Spending Trillions one a Billion dollar problem is not Science
By Tino
Marginal Revolution writes about Yale Economist R. Mendelsohn, estimating the effect of global warming on the US economy. Not surprising, the effect is expected to be a net benefit. I have never understood why people think a few degrees warming is inherently bad. The last wasming had beneficial effects. Within the US there are large climate differences, without the warmer areas being worse of.
It is not only the US who will handle global warming with ease. Even the worse hit region (India, due to the monsoons) will only loose 4.9% of GDP for 2.5 degree warming, most likely an overestimation given the moderate rises of temperature we seen so far. For the world as a whole the cost is expected to be 1.5% of GDP by 2115.
Remember Kyoto alone is expected to costs 2% of GDP by 2050, and is just a first start. To reverse global warming you need many Kyoto’s. Most American estimates are higher. But people do not see global warming as an mondane event, instead getting their vision from hollywood movies such as Waterworld and Day after Tomorrow. This is the result of the unscientific image of doom the ideologis in the enviremental movement have spread.
You doubt they are ideologists rather than science-driven? Carl Pope, Executive Director, of the The Sierra Club had a debate with Lomborg In the latest issue of Foreign Policy. Instead of environmentalism he started attacking the US for “bullying Chavez”(!) and wrote gibrish aobut how capitalism exploited workers in 19th century Britain (common myth among socialists, the standard of living of workers of course increased during that period).
Hugu Chavez is semi-dictators who is rapidly destroying Venezuelans democracy. His best friend and idol is Cubas Fidel Castro’s. Why are there no eyebrows raised among the readers of FP?!?
The biggest hysteria over global warming among ordinary people is the rising sea levels. Many educated people are actually convinced global warming poses a “threat to our survival”. In fact, the extreme case scenario is a raise of 88 cm (expected rise is 40 cm). It would be laughable to call this a threat to humanity if the belief was not so common.
Sea levels have risen through the twentieth century by 10-25 centimeters without anyone noticing. Even the worst-case scenario is easily neutralized by spending some money on construction. The IPCC themselfs estimate a loss of 0.1% GDP by 2100.
The nation often used to motivate all this is the Maldives. But the Maldives sea levels have actually been falling along with global warming. Even if Mörner is wrong, the costs if razing the Maldives one meter is negligible compared to the trillions Kyoto and Kyoto II, III and IV etc will costs. (any thoughts Paul?)
One often hears people accusing us Global Warming realists of being ignorant or anti-science, for opposing Kyoto. But in fact it is those people who are unscientific. Global warming and how to handle it is a question for two types of scientists, Climatologists and Economists. Ignoring the latter part is no less scintific than ignoring (or exagerating) the former.
Comments