[WILLIALAL]

The difference here is the fact that the destructive force of nuclear weapons is well documented, not some theoretical hypothesis as is global warming.
It is a documented fact that Al Qaeda’s intent is to destroy the US. Again not theory but fact.
The global alarmist are asking us to make huge sacrifices based upon the possibility that global warming will bring disaster whereas Al Qaeda having a nuclear weapon would almost assuredly bring about that result. Therefore a 1% possibility of assured destruction is a far greater threat than a 50% theoretical assumption of disaster by climate change.

[nathanbedford]

Good post.

When one buys insurance that is to replace the economic loss posed by the risk. Unless the insurance company goes bankrupt, you are made whole.

There is no assurance (and certainly no "insurance") that, even if there is climate change occurring that it is occurring as a result of CO2 emissions. There is no assurance that, even if there is climate change being caused by CO2 emissions, that it is being caused by CO2 emissions generated by man. Even if there is anthropomorphic CO2 climate change being generated, there is no assurance that curbing CO2 emissions will eliminate climate change. Even if there is anthropomorphic climate change which can be stopped by curbing CO2 emissions, there is no evidence that mankind is capable of doing so. Even if anthropomorphic climate change could be stopped by man controlling CO2 emissions, there is no assurance that the limits proposed would achieve that purpose. Even if there is anthropomorphic climate change which can be stopped by mankind capable of curbing CO2 emissions sufficiently and further assuming that the limits proposed are sufficient, there is some question whether the impact would be more undesirable than desirable.

When an insurance actuary concludes that there is a statistical probability of loss when they write a particular policy insuring against a defined risk, he does so based on demonstrable data and immutable laws of probability. How in the world can one analogize the cascading level of uncertainties associated with the "science" of climate change with insurance?

Insurance is a cost to protect against a loss which amounts to a fraction of the economic extent of the loss. The curbs proposed in Copenhagen might well cost more than the risk posed by anthropomorphic global warming. In addition to the economic costs, there is the cost of liberty by ceding control over every facet of our economic and personal lives to a nonelected, unaccountable, faceless, super governmental entity which is a recipe for guaranteed tyranny.

Friedman is an ardent climate change advocate and has been for many years. He would practically stop all drilling in America. It is remarkable how far from the bland and bold assurances of climate change made before revelations of fraud that Friedman has come as he is now reduced to groping for this preposterous analogy.