Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > WUWT Propaganda

https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/04/what-i-think-about-global-warm>

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html

I am often amused by how many false statements Anthony Watts can pack into a headline, today he has delivered in spades.

Ten years ago, @AlGore predicted the North polar ice cap would be gone. Inconveniently, it’s still there

And the opening para is:

On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the prediction to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference:

Only one little problem, COP15 happened in December 2009, not 2008. (He's confusing that appearance with a very poor quality recording made from German TV a year earlier).

Secondly, Watts claims that Gore made a 100% certain forecast of an ice-free Arctic. This never happened. Gore cited a study (by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski) that assigned a 75% probability to the Polar Ice Cap being ice free in summer 'in 5 to 7 years'. Confusingly, he also mentioned a date of 2030.

Thirdly, the forecast was for summer ice, the fact that 'it's still there' in December would not be a falsification.

Clearly we are not ice free yet, however the twelve lowest extents in the satellite era have all occurred in the last twelve years.

Watts concludes his post with 'Why does anyone listen to Al Gore ?'

Look in the mirror, Anthony.

Dec 16, 2018 at 11:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, a word to the wise.
Try and actually write something that people might read.

It didn't really matter much that you quickly linked to something at the-blog-that-cannot-be-named.
It doesn't really matter much that I would rather hop to Mordor on two broken legs than return to that website.

You need to write something that people might read.


And happy Xmas, by the way.

Dec 16, 2018 at 11:58 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

When will Climate Science stop making stupid predictions?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/12/15/oh-no-not-again-cnn-headline-us-undermining-last-chance-climate-talks-excerpt-all-the-other-last-chances/

Dec 17, 2018 at 12:11 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Re 75% : I see Anthony Watts already answered PC on June 3, 2012
\\ Perhaps, but Four things.
1. PIOMAS is a model.
2. PIOMAS is not an actual measurement.
3. Saying a model predicts a 75% loss is no better than NASA’s Jay Zwally saying the Arctic could be nearly ice free by 2012. (See the sidebar and link above it)
4. Slingo said the 75% loss for volume isn’t supported.
So, no matter how you look at it, extent or volume, it doesn’t work. – Anthony //
There are further answers there

Dec 17, 2018 at 12:31 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Surely the key point here is that mainstream "science" as quoted by mainstream politicians is wrong when tested against reality.

Concern that the reportage of the failings of mainstream pseudoscience is done on an underfunded blog is more a criticism of mainstream journalism than of the grassroots people's movement currently exposing these failures.

It's obvious why people listen to WUWT..
That is where the failings are being exposed. And the people will keep listening to WUWT until climatology adopts the scientific method and acknowledges that the predicted catastrophe is not happening.

Dec 17, 2018 at 8:12 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

"https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/04/what-i-think-about-global-warm>
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html
Dec 16, 2018 at 11:39 PM | Phil Clarke"

Dec 17, 2018 at 8:12 AM | M Courtney, agreed!
Stoat is the home domain of William M Connolley of Real Climate and Hockey Stick Team notoriety, infamous for rewriting Wikipedia, as a major part of the big lie and conspiracy that Climate Science consists of.
SkepticalScience is the home domain of John Cook, responsible for the 97% Faked Up Consensus Conspiracy, that DID fool President Obama.

All three blogs demonstrate censorship to ban challenging opinions, an editorial policy intended to support the serially-abused Peer Review process that has corrupted Climate Science and Climate Scientists. No wonder Trump is turning off the money supply.

Dec 17, 2018 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The links at the top of my post were unintentional, pasted in error. Apologies.

Re 75% : I see Anthony Watts already answered PC on June 3, 2012

Nope, almost completely unrelated.

Surely the key point here is that mainstream "science" as quoted by mainstream politicians is wrong when tested against reality.

The key point is that Watts' headline was wrong in every respect. Gore does tend to quote from one end of the spectrum, as all advocates tend to, however if we take the IPCC as shorthand for the 'mainstream', their predictions for Arctic ice have proven to be too optimistic.

I'll post another WUWT headline the next time he posts propaganda. Just a matter of time.

Dec 17, 2018 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, is this what you were after?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/william-connolley-demonstrates-once-again-why-wikipedia-is-an-untrustworthy-reference-source/

Dec 17, 2018 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Well, I think the choice of a key point depends on whether you are concerned about what's actually happening or only how it's being reported.

