Oh I agree many different factors can affect climate. But I’m not scientist and neither are you so I’m not going to debate this with you. I’m only saying that if the science is correct, some very difficult problems are presented for economists, which is what I’m interested in - the economic aspect.
And even harder for the government, because if the problem is so pervasive (as is asserted), it sure as hell will not be the institution providing “justice” in this case, what with its utter inability to calculate and do anything other than extort for its ruling class’s gain… How is the government going to price it? Pulling “scientific” figures out of Obama’s (or Gore’s) rear? I don’t buy this it’s “impossible to price” crap, as if by magic the government can do what the market (billions of individuals engaging in free transactions) cannot. With all due respect, climatologists are not economists so whether or not global warming is anthropogenic will not entail that their economic “solutions” to it have any relation to reality…
Why not? You don’t have to be a scientist to know that nature changed climate prior to industrialization. Which should lead to the question, why is all climate change now considered exclusively man made?
The science, the science, the science. You are talking about only half of the science. There is no “the science”, there is highly politicized climatology for profit. Numerous real scientists have said that IPCC modeling is not science. Austrians in particular should question any attempt to mathematically model the complex systems found in nature.
That’s an interesting opinion.
As far as the politicization, I think that is correct as well. The Stern Review was probably highly politicized and Nordhaus made a great critique of it. According to Nordhaus, the model used by the Stern Review assumed a very low discount rate. In a dynamic model this creates much larger costs than actually exists. I think the Nordhaus critique of the current economic models of climate change has been the best so far.