Study: “mitigation costs of limiting global warming … are higher than … avoided damages this century”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to a new PLOS One study, efforts to mitigate global warming will not yield a net economic benefit until the next century.

The abstract of the study;

Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global warming mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates

Patrick T. Brown ,
Harry Saunders
Published: October 7, 2020

Efforts to mitigate global warming are often justified through calculations of the economic damages that may occur absent mitigation. The earliest such damage estimates were speculative mathematical representations, but some more recent studies provide empirical estimates of damages on economic growth that accumulate over time and result in larger damages than those estimated previously. These heightened damage estimates have been used to suggest that limiting global warming this century to 1.5 °C avoids tens of trillions of 2010 US$ in damage to gross world product relative to limiting global warming to 2.0 °C. However, in order to estimate the net effect on gross world product, mitigation costs associated with decarbonizing the world’s energy systems must be subtracted from the benefits of avoided damages. Here, we follow previous work to parameterize the aforementioned heightened damage estimates into a schematic global climate-economy model (DICE) so that they can be weighed against mainstream estimates of mitigation costs in a unified framework. We investigate the net effect of mitigation on gross world product through finite time horizons under a spectrum of exogenously defined levels of mitigation stringency. We find that even under heightened damage estimates, the additional mitigation costs of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C (relative to 2.0 °C) are higher than the additional avoided damages this century under most parameter combinations considered. Specifically, using our central parameter values, limiting global warming to 1.5 °C results in a net loss of gross world product of roughly forty trillion US$ relative to 2 °C and achieving either 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C require a net sacrifice of gross world product, relative to a no-mitigation case, though 2100 with a 3%/year discount rate. However, the benefits of more stringent mitigation accumulate over time and our calculations indicate that stabilizing warming at 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C by 2100 would eventually confer net benefits of thousands of trillions of US$ in gross world product by 2300. The results emphasize the temporal asymmetry between the costs of mitigation and benefits of avoided damages from climate change and thus the long timeframe for which climate change mitigation investment pays off.

Read more:

The authors used a discount factor of 3%, which IMO is reasonable; 3% compares favourably with yardstick rates such as long term US treasury yields, and neatly sidesteps a common criticism of climate action cost benefit projections.

The main takeaway is, even using fairly extreme climate damage projections, the sums just don’t add up – the cost of climate action exceeds any reasonable projected benefit this century.

What about the next century? Frankly they can take care of their own problems. The infamous great horse manure crisis of 1894 demonstrates how pointless it is to worry about the problems of the distant future.

Our ancestors in the late 1800s produced economic models which demonstrated that by the mid 20th century, the major cities of the world would be buried under mountains of horse manure. Their models were mathematically consistent; what they overlooked was the rise of the automobile.

132 thoughts on “Study: “mitigation costs of limiting global warming … are higher than … avoided damages this century”

  1. But think of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren! Destroy the economy now for their sake!

    Oh, wait, we’re already doing that with free COVID-19 scare, it’s ok….

  2. I, and I expect many others, will counter that our ancestors of the late 1800’s were indeed not wrong. We ARE today still being buried under mountains of horse manure.

      • A good one–but measured in decibels….?

        Ah–how loudly it’s proclaimed, I guess. Which gets us to the rioters and demonstrators, doesn’t it–who I’ve always interpreted as never-grown-up adults throwing childish tantrums whenever they don’t get their way.

    • Correct Len – I posted this last month.

      Thank you for this Willis – Dilbert rings true. For example:

      Third Dimension
      “The third dimension is where trained persuaders operate. This worldview says humans are irrational 90 percent of the time.”
      – Scott Adams

      I just posted this a few days ago –same thought, but Adams said it better:

      My good friend Dr. Dave, a remarkably talented specialist physician, often rants about the enormously irrational behaviour of humanity, collectively and individually. He helped me make the correct call on the phony Covid-19 lockdown, and also understands that popular climate and green energy mantras are false and fraudulent. His problem is that he is highly intelligent and rational, and somehow expects others to be like him.

      I have frequently explained to him that he is in the top 1% of human intelligence and competence, and issues that are obvious to him are a mystery to people of average and sub-average intelligence and education. This observation rarely placates him for long, because he cannot believe that people can be so incredibly stupid. I then fall back on the question: “Dave, if you had the choice, would you rather be smart like you are, with all your frustrations, or stupid, so you’d be happy?

      I then defuse the issue with a quick segue into the Dunning Kruger Effect, in layman’s terms: “Stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid.” 🙂

      In this increasingly imbecilic world, perhaps being highly intelligent like Dr. Dave is a curse – it’s not easy being happy when you are surrounded by incredible falsehoods and breathtaking stupidity.

      • Hmmm, something comes up confusing to me about that analysis Allan. The contorted-in-rage faces of the BLM rioters, Antifa rioters, rebelling Extinction Idiots, demonstrators-against-everything, AOC when she’s yelling at somebody for not being as greeny-woke as a cocktail waitress….none of them look happy to me.

        Elon Musk, however, selling them all Teslas?–always smiling. I must be misinterpreting expressions somehow.

