Shermer’s point is so incredibly obvious, I am sure very few people will be able to “get it”:
In my opinion we need to chill out on all extremist plans that entail expenses best described as Brobdingnagian, require our intervention into developing countries best portrayed as imperialistic, or involve state controls best portrayed as fascistic. Give green technologies and free markets a chance
Will the above earn him (again?) the label of Denialist? Who knows? For well-known reasons, his mention of Bjorn Lomborg seems to have caused a stir (even if they both are firmly in the AGW camp…I presume that’s what happens when one agrees with people all too ready to label as “denialist” anybody that doesn’t fully agree with them).
Shermer suggests also five questions to help establish if one is “a global warming skeptic, or […] skeptical of the global warming skeptics“:
- Is the earth getting warmer?
- Is the cause of global warming human activity?
- How much warmer is it going to get?
- What are the consequences of a warmer climate?
- How much should we invest in altering the climate?
Shermer’s answers: (1) yes, (2) “primarily“, (3) “moderate warming with moderate changes” (following the IPCC, no less), (4) “consequences must be weighed in the balance” (that is, positive consequences should be considered too), (5) much less than the “Brobdingnagian“ proposals being talked about, and not even as much as recommended by the IPCC (with references to Lomborg and Nordhaus).
Interestingly, Shermer shows his skepticism increasing from nil (questions 1 and 2) to almost 100% (question 5)
How do you score on Shermer’s questions? I can answer also on the basis of my About page: (1) yes, (2) slightly, (3) between almost nothing and half of what Shermer expects, (4) overall, consequences will be positive and (5) zero.