Free Markets, Free People

Paul Krugman – Climate Expert (UPDATE – Krugman Calls Skeptics “Traitors”)

Bumped to the top for obvious reasons.

Here’s a perfect example of why Paul Krugman should stick with writing about economics:

One of the favorite arguments of climate-change deniers is “but it was warmer in the late 90s.” In fact, the odds are good that I’ll get that argument from George Will on This Weak tomorrow. I basically know the answer: temperature is a noisy time series, so if you pick and choose your dates over a short time span you can usually make whatever case you want. That’s why you need to look at longer trends and do some statistical analysis. But I thought that it would be a good thing to look at the data myself.

So here’s the data he chose:

temptrend

Anyone know what happened prior to 1850?

A little thing called the “Little Ice Age”, remember? And before that? Yup, the Medieval Warm Period. So what did that look like?

2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison

So what are the two things you notice right away? Well, one is “cycles”. In fact, if you go back even further you’ll see the same sorts of cycles repeated through out our planet’s history. Looking at data from 1850 in the context of climate change history is to use an eyeblink of data for comparison (coming out of the depths of a centuries long planetary cold spell). It is a classic misuse of limited data in an attempt to support a point of view.  It certainly can’t be called “science”.

And secondly, our temperature now isn’t much different than in the 1000′s (not to mention there is much debate as to whether the temperature measurements of today are even accurate), with a very small population relative to today and with no industry, no burning of fossil fuel, and no worries about “green house gasses”. How in the world can that be?

Meteorologist Augie Auer said it best:

“It is time to attack the myth of global warming,” he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

“If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.”

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047, and 0.046 per cent respectively.

“That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,” he said.

“We couldn’t do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates.”

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as “The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2” and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

“The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries’ emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

“It’s become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt,” he said.

And Krugman seems to be trying out for head inquisitor. There are the numbers Mr. Krugman. Why not try crunching those instead of selectively picking the data that supports your point of view. You wouldn’t stand for that in the economic world. Why should we put up with it from you when you talk about science?

UPDATE: Yeah, no inflammatory language here:

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

Quite an argument, isn’t it – “disagree with me and the “consensus” and you’re committing “treason against the planet?”

You have to wonder, would disagreeing over economic policy be “treason against the economy” in Krugman’s wacky world?  How desperate are you when you have to resort to name calling like “traitor” over a policy dispute?

UPDATE II: Irony alert Ezra Klein referring to the Krugman chart above which begins at the end of the period known as the “Little Ice Age”:

Paul Krugman has a nice response to the variant of global warming denialism favored by the statistically illiterate.

Who is “statistically illiterate” here, Mr. Klein?

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

48 Responses to Paul Krugman – Climate Expert (UPDATE – Krugman Calls Skeptics “Traitors”)

  • Paul Krugman should continue to write about economics?  Like this article from 2002 saying we need a housing bubble to get out of the dot com crash?  Good call Paul:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

  • Paul Slugman is a Marxist. Which shows just why he won the Nobel Prize for Economics – for the same reason Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize:

    Because the Nobels are usually given out to the farthest leftwing loon who can cobble a sentence together to either criticize the United States or condemn Israel. Or, in Slugman’s case, make up numbers out of whole cloth to argue that the US economy needs to be socialized by massive government spending.

    Paul Slugman: listen to anything he has to say at your own peril.

  • krugman, despite his ‘credentials’ as an academic and nobel prize winner (LOL), may be the single most intellectually dishonest writer-”thinker” on the planet. he’ll say whatever it takes to make his case that day – black is white; up is down; war is peace – at the top of his lungs and with a straight face, and then loudly deny ever having said such things in the next day’s column, should changing events necessitate a change of narrative. the guy makes michael moore and janene garofolo look thoughtful and logical. he’s just a silly, mendacious little man doing his best to act grown-up, and the only method he seems to know is to parrot what all the fashionable tall people on the upper west side are currently saying. mix that in with a little econ BS, and you’ve got every krugman column ever written.
    naturally, the ‘times’ hired him to tell whoppers. we’ll see if senor slim helu, who’s reputed to be pretty sharp, will keep letting him sling them whoppers when it becomes the “new carlos times”.  we should find out in a year or less, i’d guess.

