“Preference for warmer regions has been a key determinant of internal population shifts in the United States and other industrialized countries in the post-World War II era. Internal migrations toward the Sunbelt have been eased by science and technology developments that, for example, cooled torrid summer air and controlled malaria in the South, and along the Gulf coast.” (National Academy of Sciences, below)
The mainstream media war against the green greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), cannot negate the most settled part of the climate change debate. Into the 1990s, it was accepted practice to present the scientific consensus of the beneficial qualities of CO2 on the planet. Given its relevance for today’s debate, it is worth revisiting the National Academy of Sciences, et al., Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1992).…
” … we have to acknowledge that property rights in climate *cannot* be defined fully and we thus have to find some shared institution for governing the climate commons and managing emissions.” (Kiesling)
“One can think humans are causing the planet to warm but logically and humanely conclude that we should do nothing about it.” (Horwitz)
Lynne Kiesling is an electricity specialist who describes herself as working in the classical liberal tradition. Problem is, she refuses to define what classical liberalism or a free market is in regard to electricity. She instead endorses central government planning for the wholesale grid, among other Statist proposals. [1] In so doing, she ignores how the traditions she espouses argue against her positions (Hayek on central planning, Coase on transaction costs, Public Choice on politicization, etc.).…
“The popular climate discussion … looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability … because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite; we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe. High-energy civilization, not climate, is the driver of climate livability.”
– Alex Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014), pp. 126–127.
Physical climate change in terms of human welfare defines the debate between the alarmists and skeptics. And a good way to begin that debate is to put climate livability and nature in proper context. The quotation above does just that, tearing away the deep ecology notion that nature is benign, optimal, and fragile.
There is one graphic, one data series, that makes Epstein’s point — and puts the climate alarmists and forced energy transformationists on their heels.…