"84% agreed the effects of global warming "create significant risks" to the economy, particularly to agriculture, fishing, insurance and health."

Cost/benefit analysis is supposed to include positive and negative effects for decision-making.
Since this obviously not being done, intelligent people recognize this power-grabbing scam for what it is. It is also important to note that the passing of cap-and-trade would provide a slew of new jobs for economists.

Your article should note that this is by no means an unbiased sample of economists.

The initial sample of 300 were all people that had published climate change articles. And apparently that selected sample then did an additional self-selection since it appears that only about 1/2 answered the survey.

I am a chemical engineer. About 98% (unscientific survey) of the chemical engineers I work with think cap and trade is a bad idea. So what makes an economist's opinion more valid?

Are these the same economists that predicted the housing bubble?

It appears that economists, who put their trust in financial models that turned out not to work, want us to put our faith in climate models that don't work. What is worse, is that these economists do not even understand how to do a cost/benefit analysis. Even the greens are admitting that the cap and trade proposals will have no measurable impact on temperatures. So how does the huge cost of complying with the cap and trade proposals get offset by any benefits?

Most economists (those not hired by fossil fuel groups) understand and are willing to indicate that the costs of gradual emissions reduction are manageable. Be skeptical of the alarmists who scream of economic catastrophe if we seek to reduce emissions.

"Last month, a National Research Council report found that burning fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, exerts a hidden $120 billion cost on the U.S. economy because of higher health costs, leaving aside climate damage, according to the USA Today article."

...among other things. Here are more details on that report:

"The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize."

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794

We pay the price for fossil fuel usage, whether it all shows up in our utility bills and price at the pump or not.

Do you expect us to believe that dependency on foreign oil is bad?

The design of internal combustion engines are over 100 years old. Just maybe..we rely on a transportation method that is completely outdated??

What was the origin of the term 'horsepower'? Hmm..

Hi,
The survey of economists is very eye-opening.The US authorities must take further step to limit effects of global warming.

Let me get this straight.

Man can not even manage the forest or the prairies.
Yet some how some men think that we can 'manage' and control the atmosphere.

Wow.

It seems to me that whatever the topic maybe at any given time,good or bad, money is always the bottomline.Why?
Oh, well maybe it will cost to much, or maybe we'll save money. Who gives a damn? Just do what's right. Why is everyone such a slave to this idea of money.
Do what is good for life, not economics. That is, the capitalistic version of economics that we're so fond of.
Look at what economics did for the people of Flint Michigan. I've never seen such a hole.
And for the record I do not support a capitalist or communist approach to life. I support a rational one. A life that makes the environment the bottomline.

A 'Cap and Tax' system will do nothing to reduce emmisions it will just introduce a new way to waste money and set heavy burdens on industry. If we really cared about emmisions the United States would push Nuclear Power and with that alternative electric cars would be more practical, and for all the car junkies out there, electric vehicles can still be fast and fun to drive, just check out the Tesla Roadster, it out accelerated the Lotus Elise that donated it's chassis for the vehicle.

brett, did you actually read the article? the second paragraph is as far as you need to go:

"Sent to roughly 300 authors of climate change-related articles published in the past 15 years in the top 25 economics journals"

it's a complete misrepresentation. your title should read:

Benefits Outweigh Costs of Reducing Emissions, say Economists "who have written papers on climate change"

obviously these non-randomly selected economists are going to lean in that direction. the question is what about the other 6%? they must have waken up to reality since they wrote their article.

utter nonsense, i can't believe you even posted this. i'm sure the other commenters will be all over this as well.

Reply: Yes, I read it. You cannot possibly know what those papers were about Genetic. Were they critical or supportive. These are economists.

Bill got the jump on this topic in the last posting.
It wasn't a random sampling of economists - it was a sampling of economists who had written on climate change.
It is easy to get the survey result you want when you sample only people who agree with your position.

Reply: You do not know that these are only people who agree on that position. You are making an assumption. How did the other half that did not respond feel?