  • Yeah, I’m not so sure economics is even right for him.  He seems to misrepresent data a lot in the same way he did here.  DailyKos diarist is more appropraite.

  • Not only is the time series selected by PK misleading as you note, there is a problem with the temperature record from 1998 onward.  Looking at the graph he supplied, it does appear that temps have sustained their 1998 peak.

    But is this correct?  Take a look at the two different links below. The first shows the RSS and UAH temp record. The second shows an overlay of four world temperature records. These graphs clearly show temps falling from their 1998 peak.

    Note that the GIS temps supplied by NASA (which PK cites in his article),  are part of the plot in the second link. 

    Someone has clearly made a mistake, and I hope its PK.  Hopefully, we will see a convincing public rebuttal of PK’s article very shortly.
     

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/03/rss-global-temperature-anomaly-for-march-2009/#more-6747

    http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/27/4-global-temperature-anomalies-say-the-same-thing/

  • Dishonest progressive hack Ezra Klein parrots Krugman
    Paul Krugman vs. the Climate Deniers

  • Treason against the planet, as opposed to treason against humanity by setting the world back towards the dark ages for no good reason.
    I suggest we see which enforces an action for trecherous behavior first.

  • I am far beyond a global warming denier, I think I have reached the point of global warming “welcomer”.

    Ask a lefty, “If the science is settled, what is the optimum global mean surface temperature?” I think the data clearly shows a planet warmer than the current temperature would support even more life.

    The equatorial rain forests are the most fertile places on the planet. Expanding these rain forests would be very helpful to the planet. The equatorial deserts are not barren due to high temperatures, but rather a lack of water. Global warming will certainly put more water vapor into the atmosphere.

    On the other side, there are many places on the planet that are too cold for abundant life. Expanding the temperate zones would almost certainly be good for the biosphere.

    Finally, the biggest problem on the planet is not sea-level rise. In my (cold-hearted right wing) opinion the biggest problem is starvation. Twenty-five thousand people die of starvation every single day. How much will an increase in atmospheric CO2 benefit the growth rate of cereal grain crops around the world?

    The Krugman’s of the world claim the earth has a “fever”. I think the planet is moving from winter to life-renewing spring. Answer my two questions about optimal temperature and optimal CO2 level, and then I will become concerned with some of the negatives of global warming.

    [** Lefty "Appeal to Authority" disclaimer: I graduated magna cum laude with an Earth Sciences degree from Harvard University so I know absolutely nothing about this topic.]

  • “Treason against the planet”, eh?

    Lefties used to get soooooo upset when anybody questioned their patriotism while they were busily agitating for us to lose the war in Iraq. However, they apparently have no problem using the same language for (as McQ says) merely disagreeing with them.

    One wonders if Krugman would dare accuse the Red Chinese of “treason against the planet” as they busily start a new coal plant (IIRC) every three weeks; one doesn’t have to wonder about their reaction to that. To hear lefties tell it, ANY CO2 pumped into the atmosphere (except by their own private jets, limos, and McMansions, that is) is helping kill us all. So, I suggest that Krugman, Algore, SanFran Nan, and all the other morons who actually believe in global warming do “their fair share” and end ALL of their CO2 emissions (I’ll give ‘em a pass on the CO2 they emit while breathing). That means no driving in a car, no airplanes, no electricity in their homes, no fire to heat the food they scavenge from the environment, no nothing. Let ‘em live like pre-stone age man in the interests of saving the planet if they’re so convinced that this is what it takes. When they start doing that, then maybe I’ll start believing that they honestly believe that man-made global warming actually exists and that it’s not merely a political ploy to get more power for themselves at everybody else’s expense.

  • Well Rod, you’re clearly just a traitor who has been subverted by the “looters and polluters”.  That negates your Harvard degree in Earth Science.   Those are only meaningful when they are used for goodness and niceness, not for looting and polluting and denying.
    You must learn the ways of consensus science!