        • They are so stupid they think feeling good a all that matters do they make appropriate facial expressions. Musk is just smiling because he sleeps on a mattress stuffed with their money.

        • Hi Len – I like Elon (and he’s a Queen’s man, so I have to be nice). I’ve driven his gull-wing SUV in ice and snow and it handles very well – an engineering achievement!

          I don’t like radical greens, who are ill-informed, maniacal and dangerous – Lenin’s “useful idiots”.

          I do wonder where all the electricity is going to come from – if vehicles go all-electric, we will have to ~double electrical generation, transmissions and distribution at a cost of many trillions. Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, and wind and solar power generation are costly, intermittent, diffuse crap. Hydroelectricity is maxed-out, so we are back to fossil fuels or nuclear.

          • I suspect our future source of energy will be nuclear, Allan–after all, the universe is pretty much made of the stuff. Burning things like fossil fuels seems restrictively and primitively limited to this planet, and if man moves beyond earth like he once moved beyond the cave he was in, and then off the continent he was on, it will be by using nuclear propulsion.

            There is a fear of radiation of course, but there was a fear of speed when the automobile was invented with learned minds claiming some strange things that would happen to the human body if thresholds were exceeded. But we advanced and now move human bodies at escape velocities–and both can still shred a body if improperly managed.

            Sooner or later a majority of charge-seeking Tesla owners will look at the ever increasing and successful history of nuclear reactors as used in military vessels and have an ‘Uhhh–wait a minute…’ enlightening moment. And the day will come when even the reactors of today will remind one of hit-and-miss Fairbanks-Morse museum-pieces of yesterday.

            If only we could get people past seeming to want to be afraid of everything…

    • Horse manure on top of bull sh!t! Screwed up computer models based on hand-waving, made-up sciency nightmares. Idiocy on top of lies.

    • It has gotten a lot worse since the invention of social media and 24 cable talk shows. It is sort of like we hit a tipping point.

  3. I just have a question (and have had it for a while): long before the invention (and deployment) of the mechanical engines in London, back around the Turn of the 19th Century (Regency Period), when London was just beginning to install modern conveniences such as water closets, indoor plumbing (so the housemaid wouldn’t have to haul cans of water up the back stair for My Lady’s bath, etc.), and the common method of transportation was horsedrawn vehicles of all sorts from two-wheeled gigs and one-horse jarveys (cabs), to 4-wheeled curricles and carriages with full teams up to four horses, how come this ocean of horse poop wasn’t a problem?

    Was there some miracle that just made it go POOF! in the night? Just askin’, because it never seems to be a problem in Regency romances and no one wants her favorite novels spoiled with mundane stuff like horse doots on the cobblestones.

    I mean, after all, gas lighting was extremely new and the rising middle class could afford it and went for it like kids going after ice cream, but the reality of poo on the pavement is still there.

    • Sara, my guess is that writers in those days were either too polite to mention it, or the value of horse dung as a fertiliser meant that a small army of youngsters made pocket money by shovelling it up and selling it to gardeners, thereby keeping the streets relatively free of it. I am surprised that a similar thing didn’t happen in NY – maybe the folk weren’t as poor as their London cousins?

      • BoyfromTottenham – My grandmother in Ponders End (just up the road from Tottenham – COYS) couldn’t wait for the rag and bone man to make his rounds so that she could follow his horse and collect the droppings to put on her roses as fertiliser.

      • Thanks! I did wonder about that, because my dad (and some neighbors) eyeballed and later emptied the manure piles when I cleaned horse stalls in the barn. They were happy to have it, and I always told them to use the “oldest” section first, and which side it was on.

        I have not forgotten about manure spreaders, either, because when you lived on a farm, the composted stuff had to be spread on the fields.

        No wonder those guys thought I was wonderful. Free horse manure!! 🙂

    • It rains a fair bit in London, so a lot of it was washed into the drains. But there was still enough to provide work for an army of crossing sweepers. Have you never heard of them?

    • I think a lot of it was harvested for industrial purposes. I seem to remember a tv documentary series called “the worst jobs in history” by Tony Robinson exploring the work of these people. They even had a name.

    • Horse manure has value as fertilizer. Cart in fodder, cart out fertilizer.
      Urine was used for tanning leather.
      Human excrament is less desirable as fertilizer, because of Cholera and other diseases.

    • In most cities, it was left on the street until the next rainstorm washed it away. When droughts occurred, most cities smelt to high heaven.

    • It was a problem. They just can’t find actors willing to film on sets with horse manure up to their ankles. Read a book.

    • Sara , I have often wondered about the History of places , and like looking at this site for old pictures of London .

      At one point in Victorian London they were quoting 1000 tons of horse manure per day on the streets , but they were paying an army of cleaners to sweep it up every day . It was put onto barges which went down the Thames and dellvered to farms along the rivers in nearby counties .

      But quite often by the end of each day , there would be a lot of muck on the street , & young boys would make money by sweeping a path across the street so that Ladies could cross without getting any on their long dresses or boots .

