That there is no evidence of any kind of a warming disaster, due to runaway feedbacks, in the entire climate history of our planet, this seems to be one main reason for intelligent scientists to criticize the alarming predictions.
Let's forget the
most alarming predictions, as in Hansen's hypothetical (we're obviously not going to burn all fossil fuels) and consider what's likely, such as 3C above pre-industrial temperatures. That comes with drought in the US Mid-West as
normal (just one of many disruptions to agriculture). What's not alarming about that? It would certainly be a human disaster.
That sort of alarming talk also does a great deal of damage to somebodies credibility.
It does no harm to their credibility if they discuss hypotheticals, but they do then provide deniers with distractions which all too many people fall for. Intelligent scientists are focussed on what is most likely to happen, and it's not a pretty picture for any of them.
Those such as Lindzen and Christie whose motivated thinking led them to believe in low climate sensitivity can see it being repudiated right before their eyes, and they're intelligent enough to know it's not going to get any better. An ugly prospect. They carry on lying about it, of course, even as climate demonstrates a greater sensitivity because what really concerns them is any concerted
action being taken and low sensitivity is the best argument they've got against that. It might see out their days but they surely know that concerted action will be taken in the medium-term, a thiought they must hate but there it is.
More honest scientists can see what's coming, and that's also an ugly prospect.
Especially since it is easy to take the scrubbers off of coal plants and send the planet back into a little ice age.
It's ironic that coal produces so much CO2, but also produces SO2 if not cleaned.
It's ironic that the masking of AGW by sulphate pollution (and other airborne signs of recent modernisation) has given false comfort to deniers and wishful-thinkers, who resolutely refuse to consider it in their "No warming since ..." efforts. The reason scrubbers were put on coal-plants is that people refused to live that way any longer and (against industry opposition and a denial campaign) concerted action was taken. By governments. China and India will have to do the same soon, and "No warming since ..." will go the way of the "long-term cooling phase" (remember that one?) which we entered back around 2007.
Would we be in a little ice age if nobody scrubbed coal? If there never was a clean air act?
No. There'd still be AGW, and the feedbacks aren't strong enough anyway.
In any case, if some terrible disaster is created (as most believe), to predict nobody will do anything about it is stupid. If it really is CO2 man will remove it.
No doubt things will be done about it after the disaster.
But based on recent history, in regards to many things that nobody questions, forcing man to stop doing stupid things is almost impossible. Like over fishing, fertilizer run off, oil spills, mercury poisoning, deforesting, killing off entire species, nuclear disasters, over use of antibiotics, and on and on and so forth.
How does anyone force the rest of the world to do as they are told?
Sufficient force would do it, obviously, but sanctions can be very powerful.
?
