Congratulations on the interesting blog. I enjoyed your discussion about the “Face on Mars” stuff. Fascinating! And your posting on Dr. Carmona is an interesting discussion of the intersection of politics and science.

Concerning AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), I would like to know what you think about the recent comments of Robert F. Kennedy. He said that those who disagree with the consensus opinion on the subject (which as you know is that it is true and action must be taken) are “fascists” and “traitors” and should be treated as such. The penalty for treason is imprisonment or death.

What do you think about that? Should people who say that they do not believe in the AGW hypothesis be imprisoned or executed?

Keep up the good work on the blog!

Regards,
Guillermo

I think Hulme’s point is that the fact that crowded theaters CAN catch fire doesn’t make it okay to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre just because you THINK there’s a chance there COULD be a fire.

Now, of course, even if this did happen, it wouldn’t be in the next five years or so. That much is certain. It wouldn’t be a short term catastrophic event like depicted in certain fictional Hollywood productions. But on timescales longer than that of a human life, it’s a different story. The ice-albedo positive feedback loop is powerful; don’t underestimate its potential. Given enough tine and enough forcing, our successors could lose a lot of real estate before its over.

Be careful with Hulme’s quote. Taking it too literally means science is incapable of talking about hurricanes, tsunamis, and asteroid strikes. Don’t forget that crowded theaters can catch fire.

How about the sea level rising 20 feet? He presents this as if it’s what’s being predicted (as opposed to the IPCC’s 30 cm!), when it’s really an extreme worst case scenario - but of course most people don’t realize that. Someone posting here said ‘if the seas ONLY rise 20 feet’, and I suspect most readers here are somewhat more astute than average.

As British climate science Michael Hulme recently said: ‘The language of catastrophe is not the language of science.’

Some of ‘them’ are deniers; I certainly distrust the motives and logic of the ultra-religious anti-GW groups.

But is there no possibilty that a rational, informed, somewhat intelligent person could have legimate questions about AGW? Couldn’t they be called AGW skeptics?

I find it (pardon the expression) that if you ask about the MWP or the LIA, or about sunspots and solar output, or cosmic rays and cloud formation, you tend to get jumped on as a ‘denier’, a ‘tool of the polluters’, or some other type of heretic. You don’t get answers; you get a putdown.