    • Per one observer at the time, the streets were “literally carpeted with a warm, brown matting . . . smelling to heaven.” So-called “crossing sweepers” would offer their services to pedestrians, clearing out paths for walking, but when it rained, the streets turned to muck. And when it was dry, wind whipped up the manure dust and choked the citizenry.
      Alss horse carcasses were left to rot in the streets producing billions of flies which would then spread diseases.
      I have stated this before and I wil state this again: the city is by far mankind’s worst invention and probably it’s demise

  4. 10 Oct: Daily Mail: Windfarm farce that blew £1.4billion of YOUR money! As Boris Johnson trumpets his vision of powering every home with turbines, we reveal the botched scheme that will inflate bills for 20 YEARS
    Boris Johnson has declared that wind power is the future of Britain’s energy
    Civil servants set subsidy rate so high it’s been branded ‘licence to print money’
    The Daily Mail can reveal the eyewatering fiasco in the week Boris Johnson declared that wind power was the future for the nation’s energy generation…
    Owners are guaranteed bonanza pots of cash for 20 years, and the scheme is so lucrative, it has triggered a gold rush among investors, including leading pension funds…
    It dwarfs the £500million wasted by an earlier botched green energy scandal in the province, dubbed ‘Cash for Ash’ which led to the fall of the Stormont Government three years ago…

    One turbine reaps about £375,000 a year, yet produces electricity worth just £51,000…

    • I read that piece this morning, Pat, and with due deference to your name and its possible heritage, I figure it’s all part of the Irish (AKA: IRA) Mafia, getting in on scam-able government programs – with the help (intentional or otherwise) of bent or incompetent Civil Servants. Of course, the likes of XR are hardly likely to condemn it: let’s face it, they probably have divisions in their organisation who have ways to capitalise on it.

    • Things improved in New York after 1895 when engineer George E. Waring set up a major horse manure removal program. And, as automobiles and electric trams become more common in cities everywhere, the problem disappeared.

      Well, slowly disappeared. As a small child in Sydney in the late 1940s, I remember that milk and bread was still home delivered by horse drawn vehicles. We lived near Randwick racecourse and race horses were exercised by walking through suburban streets. No alarm clock needed, the early morning clop-clop was enough. That, and the sound of trams, dominate my childhood sound memories. Daily (?) manure collection was done by men with scoops and carts, but I can’t remember whether these were horse-drawn!

      Horse manure had a commercial value as fertiliser. In Sydney there were still extensive market gardens in suburban areas at that time (1940-60s) and the manure would have been valuable in the areas of poor sandy soils, though I haven’t checked that out.

      It’s hard to imagine a world without autombiles. But it’s understandable that people in the 1890s were confident that cities would continue to depend on horse transport. After all that had been the case since the Roman days (and before) and the Romans also had problems with horse manure.

      • It’s hard to imagine a world without automobiles. “

        My father grew up on a farm in such a world. I remember him discussing the Wells Fargo Bank logo with amusing mock distain: “those Bankers don’t even know how to hitch a team”.

        The energy efficiency of farms of that era was extremely poor. A third of the acreage was dedicated to feeding the teams. Much of the labor on the farm also dealt with feeding, cleaning, ‘hitching”, and caring for the horses, and maintaining their prodigy. Getting the free “fertilizer” from where it was deposited to where it wad needed was not a trivial task.

        Even the steam powered equipment of that era was highly labor intensive. Use of a steam powered threshing machine required an unheated “summer kitchen” in the farm houses just to feed the large crews required to process grain. This was necessary since the farmers would help each other with the labor, but each farm family was required to feed all the workers when their turn came. The great prairies of the Midwest had scant woodlands to provide wood to heat the boilers. This required farms to divert even more acreage to plant wood lots for steam power and winter heating.

        Life was not easy, then.

  5. “The main takeaway is… the cost of climate action exceeds any reasonable projected benefit this century.”

    Rubbish, thats just your blinkered opinion, not the author’s. They give such a long list of caveats in their conclusion to make any such “takeaway” blatant nonsense.

    The only variable they consider is World Gross product, and so ignore ” intangible natural capital like biodiversity…”

    Let alone: “a larger reduction in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation [83], a greater amount of ocean acidification [84], increased probability of an ice-free arctic [85], increased frequency of category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones [86], increased habitat loss for insects, vertebrates and plants [87], and increased susceptibility for malaria transmission [88], among many others [10].

    Btw I thought we despised 100% modelling here… oh I see, only if it refutes what we believe.

    • I don’t agree with the premise that global warming is harmful Loydo so from my perspective the entire exercise is a bit of a joke.

      But it is funny that even modellers who accept alarmist predictions are struggling to make the economic case for climate action.

      • You don’t agree global warming is harmful, but you’d be strenuously opposed to any attempt at multi-millenial length geo-engineering, right? Well, because that could be harmful, couldn’t it?

        • No Global warming is NO harmful.

          The planet is well below the Holocene optimum after a small rise from the coldest period in 10,000 years.

          Dumb, idiotic attempts to regulate or limit the one single constraint on life on this carbon-based planet of ours…, ie the current minimal supply of atmospheric CO2.

          Or to try to cool the planet back down the the desperate Little Ice Age period…

          That is what would be harmful !

