John Wolcott will lead the discussion that was originally planned for Part 2 of our CA last spring.  His presentation remains unchanged.

Last February, Vince Arguimbau led a discussion entitled, “Agreed carbon emissions cause global warming, but is it an existential threat?” continuing to say, “If scarce resources were maximally devoted to reducing emissions then would the result be worth the cost? If not then how do we efficiently allocate resources to ameliorate and adapt to the changing environment?”

The first IPCC report on the existential threat of global warming was issued in 1990. Since then the debate has degenerated into two polar opposite factions battling from ever more distant ends of the spectrum to the point where each is talking past the other at increasing volume and vehemence.

Accordingly, let’s not debate whether GW is settled science or merely religion, but instead begin a conversation as to how the Global Warming/Climate Change/ Existential threat might be more fully addressed

Articles of Interest

Babcock Ranch Survives Ian 30 miles from Ft. Meyers 

Libertarian vs Authoritarian
Post: Europe’s version of the burning of the Amazon rainforests

US oil industry MOCKs Bideo after OPEC announced production cuts: Energy groups say administration now has no choice but to come “crawling back” to domestic producers. 

Mark Mills, physicist and Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute

https://dariendma.org/wp-content/uploads/All-Elec-Cars-by-2035-2.mp4

China’s Coal Power Boom 

ESG Does Neither Much Good nor Very Well

The Coming Global Crisis of Climate Policy

Climate Gains are ‘inconvenient truth”-It’s not all bad news for the environment.

The real-world consequences of green extremism. 

The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring

Humans Can Adapt to Climate Change Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
The dangers of climate change are “no longer over the horizon.” Humanity may soon pass the “point of no return.” These are the phrases U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used to describe what he called an “utterly inadequate” global response to rising temperatures. But if we were to decisively act, and restructure our global economy with the climate in mind, who would shoulder the burden? Or should our collective focus orient more toward humans’ capacity for adaptation?     Podcast: Arguing in favor of the motion are Bjorn Lomberg and Michael Shellenberger. Arguing against the motion is Kaveh Madani and Michele Wucker. Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What If scarce resources were maximally devoted to reducing emissions then would the result be worth the cost?  If not then how do we efficiently allocate resources to ameliorate and adapt to the changing environment?