  • The fallout from this whole embarrassing period is going to be a lot of fun to watch, when temperatures continue to not increase over the coming years.  There will not be any excuses to hide behind this time, the way that the global cooling scare of the 70s is dismissed with the retort that it wasn’t scientists who were making the claims back then.  Dangerous legislation like cap-and-trade needs to be defeated so that we don’t have to listen to preposterous claims about how the climate has ‘been correcting itself’ ever since it was voted into law.

    • Tonus – “Dangerous legislation like cap-and-trade needs to be defeated so that we don’t have to listen to preposterous claims about how the climate has ‘been correcting itself’ ever since it was voted into law.”

      But that’s the very thing that I suspect some of the global warming alarmists are hoping for: that they can get foolishness like cap-and-trade passed ASAP so that when the earth cools (as it seems likely to do no matter what man does), they can take credit for it. “See! We acted just in the nick of time and averted the disaster of global warming! See how right we were?!”

      • No, that won’t work. There’s no way they can do more than slightly slow the growth of CO2 and their theories still say we should get warmer. If we get cooler at all, let alone drastically cooler, it still entirely disproves the AGW hypothesis.

        • In a rational world with rational people, I’d agree. However, this is the same bunch who (A) profess to believe that man-made global warming is real and (B) credit ANY apparent weather anomaly to it. It’s warmer than usual? GLOBAL WARMING! It’s cooler than usual? GLOBAL WARMING! It’s too dry? GLOBAL WARMING! It’s too wet? GLOBAL WARMING! More hurricanes than normal? GLOBAL WARMING! Fewer hurricanes than normal? GLOBAL WARMING! You may recall TAO referring to global warming while the people of North Dakota were dealing with the flooding of ice-choked rivers a few months ago; sub-freezing temperatures due to (you guessed it) GLOBAL WARMING.

          We can confidently expect the same group that has pulled the greatest scientific hoax in history to keep twisting facts and outright lying in order to explain away any “inconvenient truths” and always make it appear that they’ve been right all along. If the earth DOES get cooler, it will be BECAUSE of their efforts. If the earth actually gets hotter, it will merely mean that we’re on the right track but NEED TO DO MORE.

  • Krugman shows the classic hockey stick that has been found to be false.
     
    In fact the either so-called modern record of  global warming may be due to incorrectly placed temperature sensors

  • I’d proudly wear a “Traitor to the Planet” T shirt. Has Krugman ever given the $50K back to Enron?

  • I don’t seem to be able to leave a reply under a specific comment anymore. I’ve tried deleting all cookies and cache. I think other people are having the same problem. Any ideas?

    • Yes – you’re the second person to bring that to my attention. I’m not sure of the answer. We just upgraded the WP software to 2.8 and I’m wondering if it may be browser connected.

      • I have IE8, and I’ve noticed recently that if I just click the Reply link, I don’t get a response properly associated as a reply. However, if I right-click on the Reply link and say “Open in new tab”, it works properly.

  • Those who deny global warming are relying on evidence weaker than the cigarette industries studies questioning the link to cancer.   The way you argue in this post, and the graphs you use, show a purely anti-scientific approach to the issue.   You have a political-inspired argument that you believe because of ideology, and that makes you dangerous to the next generation.  It isn’t worth even trying to argue with you because you really believe that the “evidence” you use is unquestionable.  Therefore there is only two alternatives: a) in education make sure students learn the truth and how to tear apart the kind of disinformation that the deniers engage in (and the cost may be as high as the holocaust if we don’t act — it may already be too late; and b) politically defeat you.    The sad thing is, I think you poor fools actually believe your propaganda.  Pathetic.

    • It isn’t worth even trying to argue with you

      Yet you try to do it anyway by redefining what the original point was. I’m sure it has nothing to do with your psychological problem.
      <p>
      Remember when Erb used to try to claim he didn’t believe in government intervention to deal with the climate? He used to get mad because no one believed him. It’s refreshing that Erb doesn’t try to hide his real agenda anymore.

    • It isn’t worth even trying to argue with you because you really believe that the “evidence” you use is unquestionable.

