You’re going off the Romm rez. Somebody is gonna rap your knuckles soon.

I found the closing statement a bit too gloomy and final. I think leaving a glimmer of hope might have been more responsible.

Also, Romm’s point that the underlying threat wasn’t really mentioned I think is reasonable. It depends on what the audience is thinking. Under the onslaught of trivialism launched by the Times of late, though, it probably is not a safe assumption that most readers have a realistic perspective. On the other hand, if one assumes that everyone needs to have everything explained from scratch every time, it’s hard for us to get very far.

That all said, though not especially original, the questions Owen raises are very real and very cogently presented. This is not in the same realm as the Romm piece or the Times’ recent kid gloves treatment of the sadly absurd Mr. Dyson.

The problem is exactly that the economics of the situation are very severe, and require a fundamental rethinking of what economics itself means. It’s not surprising that Owen fails to see this; many people don’t. Once you’ve crossed the Rubicon to understand the profound foolishness of our current trajectory, you are obligated to rethink economics. Pretending otherwise cannot work. The sort of green advocacy that says we can just switch over to carbon free existence without significant cost is bound to fail because the costs are going to be real and substantial.

Normally I find the press-imposed symmetry between economics and the environment overwrought, but in this case I think there is a real question. Is Romm not every bit as obligated to acknowldge Owen’s real point as Owen is to point out the consequences of inaction?

First link (Monbiot column)

Second link (coral reef loss)

Speaking of science, I just noticed this recent <a href=”http://www.ciw.edu/news/coral_reefs_may_start_dissolving_when_atmospheric_co2_doubles”>news</a> we find out that coral reefs may not survive 2X pre-industrial CO2. 

I’m not arguing the merits of the Owens piece.  All I’m saying is that Romm’s style of attack undermines any legitimate criticism he makes.

I just fail to see how Romm’s modus operandi  works as a means of persuasion. And he’s smart enough to know this, I believe. So I’m starting to think his real intent is to intimidate establishment voices (and influentials) that depart from his views on how AGW should be dealt with.

“The speakers in Copenhagen were united by a sense of urgency—and for good reason, given the poor record of most participating countries in meeting their Kyoto targets for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.”

This is actually wrong in several ways, but in particular do you notice something missing?