I know the usual gang don't want to hear this but I think the intellectual battle has already been won.

McKinsey and Company and PwC, the world's two leading business consultancies both have publications that assume the reality of AGW:

See:

McKinsey Global Institute Research
The carbon productivity challenge: Curbing climate change and sustaining economic growth

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/research/natural_resources/the_carbon_productivity_challenge

and:

PwC Low Carbon Economy Index 2012: Too late for two degrees?

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/low-carbon-economy-index/index.jhtml

>>The annual PwC Low Carbon Economy Index centres on one core statistic: the rate of change of global carbon intensity. This year we estimated that the required improvement in global carbon intensity to meet a 2ºC warming target has risen to 5.1% a year, from now to 2050.>>

Leading business publication Bloomberg Business Week calls Obama a wimp on climate!

See:

Blame Wimpy for Slow U.S. Response to Climate Change

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/blame-wimpy-for-slow-u-s-response-to-climate-change.html

And apparently a clear majority of Republicans now believe the climate is changing:

See: Record Heat Wave Pushes U.S. Belief in Climate Change to 70%

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-18/record-heat-wave-pushes-u-dot-s-dot-belief-in-climate-change-to-70-percent

The poll did not ask respondents about climate change causes. Still it is significant that a majority of even Republicans now believe climate change is occurring. So opinion is shifting. From a belief in the reality of climate change to a belief that humans are causing it may be a shorter step than we think.

Even News Corporation is shifting its stance. It acquired Business Spectator which includes among its publications the Climate Spectator.

I think most political and business leaders now accept the reality of human induced global warming. They may continue to play the game of denial in public and the gullible will buy the "party line" (and repeat it on OLO)

But behind the scenes I think it's game over.

Of course knowing there's a problem and doing something about it is a different matter. There is a strong temptation to put climate into the "too hard" basket.

Any action would require a deal between the US and China and that seems unlikely for now. The public posturing may continue for a while.

So it goes

It's a strange thing that with hurricane Sandy and a few other extreme events around the world, how the "opinions" about AGW have changed.
When extreme events really get bad, there will be a chorus of "why did they not tell us about this before" and "why don't they do something about it".
Too late of course.

1 High-cost GHG mitigation polices are not justified

1.1 Man-made catastrophic climate change is very unlikely
Because:
1.1.1 Earth has been much warmer in the past, and life thrived
1.1.2 Life thrives when warmer, struggles when colder (AR4 Chapter 6)
1.1.3 The planet has been warmer for most of the time multi-cell life has thrived on Earth (past 550 million years). There has been no ice at the poles for 75% of this time.
1.1.4 Sea level rise is not catastrophic. It is a trivial cost over 90 years. It is estimated at less than 0.03% of global GDP over that time.

1.2 High-cost mitigation policies – such as carbon pricing and renewable energy - will not be sustainable politically
Because:
1.2.1 Risk of CO2 causing catastrophe is no greater than other risks that are not being mitigated
1.2.2 High-cost mitigation policies will harm world economy – i.e., harm human wellbeing
1.2.3 Benefits of the policies are uncertain / not demonstrable
1.2.4 Not a robust solution
1.2.5 Subject to political interference

1.3 Cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels, i.e. ‘No Regrets’ policies, are best way to cut CO2 emissions
Because:
1.3.1 Smallest temperature increase, lowest damage cost, lowest abatement cost
1.3.2 Global decarbonisation rate, required verses current
1.3.3 Decarbonisation rate requires substitution for fossil fuels

1.4 ‘No Regrets’ policies are achievable and can do the job
Because:
1.4.1 Cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels is achievable as a 'No regrets' policy

1.3 Cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels, i.e. ‘No Regrets’ policies, are best way to cut CO2 emissions
Because:
1.3.1 Smallest temperature increase, lowest damage cost, lowest abatement cost

Basis:
William Nordhaus (2008) ‘A Question of Balance’ http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

Nordhaus used estimates available up to 2007 to estimate the damage cost of 3.06°C warming (from 1900) with no mitigation would be $22.55 trillion (in 2005 US $) (Table 5-1, p82-83). He estimated the damages with the ‘Optimal’ carbon price policy would be $17.31 trillion. (Temperature change from 1900 = 2.61°C, a saving of just 0.47°C)

Importantly, he estimated the abatement cost with the ‘Optimal’ carbon price policy would be $2.2 trillion.

