@jakeawake As I say at the outset, if you're a Catastrophist, this blog isn't for you. Rather, it's for those who harbor any doubts at all about CAGW and are therefore willing to listen. Telos is a Catastrophist and therefore has no interest in reading my blog or anything else, including listening to the David Rubin interview (which is good, by the way, Rubin himself at least being open-minded enough to have Epstein on his show).

Meanwhile, Bill McKibben has revealed how catastrophically insane Catastrophism is by calling for nothing less that a wartime government takeover of the U.S. economy in order to fight "Climate Change," when no less than Google ended is renewable energy R&D program when it finally realized that atmospheric CO2 emissions cannot be stopped, much less reversed:

We decided to combine our energy innovation study’s best-case scenario results with Hansen’s climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold. Our calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones, freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among others. Our reckoning showed that reversing the trend would require...radical technological advances in cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering the carbon.

Those calculations cast our work at Google’s RE<C program in a sobering new light. Suppose for a moment that it had achieved the most extraordinary success possible, and that we had found cheap renewable energy technologies that could gradually replace all the world’s coal plants -- a situation roughly equivalent to the energy innovation study’s best-case scenario. Even if that dream had come to pass, it still wouldn’t have solved climate change. This realization was frankly shocking: Not only had RE<C failed to reach its goal of creating energy cheaper than coal, but that goal had not been ambitious enough to reverse climate change. — http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy

So save your breath with Telos and his ilk, as they are far too in thrall to Emperor Climate Change to realize that he has no clothes on.