Does Climate Catastrophe Pass the Giggle Test? por David Friedman:
I find unconvincing the claim that climate change on the scale suggested by the results of the IPCC models would have catastrophic consequences for humans.
Human beings, after all, currently live, work, grow food in a much wider range of climates than that. If people can currently live, work, grow crops over a temperature range of much more than two degrees, it is hard to imagine any reason why most of them couldn’t continue to do so, about as easily, if average temperature shifted up by that amount—especially if they had a century to adjust to the change.
In the course of a century, most existing houses will be replaced. If temperatures are rising, they will be replaced with houses designed for a (slightly) warmer climate. If sea levels are rising, they will be replaced, in low lying coastal areas, with houses a little farther inland. Over a century, farmers will change at least the varieties they are growing, very possibly the kind of crop, multiple times, in response to the development of new crop varieties, shifting demand, and similar changes. If temperatures are rising, they will gradually shift to crops adapted to a (slightly) warmer climate.
…. the claim that we now have good reason to expect climate change on a scale that will produce …. catastrophe for many is one that no reasonable person should take seriously.




