Ruth Dixon has incisively and fearlessly rebutted the public position of a prominent climate alarmist. She summarizes the argument that will be asserted again many times in the weeks ahead of Paris COP. And then she stirs up the sand upon which this whole appeal is built.
The article is a review of the recent book by Nicholas Stern, a leading and longtime advocate for fossil fuel reduction treaties. “Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change” by Nicholas Stern is reviewed by Ruth Dixon in the October 2015 edition of Journal of Economic Psychology. It is an important statement deserving careful reading and dissemination. An advance copy of the text is here:
In the end, the problem is with the policies themselves:
“In assessing Stern’s avowedly biased book, readers must confront their own biases. Is Stern right to be so pessimistic about climate change and the inability of nations to build up resilience through economic development? Is he right to be so optimistic about the ability of governments to predict and manage change? If he is correct, we need more than ‘communication strategies’ to meet this challenge – we need arguments that do not rely on a selective presentation of the evidence, and solutions that take into account the physical, chemical and engineering challenges that our collective demand for energy requires. Governments regularly implement costly and unpopular policies if they are convinced that they will be effective. The lack of ‘action’ suggests that such policies are not (yet) available.”
In other words, even if you think there are damages to come from future warming, these policies are not a credible response.
There’s more at her blog: “Stern’s book is not reliable on either science or policy.”
Bravo, Ruth Dixon.