The incomprehension was signaled by his lumping together the peak oil controversy, which is relevant to the issue of depletable resources and the economics thereof, with the global warming controversy, which (from the economic point of view) depends on a public good problem that has nothing to do with depletable resources. Earlier he seemed to think that the extinction of the passenger pigeons–a standard tragedy of the commons–somehow invalidated Hotelling’s analysis.

One of the ways in which I judge sources of expert information is by finding some area that overlaps with things I know something about and seeing whether they get that right. Judged by that standard, I wouldn’t rely very heavily on Dutch’s analysis. He not only doesn’t understand the relevant economics, which isn’t that surprising, he is also confident that he does.

But what about the case (As in climate denial) where there *are* no strong arguments/opponents. The fact is, that yes, the combination of a large quantity of opponents, but no opponents of quality, *does* indicate a substantial weakness in the position they’re defending.

Jonnan

“This uncertainty alone justifies substantial CO2 mitigation (emission cuts or geoengineering), if we are risk-averse enough and if mitigation risks are weaker.”

The second if is huge, but you listed it as an if within an if within a random bullet in the middle of the list. The Kyoto protocol has huge costs but minimal effect on CO2, and therefore minimal effect on CO2-based global warming. Even if CO2 is really harmful, how is this a helpful response?