Although Paul explains my arguments, they are no less valid. As for an ad hominem attack, it was not meant to attack the credentials of the signatories. It was more meant to point out that the list of signatories was missing some significant elements of the faculty.
As for the article, I’m not entirely sure how Paul can call it a distorted view, as all the data the article is based on is directly from reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It goes over the financial costs of climate change and the potential solutions. Attempting to refute that by stating a couple local effects is the distorted view, as it is avoiding the big picture.
Is inequality the worst thing in the world? We are all equal if we have nothing. I suggest reading Peter Foster’s Why We Bite the Invisible Hand, The Psycology of Anti-Capitalism. It might even change your mind, or at least think critically about how the world works around us.
Paul calls divestment a “moral” act, although it is more neutral on the whole. I recommend reading The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, by Alex Epstein. It provides a very good review of the effects of fossil fuels, and the pulling hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty around the world.
Paul is right to say we are able to make our own choices, as we all should. I am simply providing what my view point has evolved to be. It doesn’t hurt to step outside the echo chamber of student politics and left wing thought.
I’ll take a look at The Great Disruption, although a quick look at some reviews seems to show that although it may present positive views, it is lacking significantly in actual substance.