      You, as always, write your own best rebuttals and, once more, earn the title, Clown.

    • You keep lecturing us on global warming, Erb, but you keep emitting CO2 every day. Why don’t you stop doing that?

      The organic matter in your carcass can be used to fertilize a nice tree somewhere, which would take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

      The planet would be happier, and I’m sure we all would appreciate your leadership on the issue.

  • A little history may be helpful in clarifying the graphs: In about 1000 A.D., Middle Age fiefdoms passed a Cap and Trade legislation to combat global warming, which they saw as an immense threat to their future and the well-being of the planet. This legislation was instrumental in bringing about the Little Ice Age 600 years later.

  • test test — using New Window (I’m using Safari 4)

  • Test, test. Using New Coke.

  • Yes, looker, you can talk big on blog commentary.   But if you sat down face to face with climate scientists (as I have) and talked about this, you’d know their frustration with the right wing propaganda machine, which one Republican scientist I know called “nazi like.”  I trust these people.   You guys are good for hurling insults and taking ideologically-driven views of the world.   You don’t grab on to certain studies because you want to understand, you scour the news for things to fit your political argument, and there are well financed groups ready to give you the arguments, graphs, and information to allow you to think you are fighting on the side of truth.  I accuse you of not being able to think for yourself, and beling lost in the fog of ideology.
    But that’s OK.  In my profession I can’t afford such mushy thinking.  I want to make sure students learn how to discern propaganda from real arguments, and how to make judgments that aren’t just biased by politics.   I see through what’s happening to you guys and I almost pity you.  You really don’t realize how you’re being manipulated.  You honestly think you see this clearly and somehow it’s all some liberal scheme on climate change.   You grab onto things like the now debunked list of 32,000 “scientists” claiming not to believe global warming uncritically accepting it (the list had very few climate scientists, most didn’t have doctorates, and one of the top guys involved had been one who worked earlier on arguing cigarettes don’t cause cancer.)
    So yeah, I do think you’re too far gone to be able to think critically on this.   Consider this: science is always full of uncertainties.  That’s why creationism, the cigarette industry, and any group with a position contrary to settled science can, if you look at the data and interpretations they supply, make a strong case apparently supported by a myriad of evidence for why their view is correct.  Therefore anyone politically motivated to believe anything can find support to numerous blog entries for their view — that’s mush.   Sit down and talk to real climate change scientists.  Compare arguments.   Look at the authoritative studies.  Don’t believe cherry picked drudge report “scientists” who have an idiosyncratic theory, or graphs that go back thousands of years addressing something that isn’t even involved in the theory.
    It’s like the Iraq war.   We know from Woodward that in 2006 most everyone in the White House knew the policy was failing and that we were losing.  But if I said that in a comment  on this blog I’d be insulted, attacked, and the like.   I do not believe you look at the world at all objectively, I don’t think you even try.  It’s all ideology-based and political.   I find that really sad.   But as long as you don’t teach or have decision making power, I guess ‘whatever gets you through the night…’

    • But as long as you don’t teach or have decision making power

      Luckily for our country, I do teach science and technology. We look at the predictions made by the IPCC and compare them to actual data. My students will be well prepared to confront the likes of you by the time they get to college. They’ll show you the data (just like McQ did) instead of crying and stomping their feet saying that anyone that disagrees with them is just ideologically biased like you do.

    • There you go, breathing out CO2 again. Please stop that.

      Oh, in case you were wondering: no, I’m not taking you seriously. You don’t deserve serious comments.

      Just help the atmosphere out and stop exhaling CO2.

    • Anyone else notice this:

      Erb has volumes to say about global warming, but absolutely nothing to say about Honduras and Obama’s support for a would-be leftist dictator. Which topic do you think a Political Science professor would be more interestd in? Which do you think he’d know more about?

