Bob, my apologies for the slow response, the dreaded 4 post/day limit struck.

Jennifer's response to my question was simply insulting and absolutely calls into question her own sincerity in claiming to be on a crusade for better science. She has had further opportunity to answer what are basic questions if you are trying to determine the best course of action and has chosen not to do so. That's her prerogative, just as its mine to discount the sincerity of her claimed motivations. As for me "seeking clarification" before responding to her snarky little rant, I'd suggest you need to consider cause and effect and she needs to think before she posts.

I don't find your argument about costs/benefits calculations convincing. Surely there must be some genuine data? If not, what are you all abusing each other about?

A simple analogy can be drawn from the early days of the automobile. Any "sensible" person could see they were no match for the speed, power and reliability of horses...

Alan B., I think that thorium and other nuclear power solutions will have a place in future generation schemas, but I suspect that the rate of progress in renewable technologies is such that within 20 years or less there will simply be no question that they represent the most efficient means of both generation and distribution. The old "base load" paradigm will go, along with the power generation technology that created a need for it. There is definitely a need to further develop rapid response generation capacity though.

For those who are interested in working out whether the net result of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be warming or cooling, I've reposted at my blog: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/09/13040/

@ ALL
Those who believe that their grandchildren are going to die a horrible death but do not wish to hear that this may not be true, and those that still accuse Dr Jennifer Marohasy of insincerity motivated by politics, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU READ the comments section under the same essay repeated at her blog, especially hers, (link above).

@ Craig Minns
I’m surprised that you are such a sensitive person to be so offended by what MAY have been a misunderstanding. Might your “my [Craig’s] proposed mitigation plan” not tolerate any consideration of naturally caused elements in global warming? Note for instance that the 2015/16 Super El Niño that caused so much excitement with the “hottest year EVER” in 2015 is still rapidly dropping towards La Niña @18/Sep
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4
The last “Super El Nino” was nineteen years ago, boldly standing out on UAH and RSS but disappeared from GISS (NASA) whilst quite prominent on the UK’s HadCrut4 and more so in the less adjusted earlier HadCrut3.
http://www.alternet.org/third-ever-super-el-nino-underway-heres-what-north-america-can-expect

As for costings, they are not a simple $ transaction but involve humanitarian, environmental, food productivity concerns etcetera and inaction on potentially more serious issues. Trying to sum those costs would be extremely difficult and an analogy might be like determining what is the average of all the opinions in political activity around the Globe, (including ISIS).

@ SteeleRedux
In the context of what I wrote, I’m happy with you asserting that her views are contrary to yours rather than your views are contrary to hers. Your vacuous words continue to have no relationship to the scientific points raised. (Even if perhaps there may be exaggerations by senator Roberts, and I don’t recall a single political statement from her) Your scientific contribution has been ZERO on an essay concerning scientific issues

@ mikk
Thank you for your wise contribution to the scientific issues.

A film clip which debunks Monckton and also is about forcing.

There are a number of videos in the series, displaying misrepresentation when comparing Monckton's opinion in relation to a science paper and what the authors of a paper have actually stated or graphed. Sections of graphs have been cut from the original science paper and doctored to promote the view being pushed by Monckton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij0NLBEeUbc

Earlier, at 19 September 10.42 am, I showed a current instance of deniers misrepresenting the work of Zharkova.

The point being go to the original paper, don't take the word of deniers.

Dear Bob Fernley-Jones,

Oh please, if you are going to assert Jennifer might not hold right-wing political views then you have absolutely no right labeling anyone else vacuous.

She was a senior research fellow at the IPA for god's sake. You know the one, it promotes “public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets”.

She describes herself on her own blog as a “utilitarian libertarian”.

If you have evidence that contradicts the bleeding obvious then I'm happy to look at it but until then it would be helpful not to try and gild the lily.

Now if you could point me to the “essay concerning scientific issues” I'm happy to take a look. It can't be the one she has just posted because that was just a crude attempt to try and add a modicum of credibility to the assertions of a bloody POLITICIAN.

Bob, you have the cart before the horse. I made a simple post asking about economic impacts of both scenarios (which I'll get back to in a moment) and Jennifer's response was: "you are suggesting this truth is irrelevant... indeed it would appear that you, and may others, would like us to adopt a sort of postmodernist approach to science where we accept only that information that supports the utopia you have dreamed of".

If anyone should have sought clarification before spouting off abuse it's Jennifer. You'll note that instead of answering the questions she has chosen to take her bat and ball and go home in a huff. Says it all really.

Now, back to the questions. You say that making an economic assessment of the likely costs and/or benefits is impossible due to the overwhelming complexity, which is begging the question. Break it down into the components, explicate your assumptions and a reasonable estimate becomes readily achievable. I urge you to do so, because if it turns out you can demonstrate the economic case, all of the silly name-calling about the science can stop.

You apparently have an engineering background: I'm surprised you find the idea of making estimates so confronting.