Basically, as far as anyone can tell me, we know that the earth has been getting warmer in the last few hundred years,..

We believe that there is a trend of an increasing rate of warming, but only over a couple decades.

The present strong warming trend began around 1910, just over nine decades ago, after hundreds of years of much weaker long-term trends.

We know that historically, temperatures have cycled from ice ages to ‘hot’ ages, and that present temperatures are at neither extreme.

Only about 30,000 years out of the last 740,000 have been warmer than the present according to Vostok and Epica ice cores. Also according to the Vostok core, the highest temperture in that time was 3 degrees C above the average for the last 130 years or so. That period of 3 degrees C above the recent past lasted for about 200 years.

Much better to know so damn little.

Is there something you know that we don’t?

Well, I would not have thought so, but apparently at least three things:

That the effects of any reduction in economic output will have its greatest detriment on those who can least afford it.

That no-one seems able to make a clear case, to me, that the long-term trend is either up or down. In light of which it seems unfortunate to be so committed to reducing warming if it turned out we were only accelerating cooling.

That your ‘precautionary principle’ is a crock. Should we have bombed Saudi Arabia? With nukes? Would that be enough? Should we bomb Russia too? After all Sting is nearly dead isn’t he? Because, you know, you never know… On the application of that principle, anyone with a neutral mind would never endorse any action on anything. But those with neutral minds do not seek to apply the ‘precautionary principle’ – it just happens to always be applied by those with closed minds to endorse their preferred irrational outcomes.

So little time, so little to know.

Dissapointing to see Rococco Liberal saying that the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist. As Ken points out, it is necessary for the earth’s current warmth. Further, the Greenhouse theory for further warming is perfectly reasonable — more co2 could lead to more warmth and recent years has seen both more co2 and more warmth. It does the GW non-activists no service to deny reality.

FWIW I don’t think there is any need for large scale government action on GW at the moment. But that’s not because I don’t believe in the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.

Oh, Bannerman wonders if his readers have ever clapped eyes on the fellow? Ever noticed his arse & face appear remarkably similar? Yet here we have someone accusing Timmy of speaking through his anus!!! Bannerman is………almost speechless!

JC is basically right. We know so damn little about global warming that it seems insane to attribute such importance to it.

Basically, as far as anyone can tell me, we know that the earth has been getting warmer in the last few hundred years, and that a (large) fraction of increase is due to human intervention (although as KP points out, we may also have been responsible for retarding this warming).

We believe that there is a trend of an increasing rate of warming, but only over a couple decades.

We know that historically, temperatures have cycled from ice ages to ‘hot’ ages, and that present temperatures are at neither extreme.

We do not know if the long term actual trend is up or down.

We do not know if we are distorting the long-term trend positively or negatively.

We do know that the negative consequences we expect increased global average temperatures to have on human welfare will mainly not be felt for many years.

We do know that the global average wage is presently increasing at a rate an order of magnitude greater than the temperature.

So as far as anyone can convince me, a fairly ‘easy as she goes’ policy where long-term global emission reduction is pursued on a cost-minimising basis, is the present ideal policy. There is no justification for sharply cutting present economic output (and accordingly the welfare of millions of mainly poorer people). But that is what the Monbiots of this world want, mainly because it fits in with their anti-capitalist anti-progress agenda.

Or so it seems to me.

PS I think Rex really trumps both Monbiot and Blair with just that first paragraph.

“There is a direct relationship between an engine’s performance and the amount of greenhouse gases it produces: the faster the car, the quicker it cooks the planet.”

To which Blair replied:

“Nonsense. A 40-year-old VW Beetle produces far more pollutants per kilometre than a modern Ferrari. Monbiot is an idiot.”

Monbiot wasn’t talking about pollutants in general. He was talking about greenhouse gases. Blair’s statement is a non sequitur.

I repect Lovelock because he is a scientist with expertise in that area. I think he is wrong judging by what other scientists are saying. However even though I think he wrong I respect a guy who comes from his field of expertise and puts his balls on the line with an outlier of a prediction. The reason is we want to make scientists feel comfortable with their theories and predictions even if they are outside the consensus. Lovelock is clearly a respected scientist.

I see Lindzen from MIT in a similar way to lovelock. Lindzen gets pilloried though.

Monbiot isn’t a climate scientist. He’s studied zoology. If he wants to put himself out as an expert he should study the subject first , get the grades and obtain a degree at Phd level.

JC- Monbiot doesnt think we’re all going to die. I heard him speak a few months ago. He thinks that if we dont do things to help reduce warming, things will get hairy, with increased starvation and a host of other problems. Instead, he has a list of things that we can do to help sort it all out, many of them easily achievable, some of them a bit harder. If you want “We’re all gonna die” I suggest you try Lovelock.

Some readers think I should use the piñata whenever I write about something silly by Tim Blair, but the rules for piñata usage are stricter than that. The rules are that it is only to be used when Blair……

We know that there is warming. We know that on balance some of this warming is most probably human induced. But we do know that we’re not going to fry over the next 100 years….. on balance.

Monbiot’s screed is that we should panic and that it’s the end of the world as we know it. He also advises that we must reduce emissions by 90% by the next 30 years to avert disaster.

This isn’t going to happen and neither should it happen.

The world is going to be a different place in 30 years. Charging up costs now to avoid a potential problem is an enormous wealth transfer from poor people (the present world) to much richer people those in 30/50/100 years.

Current world GDP is US$ 45 trillion. GDP is accelerating as we move forward and it is likely we may even see over 4.5% as the norm in the future. But even using this estimate real world GDP would be $US3600 trillion in 100 years. That’s a lot of wealthy people who can afford to do something then rather than we attempt some major effort on our comparativley meagre technology and resources.

My view is that we leave things well alone. Persuade giga countries like India and China to favour nuke power and keep a watcful eye on things.

A movement of 1% in real GDP over the next 100 years has an enormous effect on accumulated wealth.

Things we can do:

1 would say removing height restrictions on major cities ought to be a priority to prevent urban spread. This has big implications for things like travel to and from work etc. Commercial transport…….

Silly me. We’ve obviously had the pleasure of a link from Tim’s friends. And yes I have had the experience before. Remember?

1. Monbiot for being a complete idiot about AGW. He is really as bad as the denialists by preaching we will all dead soon.

2.Blair for using the ferrari/VW example. The prancing horse is clearly a big guzzler. i ought to know as i own one that I strictly use on weekends.

3.Rex for taking issue with this whole thing and playing gotcha. After all he clearly realized that even if Blair had made a wrong comparison, Monbiot made a truly idiotic or thoroughly dishonest statement.

I imagine this is the first time Nicholas has experienced the dubious pleasure of a visit from Blair’s army of keyboard thugs (I wonder whether the one above who reckoned that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist realises that if he was actually correct then even the warmest places on earth would have summer night-time