It was only yesterday that Anthony Watts commented about the IPCC WGII report that it signalled:
Ouch. Game over for climate alarm.That comment from Anthony was based on an article by Matt Ridley, which Anthony liked so much he made it a "top sticky post". Matt Ridley wrote about the WGII report (that should be out tomorrow) that "Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects."
How opinions can turn in an instant. Today Anthony is urging his readers (archived here):
The Working Group II IPCC report from the big shindig in Japan this week will be making headlines shortly, but take those headlines with a grain of salt.
Anthony copied the article in which Richard Tol said: "The drafts became too alarmist,". Richard has a different reaction to Matt Ridley when faced with reality. Matt denies, Richard hides.
The dumbo's at WUWT will be more confused than ever. Which is it? "Too alarmist" or "game over for climate alarm"? The GWPF will be in a tizz, too. Both Richard Tol and Matt Ridley are "academically advising" them!
If you want to read more about these contrarian contradictions, I wrote about them yesterday.
From the WUWT comments
There aren't many comments yet. I'll post one which probably referred to this excerpt from the WUWT copy and paste:
He [Richard Tol] said, for instance, farmers could grow new and different crops to offset any negative impacts from climate change that impacted food supplies.
“They will adapt,” Mr. Tol said, Reuters reported. “Farmers are not stupid.”
bushbunny, who is probably from Australia, says:
March 29, 2014 at 10:59 pm
Oh, yes, like the suggestion Australians should dump sheep and cattle, and farm kangaroos.