But, I understand where you are coming from and it would be nice to have more info. on the sample of these economists.

"greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, exerts a hidden $120 billion cost on the U.S. economy because of higher health costs"

Seems very odd, since healthcare is a big part of the economy.

Again, this is amusing but not relevent to the basic question of AGW.

A few things to note:
1. According to AGW Industry rules, these guys are not climatologists and therefore are not qulaified to have an opinion. (Their rules not mine)

2. Since they are not qualified to have an opinion they must base their recommendations on the IPCC Progaganda. Which of course would show a benifit for reducing emmisions since that was the conclusion before any research was done.

3. These guys stand to make a lot of money administering all the beuracracy and reporting that Cap and TAX and regulations will require.
They have families to feed as well.

4. 144 is a pathetically small number of respondents. One wonders if it merely represents the activist left fringe of that profession.

5. They infer that CO2 exerts a hidden cost to Health.
That is of course Pure Bull S&%t.

6. Since it is now clear that Man Made CO2 emmissions do NOT drive Global Climate, they are left with the same polution issues we have known about for 100 years.

Nothing new or relevent here folks.

Just more rent seekers.

uh oh, Brett. You're gonna make the trickle-downers unhappy! After all, the only way to grow the economy is to redistribute and redirect all the wealth to the top, and through their brilliant investments and decision-making, wealth will trickle down to the rest of the plebeians, and we all shall hold hands and sing in harmony.

Of course, being addicted to one resource is always going to be economically risky. That's obvious to anyone not named Hannity or Rush.

These must be the same economists who told us that forking over trillions to Wall Street banks, insurance companies, and investment firms would save our homes, our jobs, and reboot "the economy."

Now they tell us that cap-n-trade and carbon taxing what's left of the productive capacity of this country will make things even nicer, and ever so green. Any takers? Other than well-greased politicians hoping to get a corner on the scam? (Yes, specifically, but hardly exclusively, you, Mr. Gore) Didn't think so. People aren't that stupid.

IPI is NYU Law School's house Green, Socially Responsible, Politically Correct Investing think-tank. I don't think though that I'd lose any money betting that the IPI thinks lawyers, judges, and politicians should decide what is scientifically sound, not scientists. One hardly thinks they wish laws to be subject to laboratory analysis, however. I seriously doubt either that they believe markets, not think tanks, policy councils, and legislatures, should determine what costs actually are.

However, since they've raised the issue with this eco-FUD and medical scaremongering about "hidden costs", what are the health costs of systematically stripping a productive economy and consolidating all wealth into the hands of an oligarchic economic elite, using onerous, invasive legislation stacking the deck in favor of the haves and crippling taxation, as but two tools?

Taken in the context of hundreds of billions being spent by DHS and DOD in anticipation of "domestic terrorism" (more likely just plain insurrection, when people are taxed to breathe, basically, yet China, India, et al. don't have to play by the same rules, having already got the jobs, etc.) the costs are could be considerably greater than a piddly $120 billion, assuming that's accurate, which I highly doubt.

I'm not saying anything like this will or should happen, but the possibility is all too frighteningly real. These IPI idiots are either completely deranged and can't see it, though, or they just don't care. Or they hope we're all just that stupid.

Yes I haven't read the report yet, but I've read enough reports to know that they can't possibly have done any kind of seriously exhaustive economic analysis of such far-reaching measures, just to come up with such a specific, limited result. The press release at least smacks of pure spin and propaganda, carefully timed for the Senatorial debate. Free cover for the looters on Capitol Hill, courtesy of New York lawyers.

The venerable NRC is losing any credibility it once had as a respectable scientific body. Instead it seems to have become a shill for various technocratic, neofeudalist, and monopolistic political, economic, and "social" agendas masquerading as science and engineering. They at least used to do actual research. Nowadays their scientific methodology appears to consist of taking polls. Their position on climate change has been to rubber-stamp the IPCC's determination of consensus.

