Using a hypothetical scenario of 3 degrees C. warming by AD 2100, the best estimate of the group Nordhaus referred to as mainstream economists was about a 1 percent GDP loss - with fairly large uncertainty. The natural scientists estimated 10 times greater damage - but with even greater uncertainty. Nobel Laureates on 21st Century Climate Professor Schneider, Stanford University climatologist and author of the adjoining column, recently joined six other natural scientists at a public briefing for President Clinton. Dr. Schneider adapted this article from his remarks at the briefing. Part of the difference in these professionals' world views is the higher value that natural scientists put on nature's unpriced services, like waste recycling, flood control, or biotic diversity.
Economists are more optimistic that humans can invent substitutes for such ecological services.
Let's suppose the economists are right. First, consider sea level. Since then, several have caused tens of billions of dollars in damages. The insurance industry is understandably very alarmed. Although there is some theoretical reason to expect that warmer ocean temperatures could produce stronger storms, this analysis is controversial, and no one can credibly attribute some percentage of Andrew's damage to global warming.