From Jeff Jacoby:
4. You argued that “a massive campaign must be launched . . . to de-develop the United States” in order to conserve energy; you also recommended the “de-development” of modern industrialized nations in order to facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. Yet elsewhere you observed: “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” Which is it?
5. In Scientific American, you recently wrote: “The ongoing disruption of the Earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable.” Given your record with forecasting calamity, shouldn’t policymakers view your alarm with a degree of skepticism?
6. In 2006, according to the London Times, you suggested that global sea levels could rise 13 feet by the end of this century. But the latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea levels are likely to have risen only 13 inches by 2100. Can you explain the discrepancy?
This seems like a terrible pick to me, and now we’re going to see a “war on science” from the Democrats.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s one more, suggested in comments: Have you read Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto? If so, with which parts did you agree, and with which did you disagree? (A lot of people had fun after its publication, putting parts of it up alongside excerpts of Al Gore’s book, and defying people to guess which were which.)
I can’t abide anyone who thinks ANYONE should be sympathetic to DE-DEVELOPING this country. Luddite.
Want to wear a hairshirt, and read papyrus by candlelight? Be my guest. Go out and live by Walden Pond.
I like civilization and the advancement of technology just fine.
The unibomber was a Luddite too.
“de-development.”
They’re not anti-progress, they’re on the other side.
The political arm of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement.
4 meters is quite a lot. Did he really say something like that? Seems weird.
The IPCC numbers don’t include ice dynamics, like they mention. The melting behaviour could be quite nonlinear with temperature.
I know people are working on it, but I don’t know if there will be a good grasp of it and how soon.
I don’t think anyone thinks 4 meters is likely by 2100 even with ice dynamics, though it’s not something I actively follow.
Having livedd in a far-northern clime I can say that ambient temperature is only one of a number of factors that can affect ice loss. Snow and ice can melt despite sub-freezing temperatures if there is bright, relatively unfiltered sunlight shining on it.
Also, taking into account another definition of ice loss, at extremely cold temperatures the air is so cold it can leech the moisture out of ice without ever putting it into a liquid state.
In this case we’re talking for example about what happens to a glacier that is somewhat “inland” when suddenly the glacier in front of it slides to the sea. If the sea water can circulate around the base of the glacier now more freely, it could accelerate the melting. Or something like that.
Being a Democrat means never having to say “I am sorry”, or “I am / was wrong”.
Must be nice…
/* snark off
More relevantly…
Anyone have a grasp on how much Chinese soot winds up in the Arctic?
Changing the ice cap’s albedo is one recipe for non-AGCC melting. Heck, it could even run counter to an existing ice age onset.
I don’t think that much Chinese soot goes that far. The winds mostly don’t cross the equator, but turn around.
Soot is a more local problem since its stay up time in the atmosphere is not that long.
Probably glaciers in the Himalayas suffer from Chinese soot. As well as north Canada and Greenland from North American soot sources, or the Alps from European sources.
AFAIK, intentional soot deposition on glaciers actually has been looked at in regards to mitigating an ice age (that is not likely imminent at the moment).