Ahh, maybe I'm just too cynical anymore, but propaganda organ is probably far more accurate than the IPI's self-description as a "non-partisan advocacy organization." How can we take any group seriously as an arbiter of science which uses such an oxymoron to describe itself?

Economic models make climate models look like a Swiss watch. If anybody doubts that, they have clearly been mimicking Rip Van Winkle for the past 2 years.

The entire economics profession and industry is struggling to figure out how to rethink itself on all levels in the wake of the devastating blow it has taken. Approximately the same percentage of economists totally missed predicting the global financial and economic crisis that are now predicting that cap-and-trade will have net benefit. Ultimately, they are using very similar models for both analyses, so I would take any pronouncements from economists with a very large grain of salt. There is lots of great reading on this at the NY Times, Vanity Fair, The Economist, Planetmoney, many bloggers etc.

On a predictive basis, the economists are unlikely to be much better than a random number generator. At least the climate models have a decent shot at getting the direction of their predictions right, although I don't believe their magnitude estimates. I don't think the economists can even be trusted to have a better than coin toss chance of getting the direction right.

If and thats a BIG IF,AGW were real then the economists have a valid point.
The problem is AGW is not real,so trash the survey and read this.

No Consensus about Anthropogenic Global Warming

By S. Fred Singer

There is a general impression, based on flawed analyses [Oreskes in Science 2004] that scientists support nearly unanimously the so-called scientific consensus on AGW. But more than 31,000 scientists and engineers disagree and have signed a petition that affirms their disbelief in AGW [for a listing of names see pp. 745-855, in Climate Change Reconsidered, available at www.NIPCCreport.org]

There is even widespread belief that major scientific societies, like the American Geophysical Union (AGU), have polled their membership before issuing formal Statements which essentially endorse the IPCC conclusion that the temperature rise of the past 50 years has been caused by human activity – and more specifically by the emission of greenhouse (GH) gases. Not so: This false impression seems to be due to a misleading survey result published in an AGU journal [P. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman, Eos 90, 20 Jan 2009, pp 22-23].

We will discuss this survey here at http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-consensus-about-anthropogenic-global.html

Brett this is the wort poll / post I have ever seen you post. The IPT is a special interest group! It states right on there website "IPI advocates for reform before courts, legislatures, and executive agencies." Then they add in the word nonpartisan. ACORN if you watch the news calls itsself nonpartisan but they of course accept donation litsts from only one party.

Reply: I noted that at the bottom of the post Zac.

I would apolagize to everyone for posting this as a real poll. 90% of any group of economists wont say there are benefits for "cap and trade" as it will destroy jobs and finish off the manufacturing industry. This post is ridiculous.

Also from the IPI website "IPI consists of a board of advisors of leaders in government, business, and policy; members of the Law School�s world-class faculty; and a team of staff and fellows dedicated to the Institute�s mission."

The institute with a board "dedicated to the agenda" is not bipartisan.

Also see the 2009 annual report on there advocay, and note the list of highly partisan Board Members. Mostly left wing professors. Can you get the names of ANY of the 144 economists that participated????

More nonsense. It never ends. One of these days people will say "OMG, what was I thinking?" Hopefully it won't be too late when the New Dalton takes hold and you're rubbing sticks together to get warm.

Wow, that site makes good readin'

Looks like the "non-partisan" group has this in its "portfolio":

"Institute for Policy Integrity asks EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."

Also, let's play a game. How many of the "advisors" for this "non-partisan" group were part of the Obama-Biden transition team?

www.policyintegrity.org/about/AdvisoryBoard.html

Hint, I counted three before I stopped counting. But look, there's actually someone listed as "President of the League of Conservative Voters". Oh, maybe there is some balance after all. Ooops! Typo! That's "League of Conservation Voters". (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

But wait, there's more!

All you gotta do is google the exact phrase "Institute for Policy Integrity".

Sure looks "non-partisan" to me! How 'bout you?

And the survey group?

"Sent to roughly 300 authors of climate change-related articles published in the past 15 years in the top 25 economics journals."

Where do you suppose the funding for those studies came from?

