Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to University of Austin Research Associate Todd Davidson, preparing for war on climate change means we should disregard scientific uncertainty.
Commentary: We Should Prepare for Climate Change Like We Prepare for War
Climate change poses a more significant threat to global security than the low probability event of a ground war with China. And yet, we spent $590 billion on defensein 2017 and maintained readiness against the unlikely prospect of a large conventional war. It’s time for conservatives to recognize our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense by addressing the rising threat of climate change.
There are three primary explanations that are used to justify inaction on climate change: The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.
First: Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.
…
Despite the uncertainty in the timing and location of military threats, we are always ready for war just in case. The same approach of readiness should be used for climate action, because despite the uncertainty in how climate change could impact the world, the threat on the horizon is real and has the potential to be catastrophic.
…
Read more: http://fortune.com/2018/04/17/climate-change-conservatives-defense-spending/
The problem with rushing headlong into expenditure is the money being demanded is utterly astronomical.
For example, Professor Aled Jones, Professor & Director of the Global Sustainability Institute, declared back in February that the $300 billion per year currently spent on renewables is far short of the money required to address the climate threat.
Waving away uncertainties when that kind of money is on the table is simply unacceptable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Out of UT. No surprise, really.
How can supposedly ‘smart’ people be so effing stupid? Actually I know. I have met a few. Book smart with zero personal skills and zero common sense. Actually I see it all the time. So I’ve answered my own question. Thank you!
tom s
thankfully I have read few books in my life other than “where Eagles Dare” and various Bond books.
I’m sure some formal education would help me, but I’m largely happy with practical education.
Of course it’s good to be cautious, but sometimes you can go overboard too. Like fortify your home, never step outside, and shoot every stranger just in case. Ironically that would be much more costly than the alleged threat.
Fredar
Aw shit!
Back to the drawing board.
🙂
Here’s a problem that’s been staring us in the face for decades and is basically being ignored due to the belief that we need to control the climate:
“Aid groups come to Africa and give out solar lamps the size of a pumpkin,” he said.
“But no one in London or Los Angeles would be willing to make do with that. Don’t tell me that China, Russia and the West should have electricity and black people in Mali or Mozambique should live in huts with light from a solar toy. We need power for cities, factories, mines and to run schools and hospitals.”
African countries, he said, needed a massive jump in the amount of power they generate.
“Tanzania, for example, has around 70% of its people still short of electricity while it sits on four billion tons of coal. And still we hear activists from wealthy countries chanting, ‘Leave it in the ground.’
“Electricity in Africa is not just an ethical issue, it’s the key to security and growth. It’s having no work and no hope that sees people forced into poverty, joining militia or heading for Europe,” he said. “The rich world ignores that at its peril.”
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-03-15-op-ed-clean-coal-is-the-way-to-power-africa-and-sa-academics-know-how/#.WtdEjn8pBhF
The EU with colonialism are doing less than nothing. China is bringing infrastructure of all kinds with its win-win Belt and Road Initiative, known also as the New Silk Road. Many nagions realize this is the alternative.
And after all China is using a version of FDR’s New Deal and RFC financing. Exactly what Trump needs to repair the US economy as well.
The good professor is cautioning us to “Be prepared for war” not so much to enter into combat. I see some good rationale in that advice. If the climate changes somewhere the residence of that area will be much more capable of survival and likely able to flourish if they have developed the natural resources needed to provide them abundant, affordable, reliable energy. It seems to me that acting on the professors advice would involve development of fossil fuels or nuclear power until other dense, affordable sources are available.
Indonesia with an average yearly temperature of 26C with 70-90% humidity has 270,000,000 people living in an area about 1/5 that of the US is a member of G-20 with a healthy growing economy.
Isn’t this the climate that we are told to we need to prepare against by proponents of AGW?
Right on, Mr Schnurr. A most fashionable development economist of the 1970’s was F. Shemaker, whose book, “Small is Beautiful” boosted the idea of all the micro technologies that could help the poor rise out of the muck in sub-Sahara Africa and other places. Of course, that’s not how we did it. Dig up that coal. Coal-fired power plants are exactly what these people need, now using the best scrubbing technologies of the present day, scandalously ignored by the Chinese.
Since the good Prof. invokes war, Rand Paul reminded everyone only Congress can declare war. Of course that little obstacle along with the 1st, 4th, 5th and now 6th amendments are trampled upon. Would he propose to use Obama’s AUMF to attack immanent global CO2. Not surprising how anti-terrorism legislation would be invoked adainst CO2.
According to his UTA bio
Todd started his career working for Raytheon where he helped to design and deploy four different missile defense product lines.
I sure hope that when he was designing and deploying missile defense systems for Raytheon he didn’t have the same casually dismissive attitude towards scientific uncertainty as he is displaying now towards climate change! If he did, I wonder how many cities on Earth could now be at risk from his missiles!
I find this prospect far more alarming than climate change. At least we can adapt to that!
Oops! Sorry for the all-italics in the above post. It should have read:
According to his UTA bio
“Todd started his career working for Raytheon where he helped to design and deploy four different missile defense product lines.”
I sure hope that when he was designing and deploying missile defense systems for Raytheon he didn’t have the same casually dismissive attitude towards scientific uncertainty as he is displaying now towards climate change! If he did, I wonder how many cities on Earth could now be at risk from his missiles!
I find this prospect far more alarming than climate change. At least we can adapt to that!