Phil Clarke, do you actually believe in an objective reality?

If so, then the key point is that the end of the world is not nigh.
If not, why do you care what people believe about the climate anyway?

Dec 17, 2018 at 10:13 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Dec 17, 2018 at 10:13 AM | M Courtney

I note that the Scientific American story is written by Glen Scherer, and he writes stories, not science.

The fictional idea that "the end is nigh" does require that once upon a time, we humans, and cuddly Mother Earth were destined to live happily ever after, having abandoned fig leaves as contraception in an apple scrumping dispute with our Godlike Father.

Mann's Hockey Stick perpetuates this religious faith, whilst ignoring floods, storms, droughts, famines etc of Biblical proportions, that are noted in the Bible.

Melting Arctic Ice may have contributed to a Biblical flood, but the Old Testament is a bit short of Polar Bears on Noah's Ark, and sea ice supporting Mount Ararat.

The archaeological evidence of the Franklin Expedition making its fateful progress into the North West Passage in the 1840s does seem very conclusive, now that "Unprecedented" ice melt has confirmed where they sailed to, during the last unprecedented ice melt.

I wonder whether Glen Scherer has a good story about Franklin's ships being airlifted in to their current locations by spaceships, or flying unicorns?

Dec 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

If so, then the key point is that the end of the world is not nigh.

Are you really incapable of envisaging anything that is less than armageddon but more than a slight problem?

Dec 17, 2018 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

But Phil, the real question is "Are you incapable of envisaging anything might just be only a slight problem?"

Dec 17, 2018 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

"But Phil, the real question is "Are you incapable of envisaging anything might just be only a slight problem?"
Dec 17, 2018 at 5:13 PM | Supertroll"

+ added benefits that may outweigh any "slight problem"

Dec 17, 2018 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Are you really incapable of envisaging anything that is less than armageddon but more than a slight problem?
Anything that is less than Armageddon is irrelevant to the current climate science debate.

If we have anything that is less than Armageddon then the Precautionary Principle does not apply. That means we do not take any action on climate change without firm evidence that it is required.
No weather pattern can be ascribed to being caused by AGW as the climate is still well within the bounds of natural variability. No real world trends match the Armageddon forecasts of the climate models.

So your "more than a slight problem" can be dealt with when or if it gets here. It isn't catastrophic. It isn't irreversible. It isn't worth dealing with now.

We have many real-world problems. Poverty, for instance. Lack of access to clean water. Under-development.
All these things should be dealt with before we act on the Precautionary Principle - because as you concede - the Precautionary Principle is no longer applicable.

And all those things need the cheapest energy. That's not intermittent windfarms, is it?

Dec 17, 2018 at 7:13 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

But Phil, the real question is "Are you incapable of envisaging anything might just be only a slight problem?"

Just to pull one example from gosh, so many, Click

Dec 17, 2018 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I never invoked the Precautionary Principle. I don't need to. Every economic analysis that I am aware of has concluded that mitigating climate change is cheaper than adapting to it.

Dec 17, 2018 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Just to pull one example from gosh, so many, Click
Dec 17, 2018 at 11:27 PM Phil Clarke"

That is a link to a UNFCC propaganda spiel, with quotes from Christiana Figueres and no science, from the Obama era in 2014. It does include this about things that COULD exacerbate ....

"In a statement, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel called global warming a “threat multiplier,” saying rising seas and increasing numbers of severe weather events could exacerbate the dangers posed by threats ranging from infectious disease to terrorism: .. "

As M Courtney points out, Climate Science is failing the poorest countries. Chuck Hagel could have warned about how energy shortages ARE a threat to World Peace.

Any warning about what COULD happen, does involve the Precautionary Principle, plus scaremongering, plus emotional blackmail etc. M Courtney is one of the few from the far Left of centre prepared to call-out Climate Science as a failure of political and social engineering, not just a failure of Science.

Your denial of invoking the Precautionary Principle is a failure of English.

Dec 17, 2018 at 11:30 PM | Phil Clarke
That is a failure of other people's Science and Economics, and your selection of reading material.

Dec 18, 2018 at 7:06 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Except for than Blair’s other Dodgy Dossier, the Stern report, there are no studies that find that mitigating climate change is cheaper than adapting to it.
The reasons are obvious.

