He concluded that San Pablo Bay would shield Napa through fog generated from evaporation, and the the main effect of warming would be higher nighttime temps, which would help with physiological ripening without contributing to higher sugar!

What more could Napa ask for?

I do agree that his questions revealed an ignorance of the realities of a farmer’s life.

I, personally, think there is reason for significant environmental action to be taken, but to forecast dire consequences, bordering on the death of an industry or region, all to stir up fears with Climate Change as the boogie man. By doing that, he is doing his cause and his reputation a disservice.

There are lots of thing that need to be done to combat AGW, but Napa’s wine industry will more likely be hurt in the next few decades by idiotic wine laws and legislation, than it is by a globally significant, but regionally insignificant change in temperature.

I thought John Williams’ comments were honest, truthful responses by someone who is environmentally conscious and understands the reality that there is more than one issue that the industry has to face. Not everything has to be about climate change.

Good post.