I wonder how many of these economists would have the same feelings if they were told that manmade CO2 has no catastrophic impact on climate?

" exerts a hidden $120 billion cost on the U.S. economy because of higher health costs,"

Are these the same people that told us eggs would kill you?

I'm sorry, I do not believe that our "science" has progressed that much, nor do I believe we are that smart.

Plus they can't make up their minds, only thirty years ago "they" were predicting the cold would kill us.

Who cares anyway?
Climate changes, get over it. Instead of trying to control climate, how about realizing that climate changes and putting 1/2 that effort and money into ways we can adjust to changes?

For everybody who beieves that economists are clear-thinking data evaluators with no idealogical biases, here are a couple of interesting "Mea Culpas" by a well known economist:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/an-economists-mea-culpa/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/can-economists-be-trusted/

The debate regarding free markets, government intervention, tax cuts, regulation, supply and demand, etc. is heavily infused with fixed idealogies on a similar or greater level as the climate debate. It is quite common for the same data set to result in completely different interpretations depending who analyses it.

$150 BILLION in hidden health care costs because of CO2? What a joke. And what about the BENEFITS of CO2 like higher crop yields and higher timber harvests? Or higher fishing yields due to more fertile seas? What credit did they take? Don't worry, I know the answer. ZERO.

"The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/09/energy-and-global-warming-news-offshore-wind-turbines-exelon-rowe-senate-climate-bill-spring-save-households-money-aceee/#more-13882

A few articles down the page is the ACEEE pronouncement that it will save people money that take advantage of the energy efficiency provisions of the bill.

"According to a report released last month by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, climate legislation won’t just have a low cost. Once the energy efficiency programs kick in, it says, the average household would actually save more than $300 a year, and the economy would gain 1 million net jobs."

This is the new green economy coming. Welcome to the future.

"National Research Council report found that burning fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, exerts a hidden $120 billion cost on the U.S. economy because of higher health costs"

Just what are the health problems associated with a miniscule increase in CO2? This is rubbish! You would think they would have better things to do with our tax money!

Rick Fanning

Reply: Rick, they are specifically talking about the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal fired power plants, which do impact the air quality by releasing particulate matter and impact your health. Greenhouse gases are also released through this process. They are not specifically saying that CO2 is the culprit.

Spin it again...deniers.

This is only a survey of economists. Your wallets are still where you left them. Is there something besides $$$$ that gets your attention. How about...

"AGW will create jobs for everybody!!" says futurist.

Why don't you read what it says (opinion) before you jump down Brett's throat. He is only the messenger..!

brett, you responded to my comment with "You cannot possibly know what those papers were about...Were they critical or supportive."

don't take this as an insult because that's not my intent but that is a very naive view. just read the actual report, i pasted the link below. it's clearly an opinion piece, no objectivity whatsoever.

in the publication it says a full list of those surveyed is available by request. i'm sure they would get back to you a lot faster than they would to me (if at all). i would appreciate if you posted a follow up to this with those names, we'll see if my hunch is right. i'm willing to bet on it.

Reply: I will request it.

http://policyintegrity.org/publications/documents/EconomistsandClimateChange.pdf

All non-partisan economic analysis agrees with the general consensus of this survey.

The global warming deniers are going absolutely bonkers on this thread over the fact that economists strongly support emissions reduction and understand the risks of climate change. Perhaps they don't like their economic alarmism (claimed economic ruin if we reduce emissions) being exposed.

What's more amusing is some deniers claiming that surveying economists who have published work on climate science is a bad thing, as if they'd prefer economists hired by the fossil fuel industry, Senator Inhofe or Bank of America. They seem to prefer their experts on climate science to be the least educated.

I am changing my name to RP so as not to be confused with a Mark that is not me... HERE IS A GROSSLY UNDERPUBLICIZED FACT: USING GRID TIED SOLAR ELECTRICITY TO RECHARGE AN ELECTRIC CAR LIKE THE FORD THAT JAY LENO HAS CELEBRITIES RACE NEARLY EVERY SHOW IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN $2.60/GALLON GASOLINE WITH NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY.

