75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming

[jc456]

Cold front coming to Florida tomorrow bringing record low temperatures for April.

Global warming my ass.

42 in full sunny Chicago for a high today. tomorrow colder. Even the sun can't warm our asses.

 

[whitehall]

"Thousands of economists have written about global warming" but 0nly 738 responded to the NYU survey. Were the questions so biased that they were insulting or did the other 1,300+ economists decide that the issue wasn't worthwhile? Interesting that with all the pressure from the left wing that dominates the argument, about 25% of the economists responding disagreed with the concept. That's a good sign.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Yep. Every decade you tell us the world's gonna end in 10 years.

 

[jc456]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Yep. Every decade you tell us the world's gonna end in 10 years.

and NYC will be under water.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Yep. Every decade you tell us the world's gonna end in 10 years.

and NYC will be under water.

We can only pray. I want to see Cuomo treading water

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Yep. Every decade you tell us the world's gonna end in 10 years.

and NYC will be under water.

and NYC will be under water.

What's the downside?

 

[jc456]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Yep. Every decade you tell us the world's gonna end in 10 years.

and NYC will be under water.

and NYC will be under water.

What's the downside?

Hahaha hahaha thanks for the laugh

 

[whitehall]

This isn't science, it's extortion by proxy. It's border line insanity when left wingers tell us that man made global warming must be a fact because a couple of hundred economists respond to a survey sponsored by a law school.

 

[Sunsettommy]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

What have you been telling us?

Meanwhile from YOUR 64 page report, which you didn't read since it doesn't show up in the 6 pages of this thread:

"Survey Details

This project expands on similar surveys conducted by the Institute for Policy Integrity in 2015 and 2009, but uses a larger and more geographically diverse sample. Expert-elicitation projects like this one have recently played an influential role in climate economics, helping establish consensus on such topics as the appropriate “discount rate” to use when evaluating climate policies, and the expected magnitude of climate damages. We invited 2,169 Ph.D. economists to take a 15-question online survey focused on climate change risks, economic damage estimates, and emissions abatement. Of this pool, 738 participated, a response rate of 34% (not all respondents submitted a response to every survey question, so the sample for some questions is smaller). These economists have all published an article related to climate change in a leading economics, environmental economics, or development economics journal, and their areas of expertise cover a wide range of issues in climate economics. The survey design and related analysis sought to minimize selection bias, response bias, and anchoring bias."

bolding mine



No such expertise is seen here, it is a report full of modeling scenarios that runs to year 2220, which means this joke isn't testable at all.
===

"Climate Damages Will Be Very Costly

Respondents were asked to estimate the economic impacts of several different climate scenarios. They project that economic damages from climate change will reach $1.7 trillion per year by 2025, and roughly $30 trillion per year (5% of projected GDP) by 2075 if the current warming trend continues. Their damage estimates rise precipitously as warming intensifies, topping $140 trillion annually at a 5°C increase and $730 trillion at a 7°C increase. As expected, experts believe that the risk of extremely high/catastrophic damages significantly increases at these high temperatures."

bolding mine

The damage estimates are insane since it is pegged to absurd modeling scenarios of temperature increase of which they didn't tell us WHY that is considered a reasonable estimate, it is just more unverifiable modeling constructs.

======

This is more playstation modeling bullshit!

They don't even discuss the fact that the main cause of increased economic damage comes from continued building in high risk areas where hurricanes, flooding and other regionally predicable weather damaging areas usually occur.



=====

Figure 11 at page 23 is absurd to the extreme since it goes to year 2220, here is text behind this excrement:

"Respondents project that economic damages from climate change will reach $1.7 trillion per year by 2025, and roughly $30 trillion per year (5% of projected GDP) by 2075 if the current warming trend continues. Damage estimates rise precipitously as warming intensifies, topping $140 trillion annually at a 5°C increase and $730 trillion at a 7°C increase. These damage estimates exceed those in DICE and other commonly cited IAMs, though they are consistent with past surveys (Howard & Sylvan, 2020; Pindyck, 2019). We also asked questions about impacts at higher temperatures and income levels than some past surveys. Like Nordhaus (1994), we found that climate damages do not appear to follow a quadratic path in the long run, providing some support for the earlier DICE damage function that limits climate damages to 100% of GDP."

======

Classic Pseudoscience Jabberwocky!

Meanwhile ZERO Climate and Weather related data is posted, this this report is actually dead in arrival since they don't even try to make a specific connection between REAL major weather events and REAL economic damage of REAL regions.

This is a modeling/survey construct that only people like Crick gets excited over, it is why he is a Warmist/Alarmist member, it is JUNK SCIENCE!

Pathetic!

Brilliant!!

Send the AGW loons to Guam

Have them all one side of the Island to make it tip over.

 

[ding]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Ask them what the cost would be for a several thousand feet thick ice sheet over parts of North America, Europe and Asia?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Another consensus argument from an organization that benefits from the bogus narrative.

There is NO climate concern to worry about.

