The Winning Climate Change Strategy isn’t Debating Science, It is Arguing National Priorities

cover_20170501_toc

The National Review has an article  (Starting on Page #23)  that reflects the opinion expressed in many posts on this Blog.

And then a funny thing happened: “Denial” gave way to those more reasoned arguments. Perhaps the accumulation of scientific evidence changed minds. Perhaps it was only the political reality that sank in. Regardless, opponents of aggressive climate policy mostly stopped questioning whether the climate was warming
and whether human activity played a role—the two points of agreement that define the famous “97 percent consensus” of climate scientists—and started explaining why that consensus did not justify costly and ineffective policies. This shift in focus from the basic science of climate change to its public-policy implications has been a disaster for climate activists, exposing the flabbiness at the core of their position.

Later in the article it states:

Conversely, an accurate statement of the science would only strengthen his position in defending the policies he seeks to implement. The more he focuses discussion on costs and benefits of EPA actions, the more reasonable he will seem—and the more reasonable he will be.

The winning strategy isn’t arguing the “science,” the winning strategy is arguing that the benefits don’t justify the costs. The benefits of fighting climate change are estimated to be measured in a fraction of a Degree C change in global temperature a hundred or more years in the future. The cost of preventing that highly speculative Degree C increase in global temperature is measured in percentages of world GDP. The speculative benefits simply don’t justify the costs.

The argument is simple, would you rather have a new school, hospital, university, smaller class sizes, roads, and bridges, or would you rather have temperatures be 1 Degree C lower in 100 years? Not only the most insanely liberal person would vote against education, healthcare, roads and bridges for a speculative gain 100 years in the future. We have kids graduating today that can’t read, we have people that are uninsured, we have bridges that are collapsing, and we have universities that are closing. Those are real issues, imposing real costs on society, and fixing them would have real material impacts on the average American’s lives.

Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

$7,000,000,000,000/year is the equivalent of:

Giving every American $22,000/yr
Giving every person on the face of the Earth $933/yr
7,000 new drugs/yr
8,750 new major hospitals, or 4.7 million new hospital beds
14,000,000 miles of new road/yr
28,000,000 Family MDs salaries
70,000,000 Teacher’s salaries
35 Apollo Missions
Preserve 700,000,000 acres of Rain Forest
70,000 endangered species breeding farms

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Related Posts:

Political “Scientist” Michael Mann Prefers Censorship, Slander and Punitive Action Over Debate

Bill Nye “Is Not The Right” Guy Would Prefer an Ice Age Over the Current Warming

March For Pseudoscience and Watermelon Environmentalism

With Friends Like Environmentalists, the World Doesn’t Need Enemies

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One

Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Winning Climate Change Strategy isn’t Debating Science, It is Arguing National Priorities”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s