No, hell hasn’t frozen over — indeed, thanks to global warming, eventually nothing will freeze over, but I digress.
Cato’s online magazine, Cato Unbound, is actually running a series/debate on what to do about global warming — okay, maybe hell is experiencing a little ice age for one month, just like the rest of the planet did in January (see “The Great Ice Age of 2008 is finally over — next stop Venus!“).
Anyway, you can read my article, “A small cost will avoid catastrophe,” here. And no it doesn’t look like they are online magazine takes comments, so you’ll have to put your thoughts on my article and the others below.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Why do you trust the Summary for Policy Makers when it was produced and published before the actual scientific content of the latest IPCC report was? I have serious questions about any “summary” that pre-dates the material it claims to summarize. Never mind that it is “for policymakers” and seems to be “by policymakers”.
Can you refer to the main scientific body of the latest IPCC report to make the same points?
[JR: It is produced at the same time. The summary is a watered down version since every government must sign off on word for word, including the Saudis and the Bush administration. You'll find everything in the full report.]
I reject. How can one trust a “report” where the staple fell out of the binding? One page was misprinted and 4 sentences in the “report” were found lacking punctuation. This obviously shows total scientific deficiency.
(sarcasm)
As always, your article is quite good. You focus on the science, while Cato’s lead essay is littered with typical economic abtractions attempting to reduce this issue to an equation. (And, of course, Cato includes the obligatory right-wing ad hominem attack on Al Gore.) Since Cato won’t let us comment on their piece, as you suggest I’ll use yours for that purpose.
Even if I accept Cato’s economics, a critical review will instantly point out that the “total estimated economic losses … of global GDP” from of global warming (that’s Cato-speak for human suffering) will not be equally distributed.
What measures will a drought-stricken poor country resort to in an attempt to feed its people? A drought stricken wealthy nation can find normal ways to import more food, while I can forsee a frustrated dictator ignoring Cato’s economic numbers and looking to other means — like nuclear weapons — to gain leverage. Or how about tens of millions of Latin Americans crossing the US border in search of food?
That’s the chief lesson buried inside Cato’s brief foray into “not everything that matters can be measured by money,” but Cato misses that point entirely. Like all libertarian debates I’ve ever participated in, it always comes back to it’s my money and leave it alone. This is just a sophisticated denier’s game.
Anonymous writes:
Why do you trust the Summary for Policy Makers when it was produced and published before the actual scientific content of the latest IPCC report was? I have serious questions about any “summary” that pre-dates the material it claims to summarize. Never mind that it is “for policymakers” and seems to be “by policymakers”.
I spoke to two of the reviewers about that claim (spread by s. mcintyre) in the spring of ‘07. They both said it was wrong, either thru ignorance or malice. One showed me the final draft of WC1, sent to him by Sue Solomon. Skeptics have deliberately worked to confuse changes in editorial and referencing with the report’s content and conclusions.
Wow! Great article, Joe. It summarizes a lot of results, including recent results, in a fresh and compelling way. Therefore, it is entirely predictable that the deniers at Cato and elsewhere will not address the substance but will try to change the subject. Already, we have seen people repeat old canards about the political nature of the IPCC report. They probably believe what they have read at deniers’ blogs but they clearly have not read the reports themselves.
I will use this article for sure.
Hell freezes over almost every winter.
Hell, Norway, that is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway
[JR: how many times must I say that anonymous posting will not be allowed on this blog. Neither will repeated ad hominem arguments.]
I spoke to two of the reviewers about that claim (spread by s. mcintyre) in the spring of ‘07. They both said it was wrong, either thru ignorance or malice