    • Ooooooo…I do believe I hit a weak spot of the much ballyhooed Erb “non emotional, logical response” armor.
      In one mere line I pointed out that there are two sides to an argument, and, if we are adhering to ‘evidence’ as unquestionable, so are YOU.  My evidence gains nothing for me in a monetary sense, unlike a great number of the shysters and prostitutes who are spouting about warming, in particular, your vaunted Noble prize winning hero Al Gore.
      I take comfort in knowing my evidence has rational thought behind it, and the climate history of the planet earth as it’s basis as opposed to some arbitrarily picked period in time.  People like you, in their hubris, conclude that man (short of using thermonuclear devices enmasse) can affect the climate by stopping ONE type of gas from being produced in quantity, all to avert climate changes that we have absolutely NO control over in the first place (if your idea of control even remotely happens to be reduction by some minuscule percentage of a degree Fahrenheit over the course of half a century).
      Can you say “too convenient” or perhaps “silver bullet solution” .
      Do you even understand the concept?
      Have a good day Professor dude, you’re still a clown.
       

    • Yes, looker, you can talk big on blog commentary. But if you sat down face to face with climate scientists (as I have) and talked about this, you’d know their frustration with the right wing propaganda machine, which one Republican scientist I know called “nazi like.” Well, I mean, he said he was a Republican and he voted for Olympia Snowe just like I did, so he must be a real Republican, in fact he’s the epitomy of what I think a Republican should be. So even though he hates Bush and Cheney just as much as I do, and calls people Nazis like a true leftist, I still want to hold him up as a counterpoint to the rest of you nazi-like Republicans. I trust these people, and I sure don’t trust any of you to even try to tell the truth.

      You guys are good for hurling insults and taking ideologically-driven views of the world. You don’t grab on to certain studies because you want to understand, you scour the news for things to fit your political argument. See, with that line of attack, I don’t have to refute anything you say. Besides, I don’t really know any statistics or any of that grunt engineer stuff anyway, but I have reliable leftist environmentalists who have degrees just like I do, so their opinion is correct and definitely not ideologically driven, so stop saying that! I decree that you are ideologically driven and they’re not, so you just have to accept it!

      Yes, there are well financed groups ready to give you the arguments, graphs, and information to allow you to think you are fighting on the side of truth. And the government-financed groups are pure as the driven snow and are the ones really fighting on the side of truth, as you would know if you had godlike powers of political science like me. I accuse you of not being able to think for yourself, and being lost in the fog of ideology. And I’m not either lost in ideology, so stop saying that! I know what I know is right because of the holy writ of poist-modernism, and it’s not either true that post-modernism itself is an ideology! It’s just not!! It’s fact! Well, sort of, even though “fact” is itself a socially constructed concept.

      But it’s OK for you thick righties to be completely deluded. In my profession I can’t afford such mushy thinking. Nope, I have to make sure students learn how to discern propaganda from real arguments, and how to make judgments that aren’t just biased by politics. And the way for them to do that is to unquestionly accept leftist positions.

      I see through what’s happening to you guys and I almost pity you. You really don’t realize how you’re being manipulated. If you would just accept what we wise leftists say, without questioning it, why then you would be completely free of manipulation. Don’t you see?

      But no, you don’t. You’re too far gone to be able to think critically on this. Consider this: science is always full of uncertainties. That’s why creationism, the cigarette industry, and any group with a position contrary to settled science can, if you look at the data and interpretations they supply, make a strong case apparently supported by a myriad of evidence for why their view is correct. Therefore anyone politically motivated to believe anything can find support to numerous blog entries for their view — that’s mush.

      But that doesn’t apply to supporters of global warming, no sir, it does not! Their position is settled science. I decree it!! They are stainless knights just like John Kerry, and they would never, ever think of not looking at things completely objectively. They are definitely not cooking the books and all that stuff about data being incorrect and debunking the hockey stick is just right-wing progaganda!!

      It’s like the Iraq war. We know from Woodward that in 2006 most everyone in the White House knew the policy was failing and that we were losing. And that automatically meant that our imperialist aims had failed and we ought to withdraw in humiliation. But if I said that in a comment on this blog I’d be insulted, attacked, and the like. In fact, I was. Many times. And the fact that things got better just like you dense righties said they would is completely beside the point. It’s just temporary!! Iraq was the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, and Sadr won over Maliki, and the violence is going to increase real soon now!!!! I decree it!!!!! I was right about everything concerning Iraq, and you righties were just wrong, wrong, wrong! Especially that ex-military wacko McQ, whose experiences in the military have clearly made him a basket case.