His education is in Mechanical Engineering, PH.D thesis:Davidson, F.T., An Experimental Study of Film Cooling, Thermal Barrier Coatings and Contaminant Deposition on an Internally Cooled Turbine Airfoil Model, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2012
Then perhaps he is with UTA’s esteemed School of Strategic Voodoo.
‘It’s time for conservatives to recognize our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense by addressing the rising threat of climate change.’
Who knew that conservatives have some actual power?
‘Climate change’ is nebulous. It has no meaning. He demands we empty the treasury on the undefined and UNQUANTIFIED.
I see nothing has changed. The educated still do not know the difference between climate and WEATHER.
The difference is that the evaluation of chinese military capability does not contain a fatal statistical flaw.
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/human-caused-global-warming/
We should invade China today to prevent war in the future. That is the solution being put in place to deal with climate change.
So far to date none of the proposed solutions have actually solved the problem. Rather in most cases they have made it worse.
If you include the direct costs to consumers caused by higher prices, I’m hard pressed to say for certain whether we spend more money on defense, or on “climate change”.
‘Greens hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN.’ – Viv Forbes
‘Addressing the rising threat of climate change’ is a step towards destruction of the West, in the march to global government.
So, burning “so called” renewable wood and dung will stop climate change? That doesn’t emit any CO2 right? Doh!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u_XOnngmbpo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uEjZhU7DAfc
I may have posted this before, but whatever.
The science is settled. This is an unbelievably stupid statement that can only come from unbelievably stupid people or someone with a political or monetary agenda spouting useful propaganda. Every single scientific principle is questionable or can be defined to a greater accuracy or “truth”.
Take the time to read at least one of the IPCC reports. You will find that almost every so-called fact is qualified as having some degree of likelihood. The qualifications range from extremely unlikely to extremely likely or presented as having very low confidence to very high confidence. I cannot think of an instance of them making any relevant statement in complete confidence. Does that sound a bit like a Trump tweet to you? Does it sound like settled science? Does it even sound like an accepted opinion?
There is no such thing as settled science. That can only be construed as a convenient lie.
The only science that is settled is refutation.
We cannot say that the earth orbits the sun in an exactly elliptical orbit, in terms of euclidean space, but we can say with 100% certainty that its ain’t a square orbit.
Same with climate change. We cant say with anything like certainty why the climate changes but we can say with 97% certainty that it is not affected by CO2 to the extent that the IPCC claims.
I have argued for years that the efforts should go toward preparing for either warming or cooling. Better built housing, farming practices and lots of energy.
Preparing for war also prepares for peace.
Trying to control the climate is a waste of time.
J.C. precisely. In the passage quoted above he doesn’t seem to be talking about CO2. Preparing for climate change in these terms would for example include building more power stations to cope with the demand for more heating or a/c
What concerns me about Todd Davidson’s comments, and similar hyperbole, comparing the fight against AGW to war is how easy it then becomes to convince the “leftist rabble” to take up arms if they wish to save the world from the evil capitalists. We have already seen violence from the Antifa solely to stop someone they didn’t like from speaking.
Yes, Edwin, they cast their opposition as EVIL. There are no constraints when you are fighting evil, you can justify anything. The ultimate “ends justify the means.”
Did Mr Davidson happen to check out how our preparations for war have worked in the past??? He might want to do that before positing such idea.
Calls to action are easy, especially when you’re proposing (indirectly) to spend other people’s money. But would he, will he, put his personal money where his mouth is?
Let’s use his $590 Bil in defense spending as approximately what he has in mind for climate change “preparedness”. That’s roughly $5,000 per year per family.
If he’s that convinced this precautionary spending makes sense he would resign his day job and run for office on the proposal we raise taxes on each family by that amount.
As Todd Davidson should realize, the same arguments apply to “global cooling”
Despite the uncertainty, we should release all the CO2 we CAN into the atmosphere to prevent global cooling and the onset of another ice age. The threat is real and has the potential to be catastrophic!
That’s the beauty of unbounded Pascal’s Wager.
I totally agree with the professor. I think all Alarmist should prepare for War Climate. Lead the way.
When I was a pup (yeah, I know) a Research Associate was grad student, not a Professor.
Not that it makes any difference, since a lot of Profs these days write and say things equally as silly.
Credential escalation is a common practice in climate change reports, giving them more credence. The more authority, the better the argument from authority.
oddly when you seen a long list of authors , then ‘quality’ is not something you first think about .
Maybe he thinks we are going into another ice age. More likely he doesn’t want his “war on climate” grant money cut.
The obvious problem is “how do you prevent damaging climate change when the science is uncertain?” Suppose cutting CO2 emissions makes the climate worse?
As he has pointed out, other nations may not help his preferred plan, e.g. China has stated it will continue to increase CO2 emissions for at least a decade. This means that the sensible strategy is to cope with changes rather that trying to prevent them.
Relative sea level rise has always been a problem, due more to sinking land that actual sea level rise. This will remain a problem even if we stop emitting CO2 completely. So identify areas at risk and protect or evacuate them.
Extreme weather has always been a problem, although the evidence suggests that climate change is reducing it. This will also remain a problem even if we stop emitting CO2 completely. So boost emergency preparations and avoid constructing important things that are easily damaged by extreme weather, like wind and solar power.
I’m with you Perfesser Tex and we have to be prepared for the worst if the climate changes-
http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/low-fuel-reserves-australias-43-days-before-real-trouble/news-story/b1d281d0c2fff1ff86a0942b5c7f8ad2