Jim Manzi has been a relentless, logical and articulate commentator on the other side (from me) of anthropogenic global warming and our response. He reaffirms my high opinion of him with the post containing this closer:
What’s especially ironic abut a lot of the commentary on the post is that lots of people take assertions of uncertainty in climate forecasts as undercutting the case for emissions mitigation, so those on the Right argue for uncertainty, and those on the Left argue the opposite. In the sophisticated AGW debate, the economic justification for mitigation is seen as, conceptually, an insurance premium. If the expected warming takes place with expected effects, it is very difficult to justify the economic costs of mitigation, and therefore it is a hedge against much-worse-than-expected effects. Therefore, the greater the uncertainty in climate prediction, the stronger the case for mitigation – uncertainty is not our friend. So before you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, recognize that in pointing out limitations in the current practice of climate model validation, I am actually arguing a point that cuts against my stated policy preference. [More]
For a profession where not using subsidized crop insurance gathers fearful glances in my direction, the idea of offsetting growing uncertainty in the AGW debate among farmers falls strangely flat.
Still, I think the ag votes could be bought as usual.