Jim Cripwell | March 25, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
As we’ve both agreed the data doesn’t support using climate sensitivity, why continue on down that dark and unproductive alley?
We have other, very real and useful measures of consumer dissatisfaction with the very idea that their futures have been made more uncertain by people profiting from excessive use of the commons in the form of the carbon cycle (Hale, 2002), evidence that is not so easily dismissed from the geological and ice core records of the huge leap in an instant (by geological timescale) of CO2 level, of CO2 level as a proxy for pollutant levels due common origins. We don’t need ocean pH (though it’s pretty good overall evidence in itself). We don’t need shifting habitats of wildlife(unlike anything in the fossil record for millions of years). We don’t need rapid and dramatic changes in distribution of pollen in the paleobotanical record. But we have those too.
We just need to know the carbon cycle is a limited, that is ‘scarce’, resource and that we have a means to privatize it, like any good Capitalist knows is the right thing to do.