David Springer | April 9, 2012 at 9:16 am |
“The engineer does a cost-benefit analysis and finds..” but did you, David?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/climatedesk-stop-climate-change-cost/
Virtually everyone with the resources to thoroughly cost out the whole of the story comes to a similar conclusion within a few percent independently, and regardless of method.
People with an axe to grind, or poor resources to attempt the analysis, come out with a wide variety of obviously inflated results when working independently, and when citing one another seldom demonstrate the least measure of fact-checking.
There are still people citing Lomborg in one or another of his many later-repudiated ‘analyses’. Nova? A childish and obvious hack job two orders of magnitude higher than any other independent guestimate. Ergas? Impossible to tell where the analysis ends and the rant begins, other than ‘somewhere in the first page’. Inhofe? He’s been corrected more often than a keyboard with a faulty multiplexor. Lamar Alexander? His reports prove the opposite of the reasons he cited for commissioning them.