NOT HAPPY WITH THE 80 MILE RANGE? GET A PLUG IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND RUN ON ELECTRICITY UP TO 50 MILES AND GO 600-700 MILES ON A TANK OF GAS THE REST OF THE TIME. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE EXCEPT IT ROYALLY DIGS INTO OIL AND COAL PROFIT! THERE IS AN H3 CONVERTED HUMMER THAT DOES THIS.

Brett,

You need to look more closely at the sources of your articles before you publish them. The IPI, while claiming to be non-partisan, is packed with environmental activists.

Reply: I look at the sources. I did in this case as well.

Their primary focus is on supporting "social benefits" to environmental regulation, rather than economic cost/benefit. The advisory board includes 4 members (out of 14) who were part of the Obama campaign/transition team. Reading the CV's would lead anyone to suspect that this source would be totally incapable of conducting a non-biased survey of any group. I would love to see a breakdown of the political persuasion of the 144 economists who were surveyed. Sorry, but this article is worthless.

Brett you said,: You do not know that these are only people who agree on that position. You are making an assumption.

It is a fact that AGW climate models are based alot on ASSUMPTIONS,so why the double standard?

Why do the skeptics get hammered when we link AGW and politics,but if an economist drinks the koolaid and sides with alarmists,it's gospel and they get off scott free.

No Zac,the worst Brett post is the painting of the rocks,lol.

"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

-Ronald Reagan

The environmental agenda is to stifle emissions, suffocate the economy, and solve a non-existant problem. Brilliant.

"Economic models make climate models look like a Swiss watch. If anybody doubts that, they have clearly been mimicking Rip Van Winkle for the past 2 years."

I agree rd, but perhaps you want to tell your Denier friends, who constantly cite economic "models" by the Heritage, Cato, Club for Growth, Weekly Standard, or any of these other think-tanks stating that reducing CO2 emissions will destroy the economy.

The CBO analysis suggests it won't cost much. Despite the doom-and-gloom fear-mongering from the radical Right, I tend to believe they're much closer to being correct than these morons at Cato or Heritage.

ps. wow, just as predicted, Rich cites a Heritage foundation economic model. Right-wingers are so predictable.

Rick and Brett:

Your discussion of 11/10/09 7:33am illuminates an alternate route to cap-and-trade.

Many of the current energy sources have multiple negative impacts from the resource extraction through the use to disposal. We should be regulating these industries so that the true costs of the energy use are factored in through the requirements for preventing the negative impacts.

An example would be coal where the extraction process needs much better restoration of the mine sites, air emissions of particulates and mercury should be reduced, and disposal of coal ash should be done in an environmentally-acceptable way. CO2 is way down the list in importance for measurable health and environmental impacts - it is is truly bizarre that it is the one thing that there is a big push to regulate.

These measures would increase the cost of using the energy source, but only to the extent that it addresses readily apparent, immediate impacts. Unfortunately, there has been enough momentum built towards cap-and-trade that we may be left with expensive, environmentally damaging energy sources instead.

Just keep in Mind where this all headed..

666, the number of the beast, This B.S Global warming hoax is going to cause ALL to receive
the mark of the Beast.

" That no man may buy or sell(carbon)
lest they have the mark of the Beast...

Folks the Ice caps have been melting for 1000's
of years...Guess what they are still melting.

Yet in the early 1700's they sailed ships through the Artic... OPEN WATER... oh my.

This year has been one of the COLDEST YEARS ON RECORD HERE IN THE USA...going back to the 1850's

RICH-

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$there are 'other' things in life.

CO2 is not plant food, anymore than O2 is people food.
How many 'breatharians' do you know?

Robert- Chemical Engineer......enough said...

Dr. Dave, Anon, Rocks, Gary, mrsund, HarryL, De Griz, Zac, saly, et al-

Say what? Time does NOT flow backwards...sorry. Same ol', lame ol' arguments.....

