Iain Murray says that in order to stop deadly heatwaves

from happening in the future, Europe would have to cut emissions so air conditioning would become more prohibitively expensive, so 20,000 people die every year until the climate gets back to "normal". Or, Europe could invest in air conditioning and put up with the rise in emissions necessary to save those lives. I wonder, which is likely to be more acceptable to the environmental alarmists?

This ignores the fact that there are people who live without aircon. But good luck on teaching people how to do it.

Iain Murray also links to an article about the impact of monetary costs on feelings about "frankenfood":

Although 35 per cent of participants refused to eat a product once they discovered it contained genetically modified ingredients, 42 per cent said they would buy it if it was cheap enough. The other 23 per cent had no qualms about eating GM products, whatever the price...

Co-author Robin said the results suggested people think differently about things when money is introduced into their decision-making.

'You give one answer when you're asked 'what you think of GM foods?' in an opinion poll, but you give a different reply when you're a consumer,' Robin said.

A lot of surveys ought to be re-jiggered. Of course, this also probably means that people wouldn't want to pay the price of shutting off their air-conditioners.