Veritassium host Derek Muller interviews himself on the subject of global warming, and for a few minutes there is a relatively honest discussion of the issues. Until, that is, until minute 5:50. when the host, in his guise as good guy, speculates that it would probably be cheaper for us and better for the planet if we abated out emissions of CO2 now rather than later. To which his bad side, replies “no thanks”.
Here is the rub. The advocates of doing something to abate CO2 production engage in many suppositions
- that abatement of CO2 production can be achieved on a global scale
- that measures taken will in fact achieve the results set out for them
- that it will be more affordable than adapting to the projected, increased consequences of global warming that would otherwise occur
- and, perhaps most importantly, that humans can be transitioned from their dependence of fossil fuels in a democratic way.
Just as the debate really could have engaged, good guy Veritassium asked the bad guy alter ego why he was wearing sunglasses. And so the principal non-scientific questions were conveniently ducked. Happens all the time.
This is not to disparage Veritassium, which is a solid science show. But it is a critique of the global warmists for consistently assuming away the practical problems.
I much prefer the approach adopted by Bjorn Lomborg which is that, if humans had a hundred problems to solve, global warming through CO2 increases would be the hundredth priority, behind the other 99.