The “danger” of reglaciation is completely overblown (we’ve most likely already broken the ice age cycle, having boosted atmospheric CO2 back up to Pleistocene levels,)
Go, anthropocentric warming! Fingers crossed on that one, though—at least until there’s a consensus on what causes the glacial cycles and their periodic shifts.
and even if we did enter a new glaciation period, it would be such a slow process as to pose relatively little danger to our society.
All climate change is slow—and not-very threatening to civilization.
none of the information he presents is little known among climate scientists, and they don’t share his optimism.
Follow the money. They are funded when they project doom. Thus the IPCC fiasco.
He’s operating under a largely naive “warmer is better” model which fails to account for the difficulty ecological systems have in adapting to rapid changes.
Warmer is better—when you’re in an ice age. I acknowledge rapid change will cause some problems. However, these are overblown by the media, while the large benefits go largely ignored. It seems like pure doom-bias to me. Eco-apocalypse sells, while “actually, thiings might get better in most places” does not.
Go, anthropocentric warming! Fingers crossed on that one, though—at least until there’s a consensus on what causes the glacial cycles and their periodic shifts.
All climate change is slow—and not-very threatening to civilization.
Follow the money. They are funded when they project doom. Thus the IPCC fiasco.
Warmer is better—when you’re in an ice age. I acknowledge rapid change will cause some problems. However, these are overblown by the media, while the large benefits go largely ignored. It seems like pure doom-bias to me. Eco-apocalypse sells, while “actually, thiings might get better in most places” does not.