That was an impressive spray. My Rabbi will be most amused at the prayers you’ve prescribed for me. And thanks for the lecture about how the world is different from high school. Most helpful.

I’ll happily accept your injunction to grow up, j_p_z. You go first.

but please, I’m beggin’ ya, Jerry, get a goddamned gravatar

Do as the clown says, Zed. May I suggest this friendly visage (as you yourself suggested a long time ago, IIRC)?

Brian — well you’re certainly entitled to set the rules, sir, so I can’t fault you for that. But consider for a moment the idea of competing claims: sometimes one’s moniker comes with a lot of baggage, which might predispose the reader, especially on an avowedly partisan site, to a prejudicial view. In the interest of getting a “clean read,” so to speak, there’s options one might consider. But of course the thing remains at your discretion. I will ask you to note, however, that I’ve done no “sock-puppeteering” in the sense of creating bogus personae who support one another.

I knew who you were – your style is too distinctive – but please, I’m beggin’ ya, Jerry, get a goddamned gravatar.

Mies van der Rococo – heh.

If the world took the problem seriously, then 25% in 10 years would not seem impossible. You might like to look at Jo Romm’s (Climate Progress) 14 wedges plus his recent update.

Sheesh! and they call people who accept the AGW science “alarmists”!

Secondly, any vague belief of this sort would vanish as soon as examined. God promised not to destroy the Earth by flood, but nobody takes that to mean that nobody will ever die in a flood, that sea levels will never rise and fall, — if several billion of us end up clinging to the Himalayas for life, that’s still not complete destruction!

The only denialist I know well (my Dad) simply doesn’t believe that the puny efforts of humans can make such an impression on such a vast world.

Hannah’s Dad, a nitpick: Conservative Christian theologians understand that human dominion of the earth ought to reflect the dominion of a loving creator-redeemer — ie, exploitation is wrong, stewardship is right. I imagine conservative Jewish theologians have similar views.

Yes, that’s entirely possible. (Heeey, didn’t that knock ya for a loop, I actually sort of agreed with you there… almost. Kind of.) Nevertheless it isn’t quite what we’re talking about in this case, is it. The human race could manage such a transition in its own sweet time, depending on the (pretty sturdy) pace of techno-innovation, if left to its own devices… unfortunately, if the AGW theory is true, it sort of puts a hard time-frame on things, yes? That’s what makes matters so complicated, wouldn’t you say?

If you wanted to cut global GHG emissions by say 25% over the next 10 years (or whatever figure is fashionable these days), and I mean in the real NEXT ten years, not some hypothetical UN-run future ten years, then in practical terms you are talking about cutting global industrial production by a significant margin on a VERY steep time curve. Since nothing like this has ever before been managed gently or even competently, it seems safe to say that millions would die as a result, possibly tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions. I think you should face that probability. IF you’re really serious and certain about your theory and its dire implications, then maybe that’s a price you’re willing to own up to. My question then is: just how serious are you? Or another way of putting it is: just how accurate are your modelling predictions? Are they as accurate as the predictions made every day by say heliocentricity or aerospace-travel science? If not, why not? What are you willing to bet on them?

This would ordinarily lead me to an even more grave concern, but it would be read here as snark so I’ll skip it.

Brian — well you’re certainly entitled to set the rules, sir, so I can’t fault you for that. But consider for a moment the idea of competing claims: sometimes one’s moniker comes with a lot of baggage, which might predispose the reader, especially on an avowedly partisan site, to a prejudicial view. In the interest of getting a “clean read,” so to speak, there’s options one might consider. But of course the thing remains at your discretion. I will ask you to note, however, that I’ve done no “sock-puppeteering” in the sense of creating bogus personae who support one another.

Mercurius — eh, more misdirection. But hey, it’s okay, man — just say 5 Sancta Marias, whoo! Five Hail Marys and you’re back on the street, with Father Rivera. I bet you were a regular champ on the high school debating team. Funny, ain’t it, how those rules no longer apply in the big bad world.

Helen I heard Paul Gilding too. I think everyone should read the transcript when it goes up. He has the same sense of urgency as Climate Code Red.