That is, Nordhaus estimated the cost to avoid 0.47°C of warming at $2.2 trillion.

However, Nordhaus also makes statements in the text that, taken together, show carbon pricing cannot work in the real world (see my summary here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239089.

Therefore, carbon pricing would set the world back $2.2 trillion (2005 US$) for no benefit.

This is an important issue. Little if any work has been done to show that carbon pricing can achieve the benefits that Nordhaus and the other carbon price advocates assume. They are making an unsupported assumption. Richard Tol acknowledged it in his reply to my question here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239101

As an aside, Nordhaus also shows the estimated damage costs, abatement costs and Temperature change (from 1900) for other policies. Here is an extract from Table 5-1 for four of the sixteen polices listed.

Global Temp change (°C from 1900); cost (2005 US$ trillion)
Carbon price policy Damage cost Abatement cost Temp change
Delay mitigation 250 years $22.6 $0.0 3.1
Optimal carbon price $17.3 $2.2 2.6
Stern Review (discounting) $9.0 $27.7 1.5
Low-cost alternative to FF $4.9 $0.5 0.9

The low-cost alternative to fossil fuels (Nordhaus calls it ‘Low-cost backstop’ policy) is by far the cheapest, by far the least damaging and gives by far the smallest temperature increase (based on Nordhaus’s estimates)

1.4 ‘No Regrets’ policies are achievable and can do the job
Because:
1.4.1 Cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels is achievable as a 'No regrets' policy

By far the least cost way to reduce global emissions would be with a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels. Just replacing coal fired electricity would avoid 20 Gt/a in 2035: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=3-IEO2011&table=13-IEO2011&region=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630 That’s nearly half the global emissions from fossil fuels. True it is not feasible to do this by 2035, but it shows the magnitude of the saving that nuclear could provide, and would have done if development hadn’t been thwarted so badly for the past 50 years.

If nuclear power is allowed to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels, then low emissions electricity will substitute for some gas for heating and some oil for land transport. That would mean nuclear power would displace more fossil fuels (and the associated fugitive emissions).

To make this possible we need small nuclear power plants. Large plants like the ones being built now are too expensive and there is too much investor risk in building them. They are also not suitable for small grids, like Australia’s. We need small plants that can be implemented incrementally.

In February 2012, President Obama approved funding for just this – small, modular, factory-built, nuclear power plants. In November 2012, Department of energy selected the first design to be supported through to commercialisation: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/26/nuclear-small-modular-reactors/1727001/ .

Once in commercial production, small, modular nuclear power plants could be built as fast as global demand dictates. And costs will come down – perhaps 20% per doubling of capacity (according to Rod Adams). That is, the price would be halved by the time 1.5 GW is commissioned and would continuing down to perhaps 25% of first unit cost by the time12 GW are commissioned (I accept this may be optimistic, I am trying to get the big picture concepts across).

There are 43 small nuclear power plant designs described here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html . The more that are commercialised the better. Competition improves the breed and reduces costs – just like it has done with commercial aircraft.

I'm generally a believer in AGW - but one of my hobbies as an Australian/Canadian academic
is to become knowledgable about our national hero Captain James Cook.
In 1770 Cook charted the coast of Newfoundland, including many small towns still existing.
Yesterday I looked at Cook's charts for the harbours around the towns of Placentia and Trepassey, which are still inhabited. I compared these with yesterday's satellite photographs of these locations. THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO DIFFERENCE IN SEA LEVEL.
How is this consistent with claims of sea level rise?
Comments/criticism welcome.

Brian Lynch, Ph D [Melbourne], FRSC [UK]
St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia