Asking someone alarmed about global warming to buy that argument is a little easier than asking them to buy that argument AND the argument – from a non-scientist – that the IPCC reports are seriously flawed.

There are good arguments to offer against the some of the narratives offered by the more prominent lead authors of recent IPCC reports. But those arguments are best offered by scientists with credentials and professional expertise. Hence, I leave that job to my colleague Pat Michaels who has both.

My background is in economics and law. I agree with you that the science, even assuming it was settled, is only the first step in a long process. Some of that process can be informed by economics. Science also continues to have a role, too.

I’m surprised at your willingness to defer to the IPCC, though. Regardless of one’s ability to delve deep into the science, most of us can do quite a bit when it comes to evaluating the credibility of experts. Juries do it all the time. When supposed experts decline to employ the scientific method, suppress dissent, manipulate results, stonewall disclosure, etc., it is appropriate to reject their advice. When other scientists endorse such behavior, they lose their credibility, too.

We know that climate scientists have repeatedly demonstrated mind-numbing incompetence. They failed to calibrate their instruments, sited their instruments so that 90% fail basic scientific standards, created amateurish, nightmare code and regularly butchered their statistics. They have operated in science for far too long and bristle at the thought of being accountable. They don’t make their data and code available and no one ever bothers to replicate or even audit anyone else’s studies. Add the evidence of extensive corruption and dishonesty by a number of the “leading” experts and there is no reason for any jury to believe them.

Given that the alarmists should bear the burden of proof, they lose. You don’t have to understand much science to understand incompetence, abandonment of the scientific method and corruption. And if they lose step one, we don’t have to reach the question of damages or injunctive relief.

Getting the uber left to even listen is pushing a glass carriage. A light touch means success where putting your shoulder into it absolute failure.

Well done sir.

Halfwise – What is this “prevention case” that you refer to? If the IPCC is correct, anthropogenic warming is already under way. Moreover, given the many decades that anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere, additional warming is already “baked into the cake” so to speak. Hence, there is no real point in talking about preventing warming … that is, if you buy the IPCC report.

The import questions (if you accept the IPCC reports as a point of departure, of course) are (1) will warming prove to be a net negative for mankind? (2) if “yes,” then how much?, and (3) if a lot, then will mitigation cost less than the damages from the above? Economists are better positioned than scientists to answer all three questions (once informed by the scientific community regarding the changes in weather that we’re likely to see).

Ken – Once again, we find ourselves in agreement.

Noblesse Oblige – While you are undoubtedly correct that many environmental alarmists have left reason at the station, there are reasonable and intelligent people who favor mitigation. That’s because their risk tolerances and willingness to pay to reduce risk differ from my own. Now, I think a calm, rationale debate will produce more informed support for my position (adaptation) to their’s (mitigation), but it’s a bit unfair to put all of those on the other side in the “religious zealot” category.

Charles – I couldn’t disagree more. We don’t know what the chance is for runaway warming. The IPCC says there is a 3% chance of 6C+ warming by 2100, James Hansen says more, Richard Lindzen says less. The economics literature suggests that absent a runaway warming scenario, mitigation will likely cost more than letting the warming happen and adapting accordingly. Now, what should we do about the possibility of an extreme outcome? That depends on the cost of hedging. And the main point I tried to make in my Stossel appearance was that the cost of reducing anthropogenic CO2e to the extent that James Hansen and Al Gore would like is fairly steep.

As another example, consider the complete abandonment of the Constitutional principles we were given by a group of men who were objective realists about human nature. Instead we have substituted post modern subjectivity, just as we have in the climate business.

The irony is that neither science nor religion triumphed in their vaunted struggle. They both lost.

it is

I’ll stand with you as we withstand the slings and arrows of refusing to submit to orthodoxy.

Ken

Copenhagen demonstrated that the developing countries have already calculated the potential future damages; and, they demand to be compensated in advance.

The possible policy-related responses are actually very few, and depend more on what happens with the hydrologic cycle and sea levels than the actual temperature. Do nothing, prevent, adapt, move, perish.

The pure scientists don’t have much to contribute to the policy discussions. But many pressure groups are quick to rush in, take the extreme scenarios from the scientists and push something that advances their agendas.

Science needs to step up and inform the debate about the depth of CO2 cuts (one quadrillion tons per F degree!) necessary to support the prevention case. The rest of the debate is political, economic and social, and should in all cases be conditioned by the reality that AGW is still merely a theory, one whose scientific basis appears (at least to me) to be crumbling month by month.