        • I said I don’t agree global warming is harmful. I never said I don’t think global cooling is harmful – it wouldn’t take much cooling to restore the dreadful conditions of the little ice age, or worse. In any case my major objection to geo engineering is the impact on plant growth of reflecting sunlight back into space.

        • If global warming is not harmful why do we need to engage in geoengineering to actively fight it, especially since the tiny bit of warming we’ve had in the past 200 years has been so beneficial. Alarmists want to call the industrial and technological revolutions’ increased making of co2 ‘geo-engineering’, but that’s because alarmists/marxists are misanthropes, that actively hate human beings and would enjoy plunging everyone into the abyss – and that’s basically a quote from Marx. Please don’t begrudge people pulling themselves out of poverty with the help of cheap energy and stop lying about effects of higher co2 that even the alarmist IPCC says aren’t true.

        • Oh Loydo, don’t be-griff (beclown) yourself. Sometimes you’re more reasonable than this.

          Obviously if we believe as I also do, that the mild, at-least-half-natural warming that we’re experiencing is beneficial to mankind, we are going to be strongly opposed to any geo-engineering designed to (imbecilically) cool the planet and cause mass famines.

          • You missed my point Rich, we already have multi-millenial length geo-engineering. But you think unplanned geo-engineering is better than some planned form? Interesting choice. Btw, I’m not in favour of either type, I was happy with the Holocene the way it was.

          • WRONG as always…, there has been NO “geo-engineering”

            There has been the release of NATURAL CO2 back into the atmosphere where it belongs and where it came from..

            And its ONLY effect has been increased plant growth.

            This just happens to be TOTALLY BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth..

            Why do you HATE life so much that you want to see it starve ???

            “I was happy with the Holocene the way it was.”

            Glad you were happy when the Holocene was MUCH WARMER than now.

            But quite frankly, your happiness matters to no-one…

            You have made it your choice to live in a state of brain-washed PANIC and hatred for life, all your miserable existence?.

          • I wonder if there is anyone that HATES life on Earth as much as Loy does.

            A deep hatred of all life, that goes to the very core of its existence.

            Otherwise he/she/it would not HATE atmospheric CO2 so much.

            The one restricting item for life on Earth, and he/she/it wants less of it.

            Such hatred for life. !!

          • Ok, I missed your point, such as it is. You want to say that cutting down forests to grow crops and other land-use changes, as well as the dreaded burning of fossil fuels can be stretched into a form of geo-engineering–except that it is not engineering since it is not creating a system in order to achieve something, it is just unintended consequences. And sure enough there are actual measurable effects. But these are very slow (as you mentioned, multi-millennial) changes.

            What is commonly understood as geo-engineering is to set into motion a relatively short-term program intended to rapidly (within human lifetimes) change the climate. For example to seed the oceans with iron in order to fertilize plankton and sequester CO2, or spray aerosols into the stratosphere to increase albedo and cause cooling. Such actions are foolhardy, even if I have my doubts that we could execute on a scale great enough to actually cause a sustained effect.

    • “a larger reduction in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation”

      You mean the NATURAL cycle

      ” a greater amount of ocean acidification “

      NO EVIDENCE that is happening.. calling a tiny drop in pH value “acidification” is a scientific farce.

      ” increased probability of an ice-free arctic”

      You mean back to the NORMAL for the Holocene after than LIA anomaly?

      Unfortunately AMO will cause more Arctic sea ice over the next couple of decades.

      “increased frequency of category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones”

      NOT happening. even the IPCC say that.

      “increased habitat loss for insects, vertebrates and plants”

      World is GREENING.. warming produces MORE habitat.

      and increased susceptibility for malaria transmission

      because of the blocking of the use of DDT.

      And NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with human released CO2.

      You KNOW that as a fact.

      Why copy paste a load of ARRANT NONSENSE, Loy…. makes you look even more like a moronic idiot.

      1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

      2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • “So is there empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?”

            You certainly don’t have any, do you.

            You are an EVIDENCE FREE zone. !

          • Uh huh. So is there empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            That’s not what Ziggy said, Loydo.

            There is most definitely evidence that adding plant food to the atmosphere helps plants grow – just think about the periods of earths history when CO2 was much, much higher than now and the abundance of plant life.

            Empirical evidence for CO2 warming the atmosphere in the wild i.e. not in a test-tube, not so much.

            If you are aware of in the wild, i.e. not in a test-tube, empirical evidence for CO2 warming the atmosphere, please present the link to the original peer-reviewed evidence.

          • I’m fully aware that extra CO2 can enhance plant growth in a controlled greenhouse and I am also fully aware that the extra CO2 from human emissions are the probable cause of global greening (AGG) and that NASA think thats the case too. Who doesn’t? it’s a no brainer.

            However I asked for the EMPIRICAL evidence for it, because that is the demand of people like Fred: “Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?” blah blah blah ad nauseum.

            The link you gave cites a study that says: “To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data. Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect…”

            Wait, I’ve read it here about a million times; computer modelling is not data.

            Can you provide a link to any “empirical” “SCIENTIFICALLY proven” (sic) data that is evidence, evidence that would meet the same standard demanded for AGW, for AGG?

          • roflmao.

