I have been consistently critical of climate alarmism and the billions wasted on misjudged climate policies, but I think most critics of my views on this don't really understand the position of people like me. I believe they assume that, either; a) I'm trivialising the empirical forecasting of climate scientists, b) I don't under Navier-Stokes equations, or c) I'm dismissive of the dangers of climate change on the spurious pretext that the vast majority of people pushing the agenda are such incompetent thinkers.
But that's not it at all. I do take the empirical forecasting seriously, I do understand Navier-Stokes equations, and fallacious ad hominem reasoning is not my game.
So, I'm not an adversary up to this point, because I'm also fully seized of the high likelihood that there are significant climate issues to solve. The data models suggest there will be an increase in floods and droughts, sea level rises, a changing ecosystem, and the need to adapt to some regional disruptions as the earth's temperature increases.
But after this point of small concordance, our harmony ends - because if you are a climate alarmist, activist, or just generally behind the financially exorbitant environmentalist policies, then I'm afraid you are missing too much of the bigger picture. Even if we ignore the fact that simulated atmospheric and ocean conditions based on computational fluid dynamics increases in margins of error the further forward we try to project (and we shouldn't ignore that, but let's be generous and do it anyway), computational fluid dynamics is not the tool for assessing economic change, technological change and climate change combined, over time. If you only focus on the latter one of the three, it's an anaemic, sub-standard equation.
For that reason, the proffered formula for spending so many billions on future climate change mitigation now is so unbalanced, it's astounding it persists unquestioningly. The formula for taking such drastic action now would have to be this: analysis of a reasonable margin of error taking into account the possibilities of chaotic anomalies in the Navier-Stokes models, and a projected model of the curve of human progress during the same timeframe, alongside which, a red queen-type of projection justifying why the arms race is won by the climate-over-human-ingenuity forecast not human-ingenuity-over-climate forecast.
And that has never been propounded, not once, ever, by anyone, as far as I can tell. It's the second part of the equation - the projected model of the curve of human progress during the same timeframe - that always gets missed. Both have potential chaotic perturbations, but the climate alarmism model speculates with billions of pounds of sunk costs without any regard for the progression curve of humans within that frame period. In layman's terms, the choices made are roughly; spend billions now and regulate the oil industry out of the market and have no regard for future progression, or spend the money today on a more prudent allocation of resources, and expect that, because of several good reasons (we'll be smarter, richer, more technologically astute in the coming years, and because we already adhere to the law of parsimony), we'll have far far far less trouble solving these problems than the misguided people of today think.