1) Money spent now is more expensive than money spent later. Technology means productivity increases and so money spent on the future is more effective. Also inflation tends to dominate over deflation. If you doubt this let’s do a deal. I will borrow £1,000 from you today and pay you back next December exactly. With no interest being charged. That’s actually more generous than your fantasy economics which implies you ought to pay me for the privilege of looking after your money for you.

2) Infrastructure is not permanent. It needs maintenance. It needs replacement. As you have to replace it anyway the cost of adaptation is largely built in to society already. Any mitigation costs are additional.

3) As you have conceded that the Precautionary Principle is not applicable you have also conceded that the costs of doing nothing are not absolutely unacceptable. Therefore the expenditure needs to be proportionate. The longer we wait, the more knowledge we have. Acting later means less waste. Acting later means more resources spent on important things instead of unnecessary mitigation.

Seriously, AGW is a non-issue. It is unimportant. It is a residual millennial fear from the time the date had lots of zeroes in it. And it’s time to move onto something worthwhile instead.
Without the Precautionary Principle we have to use the Cautionary Principle – Watch and See. That doesn’t need any action now.

Dec 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Except for than Blair’s other Dodgy Dossier, the Stern report, there are no studies that find that mitigating climate change is cheaper than adapting to it.

Oh, please. There are some studies that show a short term or localised economic benefit, but medium to long term and globally, the effects are overwhelmingly negative. Here's a selection:

Australia - the Garnaut Review 2008, updated 2011 came to exactly that conclusion.

William Nordhaus has written extensively on this topic, developing the widely adopted DICE and RICE economic models. In case you don't read the papers, Nordhaus shared the 2018 Nobel for economic sciences, for 'integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis'

His work is extensive; you could do worse than starting with his 1993 paper Reflections on the Economics of Climate Change.

The there's Professor Richard Tol

...
estimates show that climate change initially improves economic welfare. However, these benefits are sunk. Impacts would be predominantly negative later in the century. Global average impacts would be comparable to the welfare loss of a few percent of income, but substantially higher in poor countries. Still, the impact of climate change over a century is comparable to economic growth over a few years. 

Tol 2009

See also Tol's other studies, the work of Gary Yohe and many others.

And of course the IPCC Working Group III (speaking of Nobel prizes ;-).

I would be grateful if you would stop falsely stating what I have 'conceded', it is a cheap debating trick. I would also be interested in a link to any published work that supports your assertions and points out where Nordhaus, Yohe, Tol, Mendelsohn (et al, et al) have made an error.

Dec 18, 2018 at 10:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

That is a link to a UNFCC propaganda spiel, with quotes from Christiana Figueres and no science

Au contraire, it is an account of this report, from the Pentagon.

Among the future trends that will impact our national security is climate change. Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe.

In our defense strategy, we refer to climate change as a “threat multiplier” because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today – from infectious disease to terrorism. We are already beginning to see some of these impacts. A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions. The military could be called upon more often to support civil authorities, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the face of more frequent and more intense natural disasters.

Our coastal installations are vulnerable to rising sea levels and increased flooding, while droughts, wildfires, and more extreme temperatures could threaten many of our training activities. Our supply chains could be impacted, and we will need to ensure our critical equipment works under more extreme weather conditions. Weather has always affected military operations, and as the climate changes, the way we execute operations may be altered or constrained.

While scientists are converging toward consensus on future climate projections, uncertainty remains. But this cannot be an excuse for delaying action. Every day, our military deals with global uncertainty. Our planners know that, as military strategist Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight.” It is in this context that DoD is releasing a Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Climate change is a long-term trend, but with wise planning and risk mitigation now, we can reduce adverse impacts downrange.

Serious people, the military.

Dec 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

From Garnaut Chapter 11:

The updated, realistic projections of emissions growth developed by the Review, combined with mainstream scientific estimates of climate sensitivity, result in a best estimate of the no-mitigation scenario giving rise to a 5° C temperature increase over the course of this century.
So we can see from the start that it is entirely unrealistic and overly pessimistic. We’re about a fifth of the way through the century and we haven’t had 1° of warming since the Millennium – with no mitigation. We should add to the cost of AGW the cost of producing junk science.
However, on their own terms – which are stupid – they say:
The global modelling (GIAM) suggests that global GDP is likely to fall by around 8 per cent by 2100,
Read my post above. It explains clearly why the poor should not subsidise the rich. In this case, the poor are us now and the rich are the people in 2100. Assuming Global GDP growth of 1% per annum (very low for safety) the prediction is that the people of 2100 will be 72% better off rather than 80%. Remember, this is with the science fiction scenario of doomsday warming!
If reality continues to coincide with a low climate sensitivity any mitigation actions now are even more wicked.

