“Now, did you want to talk about the foundations of my criticism of some of the science and scientists recently involved in climate research? Because I’ll guarantee you the foundations are stronger than your critcisms of me.”
Sure! Why not? I like that game. Let’s play.
But I see it as a threat that must be dealt with in the same context as many other threats to our continued development. I believe our first responsibility is to the poor of this world, and that brings an immediate conflict between our responsiblity to them and to remediation of global warming. The most important thing the poor need is access to cheap energy, which will serve to worsen CO2 emissions. But I have to say their need is so pressing that we should address it first.
Remarkably, this is pretty much the eco-equity point of view. As regards policy, he and I are more or less in agreement: solving poverty cannot be separated from global energy policy, and poverty must be solved.
The problem comes when Tom takes on science:
I believe the first theory of global warming–that a doubling of concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a slight warming of the planet’s mean temperatures–but not the second–that this will trigger positive feedback through the untrammeled growth of water vapor leading to much more drastic temperature rises.
Now where the heck does he get that from? OK, kids, be polite.
On what basis is he claiming to know anything about water vapor feedback? None whatsoever. It is a “belief”.