“for some (probably a minority)… environmentalists the fight against global warming has another aim: the defeat of capitalism, of economic growth, of prosperity.”

There’s a slightly obscured false dichotomy in this argument. The implication is that you can either be for capitalism or for environmentalism, that there is no in between. Like all false dichotomies it is easy to rebutt. You just need to demonstrate the existence of an option which does not fit either of these categories.

Such as, incorporating what are currently externalities (the cost of COâ‚‚ emission) into the capitalist framework (ie, Emissions Trading Schemes), and show that economic growth and prosperity is still possible. It doesn’t matter whether most people are motivated by that; the existence of the option is alone enough to undermine the fallacy.

It hardly needs saying that our emmissions make a negligible contribution to greenhouse gases, and it hardly needs saying (again) that the science is definitely not settled about what those emmissions do…

Ayrdale at #24:

Gareth you are no scientist, neither am I, but I am not trying to distort the facts in favour of an ideology. I suspect Gareth, that you are.

Since “your facts” are entirely wrong, I think you need to reconsider that suspicion. I report the science as I see it, and take a great deal of care to get my commentary as true to the source as I can. The politics I leave to the response. You may find that hard to credit, but as I said earlier, that’s your problem not mine.

Harris writes…”for some (probably a minority)… environmentalists the fight against global warming has another aim: the defeat of capitalism, of economic growth, of prosperity.
Which is why I find their arguments so nauseating. It must be lovely to be a high-profile journalist whose own income is high and reasonably secure…and it must be so easy to offer to sacrifice the jobs and the livelihoods of millions of working people for the good of the environment.
But unless we can find a way of saving the planet without sacrificing prosperity – here and in developing countries – then the fight is already lost…”

“The fight is already lost”…fear, overstatement and outright lies characterise the whole green movement, and corrupt their professed environmentalsim, masking their “nauseating” arguments.

Gareth you are no scientist, neither am I, but I am not trying to distort the facts in favour of an ideology. I suspect Gareth, that you are.

Sage words.

How many years without warming does it take to prove AGW wrong?

Given that warming continues, longer than you may think. If there’s no new record global high temp by 2018 (barring volcanoes) then we’ll have got something badly wrong. But I reckon we’ll see a new global record the next time there’s an El Niño – 2010 perhaps?

But again, you dodge the central point. If you want to persuade the world to do nothing, you need extraordinary proof, because the balance of evidence is not on your side.

A fantasy pure and simple. Tell that to the developing nations of the world. Then duck.

If there is no clear evidence that global warming poses an imminent danger” it is very difficult to see the need for “more action, sooner”…although obviously as a self sustaining bureaucracy the IPCC needs to keep the panic button down. The populace though is generally unimpressed.

How many years without warming does it take to prove AGW wrong?

The report[AR4] recommended large drops in carbon emissions after 2015 to contain the changes, but governments should reconsider whether even those targets go far enough, Pachauri said.

Pachauri was advocating more action, sooner!

There’s no hoodwinking by propagandists going on. I recommend you read the report prepared by the organisation Pachauri heads — particularly the Working Group 2 report on impacts. You might find it an eye opener.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen by over 100 ppm in the last 150 years, and that is certainly (ie, indisputably) down to human activity. That’s not remotely “controversial”, except to a few nutters.

We understand the radiative effects of CO2 in the atmosphere in great detail. If we didn’t understand the way absorption spectra worked, things like heat-seeking missiles wouldn’t work. They do. It’s a simple sum: more CO2, more heat retained at the earth’s surface. It’s possible to argue about how much warming, and how soon — and climate sciencists do, all the time, as they tease out more and more details of the workings of the climate system, but further warming is inevitable. All we can do is restrict the amount of change by reducing emissions.

I insure my farm against fire. I don’t expect to get a fire, but I know that one is possible through no fault of my own. A large fire could wipe out a major chunk of my assets and income-generating crops and buildings. It’s a modest cost, gladly paid. Taking action to restrict future damage is no more difficult to justify. The costs of action are relatively modest, and the risks being addressed large enough to make those costs worthwhile.

Meanwhile, the propagandists who urge inaction carry a heavy burden, as Bryan pointed out. If I’m wrong (and that means if the current body of scientific understanding is somehow shown to be wrong) we’ll have spent some money decarbonising the energy system. If we follow your advice and do nothing, and you turn out to be wrong, the damages we suffer will be greatly increased.

In other words, as I’ve said repeatedly on this site and in my book, the politics of this issue are in the responses we choose to make — not in the definition of the problem. By denying the existence or seriousness of the issue, you deny yourself a seat at that table. Your loss.

“There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world, says Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/09/climate-meeting.html

If the danger is not imminent, ie, if we have been hoodwinked by propagandists like Al Gore into believing that it is, why should we not calmly and coolly keep investigating the many unknowns and not be panicked into severe measures that will hurt us ?

It hardly needs saying that our emmissions make a negligible contribution to greenhouse gases, and it hardly needs saying (again) that the science is definitely not settled about what those emmissions do…

As for “insurance” ……”It’s also worth re-stating at this point that fear is to the insurance industry what oil is to Exxon.”
The problem for the greens is, the fear is abating…