(The obvious answer is that the inconsistency is in bad faith, to fudge the numbers into fitting the author's preferred narrative. Is there any legitimate explanation?)
(The obvious answer is that the inconsistency is in bad faith, to fudge the numbers into fitting the author's preferred narrative. Is there any legitimate explanation?)
This is straight up climate denial. It’s very pernicious. It admits that climate is changing, it references one of the more dire predictions (3 C), and it doesn’t deny that the change is human caused. It’s pernicious because it shifts attention from an important negative implication (uncertainty with climate) towards an positive but inconsequential impact (more land area). Instead of talking about mass migrations of billions of people and food availability, we’re talking about land.
These arguments are always all over the place, they vary from “it’s not happening” to “don’t worry about it if it is” Climate skepticism has never been about good faith scientific inquiry, it’s always been about insulating incumbent interests from change.
[1] http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2021/11/a-prediction-we-w...
> Both of these calculations are based on average temperature. Arguably what habitability depends on is be maximum temperature. If it gets unendurably hot during a summer day, the fact that winter nights are cold is little compensation.
I had missed that sentence, but fail to see how it makes things better. It just means that the author is aware of the problem and has no excuse for using a different methodology for the two cases.