ping
Thanks for the "ping".
From the article, I gather that "The Economist" needs a new "science editor".
The following excerpts are especially goofy:
"...Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to [a] balmy, stable state..."
[Tell that to the Greenland's Viking settlers!]
"...Climate change is complicated and uncertain...climate is a system of almost infinite complexity. Predicting how much hotter a particular level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible....the precise effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear...The system could right itself or spin out of human control [HUMAN control? LOL!!]...This uncertainty is central to the difficulty of tackling the problem. Since the costs of climate change are unknown, the benefits of trying to do anything to prevent it are, by definition, unclear..."
NEVERTHELESS:
"The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction."
[Yes, indeedy, let's do SOMETHING so we can all "feel" self-righteous!]
"...The Kyoto protocol...was not a complete failure...[because]...Kyoto... created a...market in carbon...which allows emissions to be cut...But it will not have much impact on emissions, and therefore on the speed of climate change..." [ and the difference between "not much impact" and "failure" is?? LOL!]
"Carbon sequestration, which offers the possibility of capturing carbon produced by dirty power stations and storing it underground [but NOT in the continuing low-cost re-forestation of places like Vermont], is a prime candidate."
IMHO, if there were more "truth" to the global warming story, there would be no need for such breathless "hyping" of the issue by profit-seeking entities like "The Economist".