I usually only read the toad’s articles as a headline on uClimate, but I couldn’t help looking at this one (sorry).
From what I can see, he’s given up on the “doomsday” man-made warming and is now arguing that there still might be a problem from very low levels of man-made warming. So if we are not heading toward a catastrophe as the Toad now seems to be arguing what are we heading toward?
Catastrophe: “an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event.“
In climate terms, does this mean Toad is now predicting less than 2C warming, the level Stern says is unacceptable? The level at which the huge benefits from warming are thought to be overtaken by harm (if one assumes the “scientific” aka “the worst possible imaginable – or worse” scenarios. )
To avoid anyone else having to go to Toad’s blog, I’ve reproduced the article below (And if Toad wants to complain, may I remind him that he refused to help me get a totally scurrilous and false article removed which not only breached my copyright but intentionally libelled me and many other people.)
Anthropogenomorphic: In my view, people invent big words to pretend that simple ideas are complex and falsely give the impression those using them have “special” knowledge. But, in my experience if someone uses these “big” made up words when there is are perfectly good shorter word, it often means they are trying to hide the fact they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
One of the more stupid debating tricks of the “skeptics” is to oscillate between Ha ha, you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming which is obviously not happening so you’re very silly, and when told that CAGW is a strawman that they’ve invented they switch to if it isn’t catastrophic we’ve got nothing to worry about, have we?1
To which the answer is always some variant of if you can’t imagine anything between “catastrophic” and “nothing to worry about” then you’re not thinking. But I’ve got bored of saying it, so I thought I’d write it down and link to it instead.