We do know, though, that if global warming continues unabated, it will impose severe costs on humans in terms of decreased agricultural yields, human health and decreased worker productivity. There are many estimates for the actual social cost of greenhouse gas emissions, but it may be around NZ$200 per tonne of CO2, or greater. On a cost*risk basis, we should absolutely be reducing our emissions. Let’s say the cost by 2050 of reducing emissions is $21 trillion (as per this article.); let’s say the risk of this being unnecessary is 2% (a generous figure). $21 trillion * 0.02 = $420 billion. On the other side, failing to reduce emissions may cost us $33 trillion by 2050, at a risk of 98%; $33 trillion *0.98 = $32.3 trillion. You’re the economist; you should be able to follow the math. If we look further, to the end of the century perhaps, the cost differential grows drastically: how do you put a price on civilization-as-we-know-it?

Don’t rely on Roy Spencer for accurate information. A quick google search easily finds the explanation of how he’s fudged his data: see here. You need to question what you read. You talk of science; well, a key aspect of science is trying to invalidate one’s own beliefs, and that’s what climate scientists are doing all the time. I, too, look for opposing views, to see if some new denialist claim holds any water at all. If there really were some strong piece of evidence to undermine the scientific consensus, I’d expect every denialist to be trumpeting it as loud as they can. But they all repeat the same shoddy misrepresentations and cherry-pickings. This is now one of the most studied areas of science, with both legitimate scientists and fossil-fuel-funded shills like Spencer putting huge effort into trying to invalidate the models. Yet the evidence supporting these models is vast and extremely strong, and growing by the day; and the evidence against is … not there.

Your hypothesis that governments are eager to issue new laws regulating carbon is frankly absurd. Governments are absolutely terrified of doing this, which is why it’s taking them so bloody long to act. It’s politically hugely difficult, and the main reason politicians are finally starting (just starting) to act is because they know that they can’t feign ignorance any longer.

Bear in mind, that to reduce the temperature of the world by limiting or abolishing the production of CO2, is a horrendously expensive task world wide. This attempt, regardless of the climate, can only lead to disastrous rises in the cost of energy which in turn will lead to economic collapse of world economies along with disastrous effects on the world populace. (Yup I majored in economics – class of 1981 – and for me this is easy to see).

You see, our economies are based on fossil energy, Coal, Gas and Oil etc and unless equally or less expensive substitutes are found, without them most of us will starve and/or freeze to death. But perhaps, as you are not doubt postulating on your site, if we avoid ruining the planet, maybe that cost will be worthwhile?

At the very least, trying to cool the planet is a very serious thing to attempt, and I am sure that you would agree that we should not go down this road unless we have absolute proof that humans are warming the planet and that the predictions we are hearing from some sources are scientifically confirmed.

Fortunately there is a scientific method which allows us to decide whether the above is true or not. If you read Karl Popper and if you wish to take it even further, William of Ockham, you can find the basis of the scientific disproof of a hypothesis.

This quick video may help: Richard Feynman on disproving a hypothesis. And Dr Roy Spencer’s Graph showing Models and empirical measurements. (Accompanying commentary can be found on Dr Spencer’s blog archive, June 2013.)

This is a good example of Popper’s disproval of a hypothesis. In this case the models are the hypothesis, (or law as Feynman describes them) and the actual temperature measurements, some of which are satellites, represent the empirical measurements. It is very obvious that the models fall under Feynman’s rejection. There is therefore no scientific evidence that the earth is warming (or cooling), other than what has already been observed throughout history.

Unfortunately, governments like excuses to issue new laws. As most governments nowadays, (including that of New Zealand), are sliding steadily to the left, this gives them an excuse to issue more laws and regulations of the sort which we must obey at the cost of trading a little of our freedom and democracy. We see this happening in our society at this very moment as common law is replaced with regulative legislation in most sectors. Common law traditionally is/was at arms length from governments. Regulations by legislation are not.

So please take the time to study these things. I understand how difficult it is to give up beliefs that you have accumulated, but one must remain logical and scientific in these things. To be otherwise one must be dishonest with one self. Cheers,

Roger

What I have typically found is that global warming deniers are people who have trawled the internet to find climate myths that fit with their preconceived notions. They then make it their mission to repeat these climate myths at every available opportunity. Any attempt to reason with these people, or point them to the mountain of scientific literature on global warming, is futile.

When it comes to climate policy, there’s only mainstream climate science to serve as a basis for current and future planning. Fringe scientists have had over a hundred years to present a compelling alternative theory but keep coming up with a big fat zero.

Accelerating ice mass loss around the world, rising sea levels, warming oceans and atmosphere show us that the Earth continues to warm as the mainstream scientific community predicted it would.