The US army has a lot of money and can afford to prepare for all threats. My budget is less than theirs. By the way, you linked the “Adaptation Roadmap” not any mitigation activities. Which if I recall involved fuel efficient ships to save money (can’t find the link at the moment).

Nordhaus, is also a catastrophist, I quote:

Yet, even for those who downplay the urgency of the most likely scenarios for climate change, a deeper anxiety remains about future uncertainties and surprises. Scientists raise the specter of shifting currents turning Europe into Alaska, of mid-continental drying transforming grain belts into deserts, of great rivers drying up as snow packs disappear, of severe storms wiping out whole populations of low-lying regions, of surging ice sheets raising ocean levels by 20 to 50 feet, of northward migration of old or new tropical pests and diseases decimating the temperature regions, of environmentally induced migration overrunning borders in search of livable land. Given the potential for catastrophic surprises, perhaps we should conclude that the major concern lies in the uncertainties and imponderable impacts of climate change rather than in the smooth changes foreseen by the global models.
But if he’s the best you’ve got then we’ll try to take him seriously. He also has to take refuge in the Precautionary Principle.
Once the door is open to consider catastrophic changes, a whole new debate is engaged.
Sorry, trying to take him seriously. What cost does he quote for warming?
For a 3 degree C warming in 2090, the median response was an economic loss of 1.8 percent of world output.
Not worth mitigating then, unless we live in the pessimistic fantasy world of the Precautionary Principle.
And in fairness to Nordhaus he does point out that this is probably too pessimistic.
However, there is great uncertainty: the median estimate of the 10th percentile of outcomes is for no impact, while the median estimate of the 90th percentile of outcomes is for a 5.5 percent loss of world output. All these studies indicate the great uncertainty about the impact of climate change. More recent analysis suggests that the studies reported in Table 1 may well overestimate the impact of climate change because they ignore many ways in which economies can adapt to changing climate. One kind of adaptation ignored in most studies is the buffering of shocks by trade.

Phil Clarke, You really need to recognise that I do know what I am talking about. Pointing to titled academics and claiming they defeat my case doesn’t address the points I made. Mitigation is pointless unless you endorse the Precautionary Principle. In which case the costs are infinite and reason goes out the window. But, to quote you yourself;

Are you really incapable of envisaging anything that is less than armageddon but more than a slight problem?
So you have conceded that the Precautionary Principle is not justified. We are not facing Armageddon and we should not plan to pay for it.

Dec 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Dec 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM | Phil Clarke
Dec 18, 2018 at 10:47 AM | Phil Clarke

Just more Climate Science bollocks.

Are the US Military trying to defend Pearl Harbour against Global Warming?

Climate Science has failed to prove Mann's Hockey Stick despite many disastrous attempts. Trying to prove that Stern was right, requires Economists to rely on the same incorrect assumptions as Stern.

Dec 18, 2018 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"We are not facing Armageddon and we should not plan to pay for it.
Dec 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM | M Courtney"

Climate Scientists and their doomed Economists should plan on career change, not climate change.

Dec 18, 2018 at 12:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Nothing to say about the work of Tol? Yohe? No link to an economic study making the case for inaction or delay?

So we can see from the start that it (Garnaut) is entirely unrealistic and overly pessimistic. We’re about a fifth of the way through the century and we haven’t had 1° of warming since the Millennium – with no mitigation.

You have cherry-picked their most pessimistic scenario, and missed that their baseline is 1990, not 2000, ignored the fact that the warming rate is projected to accelerate, and have simply omitted the Kyoto protocol and other mitigation measures. You can 'prove' anything if you're prepared to engage in that degree of misrepresentation.

 Assuming Global GDP growth of 1% per annum (very low for safety) the prediction is that the people of 2100 will be 72% better off rather than 80%. 

Garnaut also points out that

Unmitigated climate change causes real wages to be around 12 per cent lower than they would otherwise have been

The point is that the study found that the amount of GDP required for mitigation is less than the cost of inaction. You want me to allow that you 'know what you're talking about', yet in addition to the factual errors noted above you stated no such study exists (before quoting from one). In reality there are many such studies, an economic consensus, and indeed whole books that make the point. You have provided nothing to support your economic argument.

