Final part of a 3 part series by Ronald D Voisin
In order for catastrophic climate alarm to prevail, three fundamental questions must all be answered in the affirmative. And even if they are all answered in the affirmative, it remains quite unclear that our actions and expenditure are wise or appropriate. Let’s examine various scenarios for the answers.
1. There is little need to examine the cases when two of the answers are no. Embarrassment will be high, usefulness low with similar best actions/solutions.
2. In all cases there are far more important and relevant issues to spend money on (as it is trivially within our means to further control microbes and insects).
Various rational for my table entries are contained in my prior two WUWT postings:
About the Author
Ronald D Voisin is a retired engineer. He spent 27 years in the Semiconductor Lithography Equipment industry mostly in California’s Silicon Valley. Since retiring, he has made a hobby of studying climate change for the last 7 years. Ron received a BSEE degree from the Univ. of Michigan – Ann Arbor in 1978 and has held various management positions at both established equipment companies and start-ups he helped initiate. Ron has authored/co-authored 55 patent applications, 24 of which have issued.