Without dismissing climate change as a serious potential problem, I have a couple of points: 1. Bill Gates once remarked that when projecting five years out, w

Without dismissing climate change as a serious potential problem, I have a couple of points: 1. Bill Gates once remarked that when projecting five years out, we tend to over-estimate the amount of progress you expect to see, but we wind up wildly underestimating the amount of change you see over a ten year period. Exponential growth looks flat before it looks linear before you get to the hockey stick. (And being start-up people, we know those hockey sticks always materialize…) 2. This sort of crap the U.N. pulls—see also the UK's reports suggesting we abandon backhoes and go back to employing humans to dig ditches—is based on political or quasi-religious beliefs and not practical economic analysis. Maybe there will be fifty million climate refuges, but then maybe most of those people will move to a city where they contribute to their societies' wealth far more than they would have wherever they were displaced from. The word "refugee" may have some sort of value-neutral definition, but in this case it's clearly suggesting that people are worse-off for being displaced. That is not necessarily the case. (Yes, I'm a Bjorn Lomborg fan.)