In yesterday’s Sunday Times (4 June 2017) Nail Ferguson had an op-ed piece entitled “The Cool Logic of Trump trampling on Paris”.
“My view on global warming has always been that I am not qualified to judge the science, but I can take a view on the most rational form and scale of insurance. The plausible costs in terms of flooding, harvest failure, and mass migration will end up being borne by our children and grandchildren more than by use. We need to pay an insurance premium on their behalf, and the obvious one is to invest in technology that reduces carbon emissions.”
- His fears are those forecast by some scientists, but other scientists do not agree. Dr. Ferguson has apparently decided to pick his scientists based judging science, something he says he is not qualified to do.”
- “Carbon” emissions are already very low. It is Carbon Di-oxide, another molecule completely, that some people are afraid of.
- He wants to make the “American Way of Life” less dirty. (What “dirt”, specifically, is he referring to? The invisible carbon-dioxide gas?)
- He things the “obvious way to go” is to live in solar-heated apartments, near our solar-heated workplaces, recycling all waste products, and covering longer distances in electric cars, preferably the safer, driverless variety. I would love to see the energy balance on that idea.
- He says that “The Paris Agreement asks democracies to make sacrifices for future generations”. But what about asking non-democracies, despots, republics, and dis-functional nations to make same sacrifices? He does not explain how transfer of $billions from democracies to non-elected un-democratic trans-national global institutions fixes anything or demonstrate any facts about how that money will be spent.
- He is wrong about dangerous rising sea levels are fixed by the Paris Agreement.
- My view is that carbon di-oxide a trace gas essential for life on this planet and there is little real science, economics and engineering that can prove it worth to support any significant investment that the risk of removing carbon-dioxide compared to the risks of the cures either not having the intended result or unintended consequences we do not understand.
- “Dirty” Pollution has significantly decreased in the last half century
- As in American Thinker, “The futility of the Paris Climate Accord mirrors the futility of the EPA regulations and severe doubts need to be cast on both. As the Institute for Energy Research documents that while child asthma rates rose 131% since 1980, sulfur dioxide was down by 81%, nitrogen dioxide was down by 60%, and ozone was down 33%, Since 1990, Particulate Matter 10 was down by 34%, as child asthma was up 43%. Since 2000, Particulate Matter 2.5 was down 34% as the child asthma rate was flat.”
- He has no understanding of the large percentage of the earth’s surface that must be covered with solar panels to achieve his goals.
- If we are so afraid of climate change and rising sea levels, why not relocate everyone away from the seas to land where home and work heating is not required? What is the cost of that compared to the cost of driving everyone into poverty?
- If we want to buy an insurance policy to protect against the risks of global warming, then buy a policy from an insurance company with terms clearly laid out on what the pay-back would be for, if used.
For more on the Paris Agreement, see “Not a Lot of People Know That” https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/alarmists-twist-data-to-save-paris-agreement/
Also see The Federalist write about Scott Adams 5 June 2017 at http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/05/scott-adams-explains-pivot-climate-change-argument-absurd-sides/