Some things are just so good that I hope to forever catalog them in my little blog here… how long the link will last is not quite known, but this exercise in the pros and cons of global warming is excellent.
Some of the comments (particularlly of one Carl Pham) are just pure wisdom…
That’s actually fine as far as it goes. But what you should bear in mind is the key distinction we always teach youngsters between a hypothesis and a decent theory: empirical verification. It’s simply not enough to say oh, A follows logically from B. That’s Aristotelian “science,” the way the Greeks deduced that there were four Elements (fire, water, earth, air) from which everything was made. The same way 18th century chemists came up with the theory of phlogiston to explain combustion. The same reason Michelson expected to find an ether drift.
No, it only becomes plausible theory when you actually run the experiment, and show that B produces A, every time, and not B produces not A, every time. Unless and until you do that, you merely have a plausible speculation.
As you know, the big problem with climate “science” — I’m inclined to call it “climate studies” myself — is that it is impossible to do the relevant experiments. We can’t take a planet and jack up its CO2, then see whether the climate changes relative to some identical planet where we hold the CO2 constant. In the absence of that kind of experimental test, you do not have an empirical science. Yes, the components of climate studies — molecular physics, atmospheric chemistry, complex systems simulations — are all legitimate sciences, because you can do the experiments that directly confirm or contradict the theories. But when you assemble all these pieces into predictions of climate — of what happens to the whole damn planet, over centuries — then, alas, it stops being a science, because the experiments can’t be done. (It’s like theories of history: in the same way, we can’t run history over again, have Truman make a different decision, and see whether lives were on balance lost or saved by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. This is why history is not an empirical science.)