Replies

I've been in a small interactive group led by Bjorn Lomborg. His premise is that global warming is real, it is man-made, but its consequences aren't all that severe. To the extent one region of the world is harmed, another region benefits. (For example, global warming may open up more land for agricultural purposes in Canada.)

Furthermore, Lomborg says that proposed reactions to global warming are either too expensive / not technologically feasible or they are not very effective. Lomborg's basic conclusion was that there are much more cost effective ways to improve the world than tackling global warming. Providing low-cost immunizations to millions in developing countries would, in Lomborg's opinion, provide much more bang for the buck.

However, Paris was a well-meaning — if flawed — attempt to address a genuine global issue. With no international climate policies at all, it is probable that we would see a temperature rise of perhaps 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. The United States needs to find a smarter solution. Climate economists have found that green energy R&D investment would be a much more efficient approach.

This is very much in line with Trump’s campaign promise of “investment in research and development across the broad landscape of academia” and with its suggestion that we could develop “energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels.”

Furthermore, Lomborg says that proposed reactions to global warming are either too expensive / not technologically feasible or they are not very effective. Lomborg's basic conclusion was that there are much more cost effective ways to improve the world than tackling global warming. Providing low-cost immunizations to millions in developing countries would, in Lomborg's opinion, provide much more bang for the buck.

I disagree with Mr. Lomborg's premise that global-warming is real, and caused by man, however - unusual for Global Warming religionists - he seems to be sane. He acknowledges that a Quixotic attempt to 'slay' this Global Warming dragon (myth) is a foolish use of man's resources, and they could be better spent (e.g., providing low-cost immunizations, or pesticide spraying, in third-world countries).
So fie on Mr. Lomborg's religious belief, but kudos to his sane comments.

Lomborg may or may not be correct, and while I like his approach, he misses the point. The point about climate change is not to change the climate. The point is to institute world-wide rationing of resources based on a political, not economic, construct.

If you read the European, and particularly British, publications on global warming, this goal becomes quite clear. Even when they talk about how much China pollutes, they always come back to per capita energy and resource consumption in the United States, which they say has to be decreased.

The mantra of climate change/global warming is only one facet of the socialist globalist world order that they are trying to foist on us. Through “climate regulation” you will see a standard world-wide per capita “energy ration” for every person on the face of the earth. And energy is not the only thing they intend to ration. We will also have rations for food, clothing, housing, transportation, education, employment, entertainment, and....wait for it...

...information. Yes, the socialist world order will decide what information is true, and just how much and what form we receive it, and more importantly, what “infomation” we are allowed to disseminate.

The key to global control is the institution of global rationing. People who are subject to rationing are not free.