At first I thought "this is great, Mark Thoma picked up on my take of Climate Progress vs economists at Economist's View." But then I realized that bravely anonymous commenters might have some fun with me. Here is the first brave comment, keyword "whitehead", from somthing called "hapa":
romm thinks 2°C isn't even a possible minimum anymore. by discussing it as a possible maximum, whitehead proves romm's point.
Hmm, I thought I had said that economists were recognizing 2C as a minimum. Let's break it down. First, I quoted the EPA describing the 2007 IPCC findings:
According to the USEPA, the 2007 IPCC says:
The average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 3.2 to 7.2°F (1.8-4.0°C) ...
Then I said:
So, in the excerpt, Nordhaus seems to be saying that, even in a best-case scenario (2 degrees C), climate change will be bad. That seems like a reasonable thing to say to me.
In other words, 2C is a best case scenario, the lowest expected temperature increase. I don't see where I discuss this as a minimum. Then I read Nordhaus' original piece and found something troubling:
But in fact, Nordhaus later says this:Restrictions on CO2 emissions large enough to bend downward the temperature curve from its current trajectory to a maximum of 2 or 3 degrees Centigrade would have large economic effects on many businesses.
Nordhaus says that only with climate policy will the temperature trend fall to what Joe Romm accuses climate economists of claiming is the business-as-usual trend.
In other words, Nordhaus says that only with some sort of restrictive climate policy will the increase in temperature be limited to 2C.
Here is the second brave comment, keyword "whitehead," from something called "grizzled":
I just spent (wasted?) almost two hours clicking through all of the above. It has left me thinking that William Nordhaus lives in a dream world. Also, don't buy a used anything from Richard Tol.
I don't understand what is going on with Nordhaus. I am certain he's very intelligent and knows all the things Romm is mad at him for ignoring. Yet, even in the course of slamming deniers Nordhaus soft-pedals the potential for climate change disaster. I'm baffled.
But as to Romm hating economists too much: I find Whitehead's defense of economists terrifyingly clueless.
And I'm the terrifying one? Nordhaus says that 2C would have "large economic effects on many businesses." I think that many economists, in an attempt to be cooly scientific, would say something similar. I'm not sure that I have the foresight to understand what might be "catastrophic" 100 years from now.
In defense of Tol, he used published studies to 2009. No one would have time to do much of anything with the 2007 IPCC estimates and get them published. There is no need, really, to defend Nordhaus. His only sin is to call the 2C increase a minimum, in agreement with the 2007 IPCC, but, unfortunately for him in disagreement with Joe Romm.
In defense of myself? There is none. You should be terrified. But, at least you know my real name.
*Sung to the tune of "If you're happy and you know it." An alternative title is: "I just spent (wasted?) almost two hours defending my honor." Still, another one: "I'm terrifyingly clueless."
