I’m not sure what your point is.
Andrew Winston

My point is that you extrapolate certainty in your policy prescriptions without due diligence, simply relying on the unproven implication that sound science demands your preferred policy positions.

Your premise is simply a bald assertion, without any actual evidence or argument. Tackling climate change by reducing CO2 emissions is not necessarily “good for us anyway”. Less CO2 does not imply cleaner air (certainly not for plants), neither is there any rational argument that reducing CO2 lowers energy costs (which, fun fact, is directly contrary to the idea of creating more jobs, since efficiency is driven by providing more energy with *less* jobs), and on and on and on.

Similarly, less dietary fat doesn’t imply “cleaner arteries”, and less dietary cholesterol doesn’t imply a healthier heart (much less a lower HDL serum cholesterol). We can agree that clogged arteries are bad, and high HDL levels are dangerous and need to be addressed, but if we don’t actually have the basics down, simply taking our favorite talking points as by default true, we’re just as likely (if not more likely) to cause more harm than good when we demand people take action.

You’ve skipped over the very, very important part of actually proving your premises — you simply assume them.

Now, if you want to begin a scientific discussion about those premises, and whether or not there is any overall much less measurable benefit from reducing CO2 emissions, that’s a *different* scientific discussion than whether or not humans have a measurable impact on climate.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Jere Krischel’s story.