            Your PATHETIC attempts to avoid admitting that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for warming by atmospheric CO2, are quite hilarious.

            As you ADMIT…. . there is a MASSIVE amount of evidence that atmospheric CO2 is absolutely BENEFICIAL to life on the planet and that the rise in atmospheric CO2 has been a primary cause of world GREENING.

            Your total lack of any evidence at all in support of anything you say, is truly bizarre. !

            You just keep making crap up, in a verbal spew of empty garbage.

          • Poor Loy…. d’oh

            Greening and increased plant growth caused by atmospheric CO2 has been measured and observed millions of times. It used all around the globe for just that purpose for flowers, for fruit, for vegetable.

            Enhanced CO2 is THE item needed for optimum plant growth

            … .. the one ingredient for plant life that is STILL in short supply in the atmosphere.

            Warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

            There is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it,

            ….. except run around like a headless chook making garbled cackling noises.

          • “However I asked for the EMPIRICAL evidence for it”

            And you got it.

            You even ADMIT its a KNOWN fact.. to quote you.. “it’s a no brainer.”

            Many of those “measured experiments” are done in open air situation with extra CO2 pumped over the crops..


            Where is your problem?

            Lack of comprehension ?

          • @Loydo

            Can you provide a link to any “empirical” “SCIENTIFICALLY proven” (sic) data that is evidence, evidence that would meet the same standard demanded for AGW, for AGG?

            The burden of proof is on those making the claim, so present empirical evidence for anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming.

            No need to tell us recorded temperatures are rising, no need to tell us sea-level is rising, no need to tell use ice is melting, we all know that.

            No one doubts humans can change the environment and contribute to climate change.

            It is the cause of the changes that are in dispute.

            Better still write a post, I’m sure our host would be more than prepared to publish your evidence right here.

          • NO. You are showing your ignorance, yet again.

            Increased plant growth by atmospheric CO2 is a proven measurable fact, backed by THOUSAND of real life experiments. Also the ability of plants to grow in drier regions when given extra CO2, enabling greater water efficiency, is also a known proven fact.

            Plant growth enhancement by CO2 is used in commercial fruit, flower and vegetable.

            Warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.. There are absolutely ZERO commercial application of that particular scientific fakery.

            Your comment had no point.. It was pointless.

        • Oh dear.. it is a known and proven FACT that raised CO2 enhances plant growth.

          Have you been in your basement, without light, forever?

          Are you really so ignorant that you didn’t know that CO2 is an ESSENTIAL ingredient for ALL LIFE ON EARTH?

          Are you DENYING basic proven science.

          Here is a compendium of THOUSANDS of plant growth studies.

          Seriously,, what a juvenile attempt at avoiding answers to those two questions.

          Please try again, preferably without displaying your total absence of any sort of knowledge.

          1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

          2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • Re Loydo’s (and Grif’s) wilful deafness to the facts: to quote that erudite modern philosopher Paul Simon, “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

          • Irony, Richard. When I make the same request for substantiation there is wilful silence. Maybe you can show me some data, no one else has. No, I don’t count being trolled by Fred as having been provided with evidence.

          • You were given substantiation.. THOUSANDS of studies, measured evidence.

            You even ADMITTED you knew that GREENING by atmospheric CO2 was a “no brainer”

            You even said you KNEW that extra CO2 cuaes extra plant growth.

            You cannot remain totally ignorant of poroven biology for even.

            You are the only troll here, doing everything you can to ADMIT that you are absolutely EMPTY of any evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            In the absence of any other answer, everyone will have to assume that YOU AGREE with the answers below, you poor squirmy little worm. !

            1…Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
            NO, you do not have any evidence. !

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?
            You cannot name one single instance of global climate change that can scientifically proven to be caused by humans.

          • “no one else has”

            Just wilful and juvenile DENIAL of science put in front of you

            Truly a pre-school tactic. !

            But all you seem capable of.



            Choose any letter.. the MEASURED EVIDENCE is there.

            Don’t choose to be ignorant all your life !

            Now, STILL waiting for your evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

            Evidence that has been totally absent since time = 0

            You poor, inadequate little trollette. !

          • Loydo, in the past you were given studies, long lists of them.
            You rejected all of them because they weren’t produced by scientists that you agreed with.

            We’ve all come to recognize your list of excuses and evasions.

          • They’re just lab experiments. If that’s the standard you’re appling, why aren’t lab experiments sufficient to show human CO2 causes warming?

            Double standards and delusion all the way down your grimey little rabbit holes.

          • “They’re just lab experiments.”

            WRONG again

            Many are conducted open field with increased atmospheric CO2 pumped over them.

            They are totally representative of an atmosphere with increased CO2 levels.

            Try not to keep displaying your ignorance.

            Except…. that is not really a choice is it. !

            Back to your slime-ridden troll-whole, incompetent worm.

            And stop the childish antics evading answers….

            1… You have now admitted that you do not have any evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2

            2… You have now admitted that cannot name one single instance of global climate change that can scientifically proven to be caused by humans.

          • <"why aren’t lab experiments sufficient to show human CO2 causes warming"

            ROFLMAO.. do you really think an enclosed glass jar represents the atmosphere? d'OH !!!

