Reading the contorted arguments pf politicized economists (and their pseudo-environmentalist supporters) is amusing.

One implication of the Earth system’s deep nonlinearities is that estimates of climatic parameters based on observations from the recent past are unreliable for making forecasts about the state of the world at CO2 concentrations of 560 p.p.m. or higher. Moreover, the nonlinearities mean that doing more of a bad deal (Kyoto) may well be very good.

These truths seem to escape Lomborg. His cost–benefit analysis involves only point estimates of variables (interpreted variously as ‘most likely’, ‘expected’, and so forth), implying that he believes we shouldn’t buy insurance against potentially enormous losses resulting from climate change. His concerns over the prevalence of malaria, undernutrition and HIV in today’s world show that he is an egalitarian. There is, then, an internal contradiction in his value system, because if you are averse to inequality you should also be averse to uncertainty.

May well be very good? Is that a technical term? The most often cited (AFAIK) result of Kyoto is that it will merely delay the consequnces expected in 2100 until 2104 or so. That is so only in the exceedingly unlikely event that Kyoto participants actually do as they have agreed, something not considered possible by many. Performance to date suggests that they are correct. In other words, no effect at all if the policies are followed, and no chance at all that they will be. It's an empty gesture for political purposes. Merely campaign promises by venal politicians.

Why should someone who is averse to inequality also be averse to uncertainty? In practice it seems just the opposite. Egalitarians are river boat gamblers willing to toss social systems into the air just to see if they fall out differently than before. Egalitarians are not conservatives.

The integrated assessment models of Earth’s system on which Lomborg builds his case are arbitrarily bounded on either side of his point estimates. It can be shown that if those bounds are removed (as they ought to be), even a small amount of uncertainty — when allied to only a moderate aversion to uncertainty — would imply that humanity should spend substantial amounts on insurance, even more than the 1–2% of world output that has been advocated. If the uncertainties are not small, standard cost–benefit analysis as applied to the economics of climate change becomes incoherent, even if those uncertainties are judged to be thin-tailed (gaussian, for example); this is because the analysis would say that no matter how much humanity chooses to invest in protecting Earth from passing through those later tipping points, we should invest still more.

Invest how? This is magical thinking. It simply assumes that spending money will solve the problem, and not cause other problems as dire or more so. There is zero evidence that this is true, and no reasonable arguments that it might be true if we could somehow gather evidence. The evidence we do have suggests just the opposite: as more money is spent emissions get worse (see Europe etc.) while rent seekers get fat sucking pork from government fire hoses.

This is more than just muddled arguments by politicians pretending to be economists or environmentalists. This is profound confusion made worse by intellectual dishonesty.

Update: Even Worse

Despite all the supposed benefits global warming will bring, Lomborg acknowledges that some people want to act to reduce it. His solution is to abandon the Kyoto process and devote more dollars to research on technologies to prevent it. Yet we already have the necessary clean technologies: What we need is market penetration for them, and this will only come by getting the polluter to pay, which means adopting a carbon tax much higher than the $14 per ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere that Lomborg is willing to allow.

Then we don't have the necessary clean technologies. Most of the world is still struggling to feed and clothe itself. They are in no position to pay higher taxes or install expensive bleeding-edge technologies. They lack basic necessities.

Projections of global conditions in 100 or 200 years must first and foremost consider this fact. It is the 800 pound gorilla in this issue since 5 of 6 humans - and half again as many to come in the next 40 or 50 years - are just emerging from dire circumstances and are in a race to develop or perish.

What, ultimately, is Cool It all about? On the surface, it's a cry from a compassionate conservative not to waste money on combating climate change when that money could be better spent helping the poor. But why climate change rather than military spending? By empathizing with those who are concerned about climate change and poverty, and trying to persuade them to divert their energies, Cool It is a stealth attack on humanity's future. ?

Lomborg is no conservative, compassionate or otherwise. It's odd how these hysterics can't decide if he is an egalitarian or a conservative. They just fling dung at him hoping some will stick.

The true agenda of these hysterics is found in this telling pseudo-dichotomy: why climate change rather than military spending? Why either? Why do we want governments or stealthy international meta-governments spending boat loads of money on any of these grand schemes? This conflict has nothing to do with humanity's future, it's about the future of competing carnivorous tribes seeking to overthrow the liberal state.

May they all fail.