"Robert:
I am a chemical engineer. About 98% (unscientific survey) of the chemical engineers I work with think cap and trade is a bad idea. So what makes an economist's opinion more valid?"

That is an extremely precise figure for "about"!?

"Charlie:
Your article should note that this is by no means an unbiased sample of economists.

The initial sample of 300 were all people that had published climate change articles. And apparently that selected sample then did an additional self-selection since it appears that only about 1/2 answered the survey."

I have always said that the economic argument against climate reform is redundant (will create roughly as many jobs as it loses). However, while I believe that jobs and the economy will be PERECTLY FINE, if your statement is true then this poll is a shameful waste of time.

I admit the number seems skewed as 94% is impossibly huge.

Now give me a link to look at (better not be Watt's Up Wid Dat! or something else equally unreliable) and I will concur with your statement.

Re: Bubba | November 11, 2009 1:05 AM

Yet in the early 1700's they sailed ships through the Artic... OPEN WATER... oh my.

To which expeditions are you referring to in particular? I know of no such expeditions that freely sailed the Arctic in the 1700s and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject. I suppose it also largely depends on what you consider to be part of the Arctic, and what your definition of "open water" is. Right now I must assume you are using both terms extremely loosely.

This year has been one of the COLDEST YEARS ON RECORD HERE IN THE USA...going back to the 1850's

According to NCDC records, to which I (perhaps incorrectly) assume you refer, 2009 to-date is the 72nd coolest on record. Few even here would consider that one of the "coldest years on record." October was very cold, yes, but hardly representative of the year as a whole.

Well, Bubba, the carbon atom contains 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons. Perhaps you are right that our carbon footprint may be associated with the mark of the beast?

But this would be classified as OT. This chum is not designed for these waters. We may be surrounded by sharks, but mostly of the hypocritikus squaliformes family. Not many Great Whites around here.

idecline:

"CO2 is not plant food, anymore than O2 is people food."

You might want to consider the difference between synthesis and combustion.

MarkB
"The global warming deniers are going absolutely bonkers on this thread..."

Well, as your comment shows, we have a ways to go to match the hysterical squealing (the phrase "stuck pig" comes to mind) when warmers allow the phrase "fossil fuel industry" to pass their lips, but we're working on it.

Speeaking on "non-partisan" I see "Joe Romm's boss" (John Podesta) is also on the board of advisors for this "non-partisan" think tank.

Speaking of Joe Romm, for a good time, google: Romm McCarthy.

"RICH:
Well, Bubba, the carbon atom contains 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons. Perhaps you are right that our carbon footprint may be associated with the mark of the beast?

But this would be classified as OT. This chum is not designed for these waters. We may be surrounded by sharks, but mostly of the hypocritikus squaliformes family. Not many Great Whites around here."

Ummmmm... Yeahh.. Your certifiable.

1. According to AGW Industry rules, these guys are not climatologists and therefore are not qulaified to have an opinion. (Their rules not mine)

Somewhat true. This language has been used by the AGW community. However, the question is one of economics and there for economists (based on data provided by scientists) would be qualified to make economic conjecture in reference to climate change. I give you half credit for this answer.

2. Since they are not qualified to have an opinion they must base their recommendations on the IPCC Progaganda. Which of course would show a benifit for reducing emmisions since that was the conclusion before any research was done.

In reference to my previous answer I have to give you zero points for this response. In addition, research has been done and is ongoing.

3. These guys stand to make a lot of money administering all the beuracracy and reporting that Cap and TAX and regulations will require.
They have families to feed as well.

Correct! You get full credit for this answer!

4. 144 is a pathetically small number of respondents. One wonders if it merely represents the activist left fringe of that profession.

Agreed! You are also correct on this answer.

5. They infer that CO2 exerts a hidden cost to Health.
That is of course Pure Bull S&%t.

Half credit. While the consensus seems to be that AGW is already having an effect on the human population, it is impossible to calculate the effect. I am also deducting credit for an innapropriate expletive.