            Yes , we know CO2 is a radiative gas, that was all that those old lab results showed.

            They did not, and could not have, said ANYTHING about CO2 warming the atmosphere.

            CO2 also is one of 3 main ingredients for the continuance of all life on Earth, and it is currently in short supply in the atmosphere, a lot of it having been sequestered and taken out of circulation.

            It is OUR DUTY to un-sequester that carbon, and put it back into the carbon cycle where it belongs.!

    • ““The main takeaway is… the cost of climate action exceeds any reasonable projected benefit this century.””

      NO, it is a verifiable economic FACT.. Get over it.!!

      “Climate action”, whatever that means,…… has absolutely ZERO BENEFIT to anything except the pockets of the scammers.

      It is totally and completely a COST, and a HUGE one at that.

      ” intangible natural capital like biodiversity…””

      CO2 increases plant growth.. increases diversity

      It is the “climate actions” that are destroying wildlife diversity, through decimating bird and other avian life

      Causing horrendous toxic pollution in its manufacture etc etc.

      Causing trees to be cleared for solar farms and wind turbines and biofuel crops

      Creating massive of unrecyclable garbage such as turbine blade, great hunks of concrete left in the ground.

      There are NO tangible benefits to “climate action” ….. only intended and unintended adverse consequences.

      1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

      2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

    • I wonder if Loy-d’oh can name one REAL benefit of “climate action” (whatever he/she/it thinks that means).

    • Once again Loydo demonstrates that she can’t tell the difference between the output of broken models and the real world.

      Warm weather increases bio-diversity, it doesn’t decrease it. Besides, you can’t name a single species that has gone extinct due to global warming, despite 30 years of looking for one.

      Everything in your list isn’t getting worse, out here in the real world.

  6. The benefits of additional warming are in the $trillions including increased ag productivity and less cold weather expenses such as heating. Those benefits would be lost if any money is spent on “decarbonizing the world”, assuming such measures would work to chill the planet. If they don’t, then all those “mitigation” $trillions would be money down a rat hole anyway.

      • Poor loy.. that is probably the most puerile comment you have yet made.

        Why don’t you want the world to become more prosperous due to opening up vast tracts of land for farming

        Do you HATE life and people that much ?

      • Loydo, the tropics are much cooler than they should be when considering incoming solar isolation. Do you know why?

          • The question is, why does Loydo ignore what the IPCC has to say on the subject of CO2 and the tropics?
            Is Loydo really as ignorant as she pretends to be?

          • Ignorance of your own AGW meme.. So FUNNY

            The tropics won’t warm much, their maximum is controlled..

            Do you know what by?

            According to the AGW farce, warming will be in colder regions most.

            Why compound your own ignorance with even more stupid comments.

            Its just dumb for you to keep going, exposing your ignorance to more and more ridicule.!

      • I live in the Great White North, and good luck trying to shut me up! If global warming were true and not just a cyclical variation like the paleo-climate science shows, then it would be criminal to stop it! The huge increase in prosperity globally over the past few decades literally fueled by fossil fuels, and the resultant drop in mortality, is just a good start and one would have to be evil and racist to even consider interfering with that development because of contrived evidence and media hysteria.

      • Poor Loydo, the world refuses to live up to her delusions, so she get’s mad.

        Even the sainted IPCC has declared that areas with lots of water in the air will see little to no difference in temperature due to CO2.

        If you were half as smart as you claim to be, you would know why.

      • One tragedy of stupidity is that sufferers must resort to obscene tirades when their arguments are lacking.

        For others not so afflicted, I recommend “Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic History of Latin American Vegetation and Terrestrial Habitats” by Alan Graham, 2010, Monographs in Systemic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden, Volume 113, 617 pp.

        This landmark review of tropical paleobotany by the leading paleobotanist of our time reports the diverse and abundant tropical vegetation that has persisted since the Cretaceous, through myriad plate tectonic changes and climates much warmer than today.

        The tropics are not threatened by “climate change”. They have survived and thrived over eons when the planet was as much as 16° C warmer.

  7. 2300

    I first encountered the term ceteris paribus in an economics course. It’s about what happens when you do something and nothing else changes.

    If you’re experimenting, you change one variable at a time, otherwise you end up with an intractable muddled mess.

    The problem with ceteris paribus is that all kinds of things change especially over a 180 year period. The ramifications of today’s technology would have been unimaginable in 1840. Jules Verne was 12 years old then. He imagined all kinds of things but he could not tell you how they would affect today’s economy.

    I guarantee that big things will change over the next 180 years. OMG. If economists were some kind of profession like doctors, lawyers, and engineers, you could sue them for malpractice for putting a dollar value on anything at all 180 years from now.

    Economists are not professionals but they play them on TV … or something like that.


      These clowns start with an UNPROVEN assumption and simple extrapolate more nonsense from that nonsense.

      They do it using more models, built on top of models.

      1… Do they have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
      NO they don’t

      2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?
      NO… there is no proof of tiny weather changes forced by CO2.