Nordhaus recognises the possibility of catastrophic climate change, but it is not part of his central case. He dealt with the argument to 'do nothing' succinctly in an article in the NY Review in response to a WSJ Editorial arguing that his work supported a 'wait and see' approach.

The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).
This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.

[...]

My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.
[...]
The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science.


So a Yale Professor of Economics awarded the Nobel prize for his work on climate economics says his work is just one of many demonstrating that reducing emissions has a net economic benefit. Mr Courtney says no such studies exist. Hmmm, tricky one.

Then climate notwithstanding, there are the co-benefits on human health of reducing fossil fuel emissions and the consequent air pollution.

The health co-benefits substantially outweighed the policy cost of achieving the target for all of the scenarios that we analysed. In some of the mitigation strategies, the median co-benefits were double the median costs at a global level. The ratio of health co-benefit to mitigation cost ranged from 1·4 to 2·45, depending on the scenario. At the regional level, the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could be compensated with the health co-benefits alone for China and India, whereas the proportion the co-benefits covered varied but could be substantial in the European Union (7–84%) and USA (10–41%), respectively. Finally, we found that the extra effort of trying to pursue the 1·5°C target instead of the 2°C target would generate a substantial net benefit in India (US$3·28–8·4 trillion) and China ($0·27–2·31 trillion), although this positive result was not seen in the other regions.

The Lancet

Dec 18, 2018 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I tackled three of your links. How much time do you expect me to spend demonstrating that you are wrong? Some of us have a job.

You have cherry-picked their most pessimistic scenario, and missed that their baseline is 1990, not 2000, ignored the fact that the warming rate is projected to accelerate, and have simply omitted the Kyoto protocol and other mitigation measures. You can 'prove' anything if you're prepared to engage in that degree of misrepresentation.
I picked their worst-case scenario to give you the best chance of demonstrating that mitigation is worthwhile. If the worst-case isn't worth countering then nor are all the others.

OK, I should have said "we haven’t had 1° of warming since 1990" not "we haven’t had 1° of warming since the Millennium". But that is even worse for your argument. Think it through.

And we have had no mitigation. The Kyoto protocol has not been adhered to. The only reduction in CO2 emissions has come from fracked natural gas in the USA replacing coal. Even France is closing its nuclear power plants.

Of course, you are correct that the warming is predicted to accelerate. But that is a matter of faith, not science. The observations since 1990 (not just the Millennium, as you rightly point out) show no sign of that. Quite why Gaia is watching us and holding off on the acceleration until the Day after Tomorrow is not explained by anyone. Nor why we should believe in this invisible force about to kick in. Nor even how this force knows not to go now when the industrialisation of the world kicked off in earnest about 70 years ago.

Unmitigated climate change causes real wages to be around 12 per cent lower than they would otherwise have been
But how much poorer will people today be by wasting resources on mitigation? You’re still advocating a regressive tax on the poor of today so as the rich of tomorrow can be bit richer. It’s immoral.

All your arguments are that the poor must pay for the rich. And you find papers that argue the rich will be a bit richer if the poor are a bit poorer. But that does not prove the argument that mitigation is justified. See my post at Dec 18, 2018 8:12 AM.

You have not found a paper that says mitigating climate change is cheaper than adapting to it. You have only found papers that say eventually the very rich will be bit less rich if the poor today mitigate. We are not in the year 2100 when that may become of interest. And it is wrong to have a bias to the rich. The impact on the poor of mitigation is far greater than any benefits. And the poor are with us today. They will be the rich in 2100.

Note also, your irrelevant papers ignore the opportunity costs involved in acting now on something that is not today’s problem. Those many real-world problems (Poverty, for instance. Lack of access to clean water. Under-development) that are not addressed because resources are wasted on something that isn’t needed now.

Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place.
Obviously incorrect. Waiting costs nothing now.
Will it make the make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place? He is modelling technological change over half a century. That’s as improbable as the mysterious acceleration you have reified and deified.

Misunderstanding why the worst-case of warming would be the one that’s best to mitigate against demonstrates that you haven’t understood these papers. It’s no wonder you think they say something they don’t.

I do concede that Nordhaus doesn’t rely on his catastrophism for the whole paper. Indeed, I quoted him where he was more sober. But if you cannot see that including the plot of the Day after Tomorrow in a supposedly serious paper is a mistake then I’m not sure you will ever understand the economics.

Dec 18, 2018 at 3:33 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney