have just finished reading Peter Saunders’ first attempt at a novel (Versailles Memorandum) – will write a review of it here

Terje — I can list a few, but the 14 reference comes from Richard Tol, who is one of the experts in the field.

excellent piece.

Greenery is just socialism (multinationalism, an overbearing bureaucracy, excessive regulation, telling people how to live their lives, trust us we’re from the govt) mixed with a dash of religion (this ‘end of days’ nonsense) with a liberal sprinkling of pessimism (we’re all doomed).

And when you say “limited” to economic consequences, that seems to imply it would miss something. Benefit-cost analysis done by economists includes the environmental and social impacts.

There is good science to suggest that humans are contributing to a warming planet, but there is very little evidence to suggest that our prosperity or security will be “ravaged”. There have been only 14 peer-reviewed studies of the consequences of warming, and they mostly find an impact of -1 or -2% of world GDP in about 100 years time. Of course, the world grows by about the same amount every year. So the “ravaging” is actually just the equivalent of a one-year recession. How under-whelming.

Even the Stern Review and the Garnaut Review (not peer reviewed, and significant outliers compared to the peer-review literature) confirm that humanity will be more prosperous in the future, even with no climate policy.

This is very interesting. Especially the claim that only 14 peer reviewed studies have been done on the consequences of climate change. I presume that statement is limited to “economic” consequences. Surely there have been a lot looking at ecological consequences.