Climate Change, Again

I hadn't been to Samizdata recently, but I noticed they had a new post up and checked it out, here.  The post starts out pretty slowly, talking about Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government and how boring British politics are these days.

Then there is the shift to discussing a "recent cabinet reshuffle, in the form of the appointment of someone called Owen Patterson to be the government's Environment Secretary."  That, in turn, provides an excuse to talk about the fact that we have recently seen a shift in the climate wars from fear of "climate catastrophe" to discussion of climate change. 

So, why the change of public mood, and consequent slight Cameron shift? Well, part of it is that climate catastrophe scepticism is growing and growing. As I [Blogger Brian Micklethwait, out of London] keep insisting, the key to all this is catastrophe.  If the climate is just changing a bit, and if sea levels are about to rise a bit, then the obvious answer is for us to adapt, and let the market send us whatever signals it is inclined to.  Only if climate catastrophe looms does it make any sense to shut down regular economics and switch the entire world over to emergency tyranny mode, of the sort that the people who set the climate catastrophe scam up in the first place yearn for.  But more and more people now believe that there is no more reason now than at any other time in human history to expect climate catastrophe.  In short, our side is (as it has been for several years now) winning the climate catastrophe argument (which is the bit of the argument that matters), big time.

There it is, climate change v climate catastrophe.  The first we, as humans, have been dealing with for tens of thousands of years.  The second raises the "better red than dead" question.  How far are we prepared to retreat back through 50,000 years of evolution and development to keep the climate where it is today?

Regards  —  Cliff