Joseph Romm complains in Climate Progress that Roger Pielke 's recent Nature Commentary on the limits of climate intervention is "pointless", "misleading" and "embarrassing"
"Since this paper doesn’t define the word “innovation,” it is very hard to tell what precisely the authors’ point is (other than to lead us into the technology trap). ..this is characteristic of Pielke’s work —he doesn’t define terms specifically enough to make policy-relevant conclusions.' [emphasis in the original]
...all the regular readers of this blog know why the technology trap is dangerous (it leads to delay, which is fatal to the planet’s livability)...failing to stabilize well below, say, 700 parts per million of CO2 ppm is really, really, really suicidal ....So what is the point of the piece? To convince people the situation is hopeless? [Nature actually runs a side piece on the commentary titled, “Are the IPCC scenarios ‘unachievable’? — and people call me an alarmist!]."
While Romm neglects to define 'fatal ' or ' suicidal' in his essay, it elicited a reader response some may find alarming .
" it might take, not only media campaigns like Al Gore’s recently announced advertising platform, but also...some climate protesters ...might... set themselves on fire with gasoline in Washington or New York, in front of the UN building.... to say to the world community: “We must stop killing the Earth now !”
Such protest-suicides...have such visual power as to make people who are not convinced do a re-think...about... the USA still being in denial about climate change realities."
[ 'Dabby Bloom ' April 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 am]