Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

I’m skeptical of the notion that climate change is being driven by human activity . . . and thoroughly unconvinced that the planet will continue to warm causing catastrophic results.

But what if? If the globe is warming, what to do about it?

For starters, sell your beach house in Florida. Global warming means ice sheets melting, oceans rising, shoreline lost.

But for those of us without the beach house, what is the cost of global warming compared to the cost of fixing the problem?

Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, looked at this question and concluded that solving the problem of climate change is not cost-effective.

Lomborg is indeed concerned about warming and says that in an ideal world we’d “solve it.” But he says we have to set priorities, and that “[w]hat we can do about [global warming] is very little at a very high cost.”

In a Washington Post column, Lomborg warned that the damage done — especially to the world’s poor — by cutting carbon emissions will far outweigh the benefits. The estimated cost from projected climate damage is $1.1 trillion dollars. The projected expense of cutting enough emissions to avoid that damage is $46 trillion.

I’m skeptical about global warming. But spending $46 for every buck saved takes me well beyond skepticism. I’m against any such idiotic plan. If we must have catastrophe, I prefer the cheaper one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor

8 Comments

  1. Donovan says:

    I find it quite ridiculous that believers of man made global warming claim it is our carbon release that is the problem. My guess is they never learned in school that H2O is the main green house gas. Even if it was carbon humans only produce roughly 8% of the carbon released, volcanoes have us beat greatly in carbon release. If we want to do something for the environment we should stop subsidizing factory farms to chop down the rain forest to make cheap unhealthy food.

  2. Drifter says:

    There is every reason to be sceptical. From the beginning, the concept of Global Warming has been seen by the Envirosocialist/anti-capitalist movement as nothing more than a convenient tool to panic an ignorant public into useful political positions.

    This has been a gravy-train of money and political power for the organizations involved. They have been allowed to use it for political purposes in much the same way that they used their previous hypothesis,(global cooling).

    These people are not making a scientific argument but rather one that is diguised as science, when it is , in fact, purely political!

    It is important for the public to become educated, at least to the point where they recognise when their strings are being pulled and by whom!

  3. s. ridgway says:

    How greenhousey is carbon dioxide?

    About Global warming: There seems to have been a small drift upward in average
    world temperatures in the past few decades, and a large constituency has
    developed blaming the effect on our society emitting greenhouse gases, and
    demanding enormous and costly effort to mitigate the problem. I personally
    am dubious that the future effects will be large, and that our emissions
    will have anything to do with future climate changes.

    The issue is very political. Those who believe in GW can get research
    grants from Governments, those opposed are told to shut up.

    In 1986 at an APS convention I met a fellow former Princeton University Graduate
    Student who was then a Professor at Johns Hopkins. He had done his 1947 PhD
    thesis under John Wheeler on radiation transport in the atmosphere, and had
    made Climatology his career choice. I asked him then how GW studies were
    going. He replied that he could then not be sure whether the temperature
    coefficient for carbon dioxide was positive or negative.

    At present hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of MIT says it is positive, but quite small. Read chapter 3 in his book “Divine Wind” where he discusses atmospheric temperature differences that provide the hurricane energy supply. To make carbon dioxide a real problem it is claimed that it greatly increases the effect of water vapor.
    If you are in the GW business you believe in such a magnification factor, if
    reducing carbon dioxide emissions will cost you, you don’t believe it.

    Stuart Ridgway
    PhD Physics Princeton 1952

  4. Anne Calzone says:

    Another great column, Paul! I love these “jewels” I get in my inbox each day. I don’t know how you do it, but you do a great job. Of course, the liberals and politicians do give you lots of material to work with.

    Anne C.

  5. Paul Jacob says:

    Thanks so much, Anne. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is indeed a wealth of material. And more being generated by the special-interest class every day.

  6. Mary Bodily says:

    I do not have PHD or even an Master’s degree but I do have logic. If the north pole’s temperature is normally -20 degrees and it warms up to -19 degrees, it’s the ice still frozen? There are changes happening in my area of California but not for the warmer. Hum, did we get the +1 degree from the artic which cooled our area down 10 degrees? It is all very strange and much conjecture.

  7. Rubicon says:

    reports now confirm global temperatures have been cooling for perhaps the past ten years, not warming. The claim the past years have been the hottest, has been debunked. That title belongs to the 1930’s or 1940’s.
    Last time the earth was warm during what is called the medieval period, this planet experienced another phenomena. It is referred to as, the “Renaissance.” Life for average human beings became significantly better during that period. I mean, significantly better as life expectancy increased, diseases decreased, incomes increased, crop outputs increased, & man developed significantly both environmentally & scientifically. It was heaven on earth for those who went through the horrors of the medieval times, no food, serfdom, & plagues.
    In short, a warmer earth could mean a better life for hundreds of millions of average people.
    But then again, the left thinks we need to allow many to die off since they think there are already too many of us. These are the same folks who told the world global cooling in the 70’s would mean billions would starve. Yet man developed the farming methods & other so much that we ended up with more food than we could consume, so we give it away to those in need.
    Personally, I could care less if the coastal areas move inland some ten or even twenty miles. So what, we can adapt. Warmer will always trump cooler or colder!
    Spending all this taxpayer money so the likes of Al Gore can become ultra wealthy does little for me. Lets spend our money on actually helping those in need & not by giving to Al Gore who will then go around passing trivial sums out as though he is some sort of messiah type doing good for the poor. This entire issue has been dramatized & is being used to make us all good Lil obedient socialists under the thumbs of people who I would not trust babysitting a pet maggot.

  8. Stafon says:

    Your answer was just what I neeedd. It’s made my day!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2017 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top