      I do not believe you look at the world at all objectively, I don’t think you even try. All you have to do is read the holy writ of post-modernism like I have, and then you’ll see how to be perfectly objective like I am. Instead, it’s all ideology-based and political. I find that really sad. And I am not either ideology-based and political, as I said before, no indeed, I’m a wise leftist with many degrees and a speciality in international relations, and that makes me so smart I can comment definitively even in areas such as the environment where I’m basically clueless.

      But as long as you don’t teach or have decision making power, I guess ‘whatever gets you through the night’ Because we wise leftists just keep right on indoctrinating your children in wise leftist thought and post-modern holy writ, and there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s for their own good, of course.

  • well, *i’m* sold. such lovely speechifying! and i never knew that college profs were so big on critical thinking and avoidance of propaganda!  heck, here i foolishly thought they *taught* propaganda! just *a coupla* quick questions, though: what was it again that caused the medieval warm period? and when the sahara turned from a green grassy paradise to its current hellhole desert condition 30,000 or so years ago, which carbon-spewing corporations were to blame?
    am sure it was just an oversight – it’s difficult to write a speech about how smart and important you are, and so easy to overlook quibbling minor details – but i noticed you neglected to mention any – you know – any specifics as to past climate changes.  educate me, o wise one! let me learn from you! oh, and by the way – since, as you gravely intoned above, since “science is always full of uncertainties”, does this mean you question the gaping holes in the theory of evolution? or is it just all science *exept* evolution and climate that’s uncertain?

  • Erb’s ‘experts’ include Michael Mann and James Hansen, both found guilty of using dishonest data sets to reach politically convienent catastrophic predictions.
    So lets just look at the numbers.  CO2 accounts for 3.6% of greenhouse gasses.  The USA produces 20% of world wide CO2.  Cap and Tax, as preached by the real faith based community, will reduce USA’s carbon output by 15%.    That is  a 15% reduction of a 20% man-made contribution, which is only 3.2% of the total atmospheric CO2 that comprises only 3.6% of the warming greenhouse gasses.  Watermelon Erb would have the liberal fascist government cripple our economy just to change the USA’s impact of greenhouse gasses from 0.023% to 0.020%

  • You don’t grab on to certain studies because you want to understand, you scour the news for things to fit your political argument, and there are well financed groups ready to give you the arguments, graphs, and information to allow you to think you are fighting on the side of truth.  I accuse you of not being able to think for yourself, and beling lost in the fog of ideology.
    But that’s OK.  In my profession I can’t afford such mushy thinking.  I want to make sure students learn how to discern propaganda from real arguments, and how to make judgments that aren’t just biased by politics.   I see through what’s happening to you guys and I almost pity you.  You really don’t realize how you’re being manipulated.

     
    The cognitive disconnect is overwhelming.

  • “In my profession I can’t afford such mushy thinking”

    He most certainly can, for in his ‘profession’ there is no mechanism to prevent “mushy thinking”. In fact, in his profession, everything is about promulgating mushy think, softening up young minds to be receptive to the right kind of propaganda.

  • Erb, global warming is a scam.  The science if it can be called that relies on predictions from climate models that so far have failed to predict and match actual temperatures since 1999.
    You, my silly non science academic (i.e. who knows less than my 15 year old about science), are swallowing a complete load of politically biased pseudo science.
     

  • As I predicted, when a lefty did their drive-by, they would not address my two questions.

    Prof. Erb, next time you sit down to chat with all of those climate scientists please ask them the optimum global temperature.

    Actually, they don’t even know — that is outside of their area of expertise. Let’s ask some botanists and macro and micro-biologists.

    P.S. Erb characterized the comments as “ideological” and mushy thinking. I think everyone had excellent comments. However, I agree to waive the rhetoric. Just give me a solid number for the optimum global mean surface termperature. Then we can debate other aspects of increasing atmospheric CO2.