Mar 2, 2022Liked by Luke Hallam

In response to Martin Eiermann, I can relate that my mother spent The Blitz in London, and never got over her terror of low-flying planes (or, for a long time, of flying at all). At least a couple of times I saw her stop herself from jumping under a table when something flew overhead a little too low--and this was in the 1970's. The 'PTSD' often doesn't go away, especially when not dealt with.

Expand full comment

One of the worst Persuasion posts I've ever read. Unanimity of opinion, all in favor of framing the matter as a childish morality tale, with emotional appeals based on who supposedly "cares" and "doesn't care."

Expand full comment

For better or worse, the future impact of global warming is rather debatable.

To AGW obsessives only US / European CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. The fact that China produces more CO2 than the US and Europe combined goes mostly unmentioned. Of course, the bigger issue is whether AGW is really a ‘crisis’ or not. So far the answer is clearly no.

This is something that can be empirically measured in several ways. First, is global life expectancy rising or falling. One possible consequence of AGW would be falling life expectancy. However, global life expectancy is strongly rising. Of course, other factors (healthcare, etc.) could be more than offsetting an underlying downward trend driven by AGW.

Global food prices provide a more sensitive measure of the impact (or lack thereof) of AGW. If AGW was changing the world materially, global food prices should respond with dramatic increases. In real life, global food prices have been falling for decades (with high volatility).

Hurricane activity (or lack thereof) provides another measure of the impact of AGW. The hurricane activity metric shows a gradual increase over time. However, hurricane activity in the 1880s (a peak) exceeded hurricane activity around 2000 (also a peak).

Expand full comment