      • But there is ample evidence that the dropping level of CO2 was bringing life on this planet closer to extinction, and if the industrial revolution dragged us back from the edge of disaster by pumping up the needed levels of CO2, then we are beyond lucky it came when it did, and the campaign to deindustrialize society is evil incarnate.

          • When there was lots of CO2, life on Earth was massively abundant.

            Do you have a point, and something to back it up with?

            Or are you just making garbled zero-science comments as usual. !

          • YAWN.. yet another empty, meaningless comment from Loy.

            We have have not had an abrupt rise of atmospheric CO2, it climbs by a few ppm per year.

            And hopefully it will keep doing so for a long, long time.

            TOTALLY BENEFICIAL to plant life, but nowhere near its optimum for plant-growth yet.

            ……. no damage to anything

            Why do you HATE plant life so much that you want it to continue to starve?

    • “The effects of our CO2 pollution will last 10s of thousands of years.”

      Lets’s all HOPE that the current SLIGHTLY warm climate continues for a whole lot longer.

      Cooling would be a disaster for mankind and the planet.

      More warming would be highly beneficial, opening up large tracts of currently unusable land.

      The drop in Arctic sea ice is already allowing sea creatures back into Arctic waters.–whale-food-returns/1401824

      And with the natural increase in life-giving atmospheric CO2, will create a much more abundant planet for all life….

      ….. so long as we don’t stuff it up chasing some wacky greenie agenda that destroys the economy, blocks all progress and the devastates environment.

    • Their problems include our ignorance and blinding greed.

      And yet, here we are in something like an Earthly Paradise. It’s not just here in the developed world. Globally, things are getting better everywhere. For instance, poverty is declining all over the world. link

      If we are such horrible rapacious villains, how could we possibly create such a situation? Of all the creatures on God’s Good Green Earth, humans are the only ones who can make things better.

    • The RECOVERY.

      Yes, thankfully, the planet has just RECOVERED from its coldest period in 10,000 years,

      Arctic sea ice has RECOVERED, a small amount, from the anomalous high extents of the LIA and late 1970s. Arctic sea creatures are very happy, hence, so are polar bears 🙂

      But most importantly, the atmospheric CO2 level has RECOVERED from the bare subsistence levels it has been at for hundreds of thousands of years.

      And plant life is LUVIN’ IT !!

      A more bountiful future is ensured…..

      …. so long as we don’t wreck it with the marxist greenie anti-CO2, anti-life agenda that life-haters like Loy worship like zero-minded drones. !

    • Selfish greed is good.

      It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.

      Adam Smith

      • Not to split hairs Eric, but just to split hairs it doesn’t follow a priori from Smith’s example that selfish greed is moral. All that follows is that self-interest isn’t necessarily immoral.

        In fact, selfish greed as commonly defined throughout history almost always results in some type of undue pain for everyone subjected to it, and ought therefore to be held as morally repugnant to the rational man. You might be thinking of it a different way.

      • I see it differently. Self-interested behavior, not greed, is necessary for a functional market economy and a functional market economy is excellent for producing a wealthy nation where everyone who is willing and able to work hard is able to share abundantly in the wealth of their nation.

        In socialism supposedly it is from each according to his means, to each according to his needs, which is to say an enforced altruism. The problem is that the workers pretend to work, and the state pretends to pay them. Everyone ends up in a world of poverty because of the nature of man, the tendency to work no harder than necessary. In communism, this virtue of seeking efficient effort is turned into a vice. It is turned into a downward spiral of lower and lower productivity instead of enabling greater productivity through innovation that reduces the inputs of labor.

        Greed is not a proper synonym for self-interested behavior. Greed is an excessive form of self-interested behavior. The butcher, brewer, and baker need not be greedy to be willing to work hard and earn wealth for themselves and their family. You could argue that the soviet man who avoided as much work as possible while collecting whatever could be had, was the real example of greed. What they did was to know that their shirking would result in less for everyone, but believing that others’ effort could be stolen. What the hard working business owner does is to find ways to profit from serving the needs of others.

    • This is very, very true.

      The ignorance of politicians, and the blinding greed of those who seek to profit from all the green boondoggles that abound because of those aforementioned ignorant politicians, will cause untold damage for 10s of thousands of years unless stopped now.

      We desperately need a new global agreement to squash all the rent-seeking, grant-grabbing subsidy-gobbling green investment that is impoverishing us now, and our descendants for generations.

    • “Their problems include our ignorance”

      You are showing a great extent of introspection there, Loy

      FINALLY you are starting to see yourself as other see you…. totally ignorant.

    • Considering the historic temperature records, we’re due to end the current interglacial, have the temperature drop back down by 5-12 degrees, and have glaciers come back down to the middle of the current temperate zone.

      Anything that postpones that for as long as possible is all good in my book.

    • We aren’t going to get any less greedy so I guess the planets in for 10K years of pain. Even if some get the guilts like you Loydo, I promise lots of greedy people like me will be there to emit your share for you.

