I've pointed out before that at least five independent propositions have to be known to be true to make it rational to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on ameliorating 'global warming'.

1. Carbon dioxide levels have to be known to be rising.
2. It has to be known that this will cause catastrophic disruption to climate and weather.
3. It has to be known that, in principle, human action can actually change or reduce this catastrophic disruption.
4. It has to be known that the human action required to do this is feasible given the current numbers and economic status of the human population.
5. It has to be known that spending money on amelioration will be more cost-effective than spending it on adaptation.

Let's be astonishingly generous and assume that premise 1 is 95% certain and that all the others are 85% certain. That gives us 95%*85%*85%*85%*85% = a 49.5% chance that these vast sums of money are being spent effectively, and a greater-than-evens chance that they are all being completely wasted. (But does any sane person really think the probabilities are that high?) Any government with billions of dollars to spend on this would be better off taking it down to a casino and putting it all on red.

Opposition to hysterical spending on 'global warming' is just rational economics.

There are two sides to the global warming story. Firstly, its inconceivable that hundreds of years of human environmental vandalism wouldn't eventually have undesirable consequences. Consider that we've been frantically pumping crap into the ecosystem since the neanderthals or whoever first figured how to light a fire. At the same time we've been chopping down every tree we could & destroying as much of the CO2 - O2 system as humanly possible. I have no doubt that certain interests have told the odd porkie about ill-effects, but despite that, humans have not exactly been responsible custodians of their planet. On the other hand, we have big-business that will do or say anything to maintain its profitability, and devious politicians who never miss an opportunity to levy yet another tax on the unsuspecting sheeple. unfortunately the snouts have control & influence and have used those to push the anti-AGW barrow quite successfully. The real truth is somewhere in the middle of the two opposing viewpoints, although personally I believe its well to the AGW end of the spectrum.

This article only goes to show (again) that it's impossible to write anything nonsensical enough to be rejected for publication in OnlineOpinion.

Don, the "consensus" arguments relate not the a "consensus" among people who know nothing but the consensus among scientists engaged in "rational enquiry". Of course a "consensus" argument is for the beneift of those who don't know/understand the science - rationally assessing and arguing over the science is better. But you don't do that either - I think you have pretty much indicated in the past that you don't have the scientific background to do that.

As for your quote "To be told that 97 per cent of climate scientists believe in AGW, however, ought to produce the reply 'So what?'", if you really think that there's probably nothing anyone can say to you. But when 97% of doctors say you or a loved one have a condition which needs treatment, ask yourself again "So what?"

As for your comparison with priests - are you serious? Priests are self-selected according not only to their knowledge of their field, but also according to their beliefs.

Jon, scientific research consists of more than thinking of a number and writing it down. (As a matter of fact, so does rationalist economics). Your first probability is certainly 5% too low, and your third condition is so imprecise as to be meaningless (how much human action?). Ditto the fourth. Ditto the fifth, in a different way - the optimum is always going to be some expenditure in each category.
As with any calculation, garbage in, garbage out.

What Jeremy said

Just what we needed... an economic historian to set those pesky climate scientists straight.

Don, if you keep drinking at your current fountain of anti-climate science grumpiness, you will continue to display the same signs of (mental) poisoning. Read fewer books written by partisans and shills, regardless of how persuasive you might find them. This discussion should be about building knowledge, not about rubbishing the knowledgeable.

You have spent several years grasping at straws, even straws of opinion generated by those without knowledge of the subject, as in the above.

I recommend strongly that you keep your opinion to yourself on topics for which you are neither trained, experienced nor competent - and that you rank others' opinions on these subjects in accordance with their credibility, most of which is gained through... wait for it... actual, demonstrable knowledge of the subject.

Economics and history? Relevant? No way!

Folks, this one's over. The recanting and backing down are going on all over the place. The latest version is that the climate is changing but we think natural causes might be more important than we previously thought and anyway a further ncrease in CO2 levels probably won't raise the temperature all that much. From the Chairman of the IPCC through James Lovelock and various scientists to the politicians who've wasted billions trying to reduce CO2 emissions, the story is the same. All are now saying: "We weren't wrong. It's just that we weren't fully aware of the possible causes of climate change."

You've got to hand it to Jimmy Hansen and Michael Mann though. Even Phil Jones is backpedalling but these two keep fighting on.