6. Since it is now clear that Man Made CO2 emmissions do NOT drive Global Climate, they are left with the same polution issues we have known about for 100 years.

Incorrect. The consensus is that emmisions have and are continuing to effect the climate. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.

I suppose I would probably get 50% (or less) on one of your tests as well.

Mark:

Yes, I think the "deniers" rely too much on economists as well. After all, many of the right-wing economists brought us supply-side economics and the total focus on deregulation which has been shown to be a significant cause of the recent financial meltdown. One of the reasons that I don't believe economics is a real science is that most economists will stick with their theoretical idealogies in the face of massive real-world repudiation.

I prefer to think that we should focus environmental policy on real, measureable issues like surface and ground water pollution, air pollution etc. The science on items like these is pretty much settled that they have major negative impacts on human health and ecosystems.

Typically, regulations, subsidies and taxes have unintended consequences that can be very difficult to predict, especially if people don't want to look for them in the first place. That is why I want to focus on real, measurable things where we can have a positive influence directly without having to wait for some theoretical trickle-down.

Here are some grasphic depictions of why cap-and-trade in the US is likely to be almost irrelvant to the longer-term carbon emissions on the planet:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5944

There is no way that the developing world is going to give up their ability to devlop and consume more fossil fuels.

I would like to think that cap-and-trade would help us move away from being dependent on imported oil. However, it appears that coal, which is mined in the US, is the major target. Also, the corn ethanol boondoggle made it clear that any government programs related to alternative fuels will be so highly politicized that they will be a wash, at best, or negative in societal benefits.

In my view, property and flood insurance rates for low-lying coastal properties is a reasonably good leading indicator for what the statisticians, climatologists, and economists who work for the insurance industry conclude about climate change.

This industry is, after all, where the rubber meets the road in classic American free-market capitalism. Their job is to project likely insurance losses and set rates accordingly. They are well-trained and well-paid by good corporate executive teams with a strong bias towards making money -- pretty much regardless of the political aspects of their conclusions. If they come to the wrong answer, they risk bringing about the failure of their employer's business.

The deniers can paste as much right-wing rhetoric and talking points as they like into sites like this.

Are property and flood insurance rates for low-lying coastal properties going down, staying the same, or going up?

BrooklineTom:

"Are property and flood insurance rates for low-lying coastal properties going down, staying the same, or going up?"

Wow, thanks for the news.

Insurers raise their rates!

Now that's a proxy for climate change if I ever saw one.

BrooklineTom | November 13, 2009 2:48 PM

Anything built on a flood plain should be uninsurable!! Why should I pay higher premiums for morons who build on flood plains??

GW or no GW, nothing but hotels, campgrounds, agriculture, parks, harbors & ports should be allowed. Storm surges, heavy rain, or GW will all get you wet and I am tired of paying for it. GK

To Brookline Tom:

Much of the flood insurance is federal and state run and the rates are artificially low to encourage development. That is one reason why so much development has occurred since 1968 in places that historically were undeveloped or lightly developed because of flooding. Info on the National Flood Insurance Program can be found here: http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm

Most private property insurance covers wind, but not flood damage. That is why there are so many stories after hurricanes about whether or not the roof was ripped off by wind before or after the storm surge hit. That makes the difference between getting the private insurance company to pay or not.

Insurance is state regulated. Some states, like Florida, have onerous insurance requirements and are disaster prone. The result of that has been several insurance companies pulling out of the state. Florida responded by creating a state-run insurance company that effectively defeats the purpose of insurance which spreads risk among many disparate parties who are unlikely to have a claim simultaneously. Florida is potentially only one or two major hurricanes away from bankruptcy due to insurance claims.

After Katrina hit Mississippi, Gov Haley Barbour announced that the state would provide substantial assistance to people who were flooded but lived outside FEMA-mapped floodplains since they could not be expected to have known they might be flooded, and to people who had flood insurance. However, they decided, rationally, to provide minimal reconstruction assistance to people who lived in mapped floodpalins but had elected to save money by not buying flood insurance. This caused a pretty big stink at the time but I think it was necessary to try to maintain at least minimal integrity to the flood insurance programs.

