I love it when FT columnists get all catty. Willem Buiter did a blog post about climate change, asking what’s the ideal temperature for the atmosphere, and since then debate has been unfolding in the comments (including yours truly). It was all very civilised. Friendly, even. Until “Dave” came in with a rebuttal of Buiter’s argument:
Was this supposed to be a ‘reducto ad absurdam’ critique of climate change sceptics? Well done.
Of course the change and the rate matters more than the temperature (within limits). We’ve built a complex and precarious civilisation that is dependent on agriculture and trade based on the current temperature.
Concern about this is not called ‘anthrocentric’ it’s called ‘humanist’.
Martin Wolf tried. He really did. But he just couldn’t help himself:
It is “reductio ad absurdum”. One does not have to use Latin. But, if one does, one might as well get it right. And, while I am being a pedant, it is “anthropocentric“, since the same applies to the use of Greek.
If people cannot get this sort of thing right, one begins to wonder about their other arguments.
Ooh. Watch and learn. Know what Martin calls that in his hood? The Senior Common Room smackdown. Get down wit your bad self.
