Via Economic Policy Journal

Climate alarmist Greta Thunberg

There are significant questions raised by some scientists as to how much carbon emissions will impact the climate. See for example the views of Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and emeritus professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology.

 Lindzen has provided testimonies to the U.S. Senate and House committees numerous times.

In a 2007 interview on The Larry King Show, he said:

We’re talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less [if global warming was actually occurring].

I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves…

This makes no sense, what Mr. Nye is saying. I’m simply saying his comments about the Gulf Stream are wrong. And his comments about heat transport are wrong.

But let’s suppose that Al Gore, Bill Nye, Greta Thunberg and the rest of the climate alarmists are correct and that there will be a significant warming that raises sea levels.

Lindzen gets the solution correct here (free markets), where the alarmists never do, when he talks about shifts in the balance of energy sources.

READ ALSO  Text election: campaigns bombard US voters with pleas for cash

During the Larry King Show, he correctly observed:

Energy sources and balance have changed over time, it will change. I have no idea what the energy mix will be 50 years from now. But I think if what he [Nye] says about profitable, better sources are there, they will come online and they will come online without government fiat.

But even more important, the alarmists never talk about free market solutions which can result in adjustments being made at the local level where potential problems might emerge if the alarmists are correct about climate change.

Consider this recent report in The San Francisco Business Times (my highlight):

Tech giant Google is in talks to lease up to 1.75 million square feet, the entire office component of Brookfield Properties’ Pier 70 megaproject, according to sources familiar with the discussions. No deal has been finalized, but it would be the largest direct office lease in San Francisco history if it comes to fruition…

The $3.5 billion Pier 70 offers calls for a total of 2,150 homes and 2.27 million square feet of commercial space on 28 acres of former industrial land on the city’s southern waterfront in Dogpatch…Last year Brookfield started preparing the land for new buildings, including raising some parts of the site by 10 feet to withstand future sea-level rise.

The Brookefield Properties project

Obviously, Brookfield Properties is buying into the scares of the climate alarmists or the firm believes it needs to provide a solution if it is a concern of potential tenants.

READ ALSO  Stock rout deepens; S&P 500 drops nearly 3%, Dow down 800

This is how solutions can emerge–for those impacted. A sea-level rise would be of no concern to people living a couple of dozen blocks away on Nob Hill (351 feet above sea level). So in the limited chance that there actually is a threat, the free market would provide solutions in areas where it is needed.

In other words, the alarmists should, at a minimum, leave the people in Wyoming, North Dakota and Alaska alone–and those of us on Nob Hill.