Please explain how economists benefit from the acceptance of AGW to the extent that a large majority of them would choose to lie.

Their presentation is baloney since it is full of unverifiable modeling scenarios and up to year 2200, which makes it NON falsifiable.

Their paper is a great example what Pseudoscience looks like.

AGW conjecture wasn't honestly discussed in the trashy joke of a paper at all.

 

[Crick]

Another consensus argument from an organization that benefits from the bogus narrative.

There is NO climate concern to worry about.

Please explain how economists benefit from the acceptance of AGW to the extent that a large majority of them would choose to lie.

Their presentation is baloney since it is full of unverifiable modeling scenarios and up to year 2200, which makes it NON falsifiable.

Their paper is a great example what Pseudoscience looks like.

AGW conjecture wasn't honestly discussed in the trashy joke of a paper at all.

Before accepting your claim that there is NO climate concern to worry about, YOU need to present a great deal of evidence refuting that which is already on hand, repeatedly verified and near universally accepted as fact which says precisely the opposite: the physics of AGW, the atmospheric trend of CO2 and other GHGs, the temperature changes of the atmosphere and the oceans, the acidification of the oceans, sea level rise, satellite measurements of outgoing IR, changes in seasonal timings among flora and fauna, ice melting and collapse at the poles and among the world's glaciers, etc, etc, etc.

The scenarios used are as verifiable as any. They may be falsified either by demonstrating faults in their logic, their procedure or their predicted outcomes. You haven't attempted any of these because you are unable to do so. That says nothing about the capabilities of actual scientists practicing actual science.

The paper is not a discussion on the validity of AGW. The authors of the paper, like the VAST majority of all scientists accepts AGW as a well established theory. That was given in the premise. The paper addresses the question as to whether addressing AGW directly is more or less costly than simply addressing its consequences. That is an argument deniers of a less fringe nature than yourself have taken up.

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Ask them what the cost would be for a several thousand feet thick ice sheet over parts of North America, Europe and Asia?

Why? Do you think that a real possibility in the next century or two?

 

[Crick]

This isn't science, it's extortion by proxy. It's border line insanity when left wingers tell us that man made global warming must be a fact because a couple of hundred economists respond to a survey sponsored by a law school.

I'm terribly sorry but NO ONE has made such a claim. The paper addresses the cost differences between addressing AGW and addressing its consequences. The paper rightly assumes that AGW is a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's current climate.

 

[Crick]

"Thousands of economists have written about global warming" but 0nly 738 responded to the NYU survey. Were the questions so biased that they were insulting or did the other 1,300+ economists decide that the issue wasn't worthwhile? Interesting that with all the pressure from the left wing that dominates the argument, about 25% of the economists responding disagreed with the concept. That's a good sign.

You're demonstrating your ignorance on polling. The response rate here was higher than is typical.

 

[Crick]

What a brilliant piece of repartee.

I think so

not my best, but more than enough to spin you off into snide personal insults

Don't confuse sarcasm for a personal insult. You deserve one, haven't earned the other.

 

[Oddball]

"Thousands of economists have written about global warming" but 0nly 738 responded to the NYU survey. Were the questions so biased that they were insulting or did the other 1,300+ economists decide that the issue wasn't worthwhile? Interesting that with all the pressure from the left wing that dominates the argument, about 25% of the economists responding disagreed with the concept. That's a good sign.

You're demonstrating your ignorance on polling. The response rate here was higher than is typical.

And you're demonstrating complete unwillingness to acknowledge the plain, in-you-face fact that this "poll" is rigged by self-selection.

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

theyve been wrong for 50 yrs,, not seeing any credibility here,,

and its ponly been a select few scientist,,

To what "select few scientists" do you refer?

the ones that claim climate change,, they are but a few that make the claim,, most of the others dont see it,,

I'm afraid that's complete nonsense. Numerous surveys, polls and studies have shown very high acceptance of AGW among published scientists. I have printed the list you can find in Wikipedia if you insist on seeing it. If you have a source that says otherwise, let's see that.

The lab is so cruel to fake science, of course you have surveys and polls

So, apparently you do NOT have a source showing wide rejection of AGW among scientists. But, if you're suggesting there is lab work that refutes the fundamentals of AGW, feel free to post a link or two.

 

[Crick]

"Thousands of economists have written about global warming" but 0nly 738 responded to the NYU survey. Were the questions so biased that they were insulting or did the other 1,300+ economists decide that the issue wasn't worthwhile? Interesting that with all the pressure from the left wing that dominates the argument, about 25% of the economists responding disagreed with the concept. That's a good sign.

You're demonstrating your ignorance on polling. The response rate here was higher than is typical.

And you're demonstrating complete unwillingness to acknowledge the plain, in-you-face fact that this "poll" is rigged by self-selection.

The poll itself is available for review. Would you care to actually attempt to support your charge here?

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

Then why you quoting economists?

You could consider the possibility that I wasn't addressing people with your mindset, jc, and thus, wasn't addressing you at all.