The prominent lukewarmer Matt Ridley is given a run in The Australian today (reprinting an article from The Times) in which he argues that a completely melted Arctic ice cap each summer wouldn't matter much anyway. Quite benign, in fact.
The article quotes some research I haven't read about, so I'll wait for actual scientists to address that. But clearly, the article relies heavily on reasoning that goes over well with the silly and gullible: that a large climatic change like (relatively?) ice free summers in the Arctic in previous millennia were not bad for the wildlife (and humanity) then, so why would it be so bad for them now? I feel the flaws in such reasoning are so obvious, it is hardly worthwhile putting them down on paper. But someone will, I have no doubt, and I'll link to them instead when I notice it...
No comments:
Post a Comment