Firstly there is the empirical claim of the medieval warm period having comparable temperatures to the current environment. Which is true, but the rate of increase in the twentieth century is far more significant and there's the problem of our existing infrastructure (especially agricultural infrastructure) being geared towards a particular climatic environment.
Secondly there is simply those with strong vested interests and their paid shills who simply can't tolerate the idea of having to do things differently. Sometimes people see "a 50% reduction in carbon" and think "that'll wreck the economy". Such claims indicate a poverty of imagination.
In Dr. Pilmer's case I think he just needs to research more. Climatology and geology have often been in some conflict in this subject, not the least by the vagaries in paleoclimatology. His claim that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature is certainly contrary to the available direct evidence.
no subject
Firstly there is the empirical claim of the medieval warm period having comparable temperatures to the current environment. Which is true, but the rate of increase in the twentieth century is far more significant and there's the problem of our existing infrastructure (especially agricultural infrastructure) being geared towards a particular climatic environment.
Secondly there is simply those with strong vested interests and their paid shills who simply can't tolerate the idea of having to do things differently. Sometimes people see "a 50% reduction in carbon" and think "that'll wreck the economy". Such claims indicate a poverty of imagination.
In Dr. Pilmer's case I think he just needs to research more. Climatology and geology have often been in some conflict in this subject, not the least by the vagaries in paleoclimatology. His claim that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature is certainly contrary to the available direct evidence.