The gyrations of the skeptic dance are a joy to behold.

Look at the actuarial data. Compare rate increases for coastal properties to those for non-coastal areas.

Flood insurance rates are going up because the expected payout of claims is going up. That is, in turn, taking place because the professionals who are paid to place their bets are doing so -- and placing them with the results of peer-reviewed science. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I suspect that James Hansen is rather more widely relied on within the property insurance actuarial community than Joe Bastardi.

The cacaphony from the denialist blogosphere, like most of the material from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, is just entertainment.

G. Karst-

"Anything built on a flood plain should be uninsurable!! Why should I pay higher premiums for morons who build on flood plains??

GW or no GW, nothing but hotels, campgrounds, agriculture, parks, harbors & ports should be allowed. Storm surges, heavy rain, or GW will all get you wet and I am tired of paying for it. GK"

Tell that to all of the people in China, India, Bangladesh, Phillippines, Indonesia, and hundreds of other places in the world who live on floodplains. Get real. There isn't anywhere else for them to go. Unless you have some space in the "Back Forty" of the fortunate place that you must live in.

signed 'that's harsh, dude'

Idecline | November 16, 2009 4:12 AM

As usual you have it ass backwards. Mother Nature is harsh... not me!

I was not aware that we have used up all the 'above sea level lands' to build infrastructure on.

My "back 40" is on a flood plain (it has never completely flooded in my lifetime, however I do not allow any permanent construction on this plain. Most of it, I have restored to wilderness habitat, although I crop some. There are a few old farms on this plain that were long ago abandoned by early settlers, due to storm flooding and poor drainage.

Recently, "city folk" have begun building country homes adjacent to my property. One day I will have to rescue them from their rooftops. Everyone will then wonder "How did this happen??". I guess you will be one of them.

Remember: Nature does not suffer fools. It is equally applicable to land use as in sailing. GK

There is a recent new publication from the American Society of Civil Engineers for people who live in floodplains behind levees. It is avaialble as a pdf at: http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/SoYouLiveBehindLevee.pdf

If you have wondered how much we have altered the landscape related to things like floodplains, take a look at the figure on p.8 of the pdf. It is stunning how much of the country has been diked, even the middle of Alaska!

We have been slowly locking ourselves into a status quo position that won't tolerate natural variations, never mind the AGW alarmist scenarios. We are likely to pay big bucks for past siting decisions in the future.

"G. Karst:
Idecline | November 16, 2009 4:12 AM

As usual you have it ass backwards. Mother Nature is harsh... not me!

I was not aware that we have used up all the 'above sea level lands' to build infrastructure on.

My "back 40" is on a flood plain (it has never completely flooded in my lifetime, however I do not allow any permanent construction on this plain. Most of it, I have restored to wilderness habitat, although I crop some. There are a few old farms on this plain that were long ago abandoned by early settlers, due to storm flooding and poor drainage.

Recently, "city folk" have begun building country homes adjacent to my property. One day I will have to rescue them from their rooftops. Everyone will then wonder "How did this happen??". I guess you will be one of them.

Remember: Nature does not suffer fools. It is equally applicable to land use as in sailing. GK"

I do agree with you to some degree on this. Although there is really nothing we can do about it at this point.

Remember though that there is always something. You build in the great plains you get tornados and blizzards. You build in the mountains and you get blizzards, fires, and landslides. You build on alluvium and you get shifting land and foundation cracks. But floodplains and coastal areas really are the worst.

Ryan:

You are, of course, correct that all such things are a matter of risk assessment. But just because an individual is willing to take a risk, does not mean society should underwrite that risk.

Insurance is a wonderful safety net, but it can be abused by reckless land use. Insurance payouts to the wealthy, for homes built on seashore locations, along known storm tracks are an example. Some of these homes have been rebuilt several times, at our expense. It matters not if it is government or private payouts... it all comes from our pockets. GK