock may be one of the BBCs first moves in that direction.
Comments on this article at the Economist site are now closed (over 500, within two days of publication). You won't have time or inclination to read them all, but if you arrange them in order of 'most recommended' the first few are worth a glance. None of these are pro-panic.
Something like this is already happening on social media. One thing I noticed in the last few months was a swarm of posts comparing anti-vaccine activists with climate change deniers. Yet I distinctly remember that it was the rabid Greenies who participated most in the MMR vaccine scare. Shamelessness and short memories are all that is required.
The question is will the media pick them up on it?
Kelly,
No.
A