    • Loydo does not seem to understand that if the atmospheric O2 level rises above 20%, we’ll be heading back to the Carboniferous epoch (30% atmospheric oxygen levels) and ALL current animal species will die out, period. The only things left will be plants, some gigantic bugs, and massive, repeated fires started by lightning strikes, probably some volcanoes, and some spontaneous-combustion fires. Dragonflies will be be enough to bite and make it hurt, and centipedes will be up to 6 feet long with really nasty poison glands and the ability to shred things when they get hungry.

      There are some current centipedes in Southeast Asian jungles that are up to 3.5 to 4 feet in length. They’re also poisonous critters.

      Seriously, Loydo, get some real information going in your corner, willya? We’ve already had the discussion about O2 levels in the atmosphere and why it’s life-friendly now. Where were you when this was going on? Asleep in your trundle bed?

    • Every time that lie gets repeated, the time it takes for CO2 to leave the atmosphere gets longer.
      Actual tests using the actual atmosphere indicate the half time for CO2 is closer to a dozen years.

  8. The whole concept that we can limit atmospheric CO2 by reducing our emissions is based on the false assumption that the emissions cause the rise in atmospheric CO2. If we don’t control the atmospheric CO2, and we don’t, any money or effort spent to mitigate emissions is wasted and produces no benefits to the GDP or the climate. Guessing at when the cost to mitigate starts to pay off is akin to computing when flood insurance in Great Falls will pay out if I will cause Canyon Ferry Dam to overflow by leaving my hose running.

  9. mitigation costs of

    If one starts with the axiom that CO2 is the control knob of atmospheric temperature all sorts of nonsense can follow.

    benefits of thousands of trillions of US$ in gross world product by 2300

    Recall that the cell phone (iPhone, 2007) was not anticipated, but changed much. I’ll pass on worrying about GWP in 2300.

      • Well, I thought of referring to the DynaTAC but how many readers have ever seen or used one — other than me?

    • Oh, please!!! I had a cell phone in the 1990s. I only wanted it so that if I had a flat on the interstate, I could call for help and not have to walk to the nearest overpass (if there was one) or gas station.

  10. I have been looking for damaging signs of ‘Global Warming . Climate Change’ for over forty years now, since the scare was first mooted and my interest in it has now well and truly reached zero, as there is no damage to be seen. Instead we can readily see the improvements in tree cover and agriculture stemming from additional CO2 wherever it came from. As for the warmer weather, which we cannot yet see it will be very popular when it comes and we will all be down at the beach with a Barbecue if Covid-19 permits. People in Canada and Siberia will be dancing about outside.

    • “it has now well and truly reached zero, as there is no damage to be seen.”


      As I keep asking, but never get an answer….

      In what ways has the “global” climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

      There is NONE.

      Weather is still weather. A few changes here and there, that is only NATURAL

      Maybe a tiny amount of beneficial warming from El Nino release of pent up solar energy. 🙂

      Better than having the world cooling !

  11. “…major cities of the world would be buried under mountains of horse manure. Their models were mathematically consistent; what they overlooked was the rise of the automobile.”

    In a similar fashion to Paul Ehrlich’s predictions of mass starvations from over-population. What he overlooked was a dramatic increase in farming technology.

  12. Our ancestors in the late 1800s produced economic models which demonstrated that by the mid 20th century, the major cities of the world would be buried under mountains of horse manure.

    Well given the advent of mass media, they were completely right!

  13. It’s hilarious how wrong the Warmunists are, because they are doubly wrong. First, they are wrong that warming is a problem, either for man or indeed for all life. They realized this early on, so latched onto “climate change”, enabling them to ascribe any and all evils to it. So, according to them, the Medieveal Warm Period (which they like to pretend didn’t happen) was “just warming”, but now, because of our “carbon” we have the dreaded “climate change”. Which gets to their second wrong-headedness, which is that we have caused the warming. But to do that, they have to cherry pick when the warming, beginning in the latter half of the 1800s, switched from natural to man-made. Oh, but there’s a problem right off the bat, because temperatures don’t in fact track the rise in our CO2 emissions. Oops. So, they try to ignore, or cover up that inconvenient fact. So, back they scurry to “climate change”, their preferred bogeyman.

  14. I would suggest all this worrying about a future apocalyptic climate pails into insignificance compared to the damage our asinine governments are at this very moment inflicting on what’s left of our societies.

    Interview with Dr David Nabarro WHO starts @15.20

  15. Imagine that. A prediction that no one making it will be alive to be ridiculed for when it doesn’t come true.

    The only reason any of this scam is happening is the MONEY! to be made using this to control the world. A Carbon free world does not exist. The prediction of man made demise has been false for the last 30+ years. One thing I have wondered why the site to measure CO2 was next to a volcano which is emitting CO2 forever. The number wouldn’t really go down over time due to the location of the site.

    • What an pointless, empty sack of nothing, you are, Loy-troll..

      Science and facts mean nothing to you.

      You remain, as always.. EVIDENCE FREE.

    • Thank you.

      That’s because, I insist on science.. NOT brain-washed science-free regurgitated mantra.

      You should try it some time. 🙂

  17. “Temporal asymmetry”
    That’s funny!
    Those living in 2300 will be experiencing full blown glacial inception. The children will study history of their ancestors 300 years before (us) who screwed up the global economy for the sake of a bogus warming scare.

Comments are closed.