The most important thing about Nordhaus's paper and conclusions, which I focused on in a recent Trump piece <https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-and-the-climate-his-hot-air-on-warming-far-from-the-greatest-threat>, is that he once held fast to the same assumptions Mann's hanging on to. He's demonstrated a capacity to follow the data.
Greg's point at the end is key. Still no evidence that climate change will have the kinds of motivational dimensions that drove the response to Nazi Germany and Pearl Harbor. Some of my exploration of the full scope of the climate challenge in my Issues in Science & Technology essay <http://j.mp/revkin30yearsclimate> early last year are relevant. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deadly-global- > warming-is-inevitable-due-to-inaction-feasible-rhetoric- > climate-change-fight-paris-a7521111.html > > > Nordhaus - “The international target for climate change with a limit of 2C > appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies. > > “And this is the case even with very stringent and unrealistically > ambitious abatement strategies. > > “This is so because of the inertia of the climate system, of rapid > projected economic growth in the near term, and of revisions in several > elements of the model. > > “A target of 2.5C is technically feasible but would require extreme > virtually universal global policy measures.” > > On the other hand, > > Michael Man - “I think it is an overstatement to say (as Nordhaus does in > the abstract) that ‘it will be extremely difficult to achieve the 2C target > of international agreements even if ambitious policies are introduced in > the near term’. > > “The Paris Agreement has put us on a pathway that can get us there given a > ratcheting up of the commitments already made by the nations of the word. > > “Physics isn't an obstacle, only willpower is, at this point. I'm wary of > economists’ assumptions about our willpower to take dramatic actions when > necessary. > > “A similar argument to Nordhaus might have been used to argue we couldn't > possibly mount the mobilisation necessary to win World War II. But we did. > > “We've risen to the challenge before, and we can do so here.” > > GR - We could, but climate change seems a way more abstract threat to > most humans relative to the immediate military threats that were then posed > by Germany and Japan. Can humans trust scientific predictions and then act > to protect future generations rather than just focussing on more immediate > concerns? > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- *ANDREW C. REVKIN* *ProPublica Senior Reporter <https://www.propublica.org/site/author/andrew_revkin> (*climate and related issues) *Mobile: 914-441-5556, @revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music <http://j.mp/revkinmusic>* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
