> It sure seems like you did not try to sincerely read it.

I started out sincerely and I did dig a little further than I
indicated, but the author failed another two heuristics already in the first
paragraph. Specifically:

> my usual stance is to stipulate the so-called “consensus” physical
science

I read a lot of fringe science (crackpots) for fun and to scan for
up-and-coming new science/tech, and that's exactly the kind of sentence a
crackpot writes. He uses "so-called" and scare quotes for the idea of
consensus physical science. That's how crackpots talk. Not damning in
itself, but a very bad sign.

Then:

> Nordhaus’ Nobel-winning work shows that governments doing nothing would
be better for human welfare than trying to hit the UN’s latest goal of
limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Now that is classic "black is white; up is down" inverted-logic
propaganda. It's straight out of the playbook.

Even so, I clicked through to see wtf he's talking about [1], and he's got
some table (Table 4 on [1]) and he says:

> The first row of the table shows what the DICE model—as of its 2007
calibration—estimated would happen if the governments of the world took
no major action to arrest greenhouse gas emissions. There would be
significant future environmental damages, which would have a
present-discounted value of $22.55 trillion.

So, ouch, right? But then he says:

> In contrast, the second row shows what would happen if the governments
implemented an optimal carbon tax. Because emissions would drop, future
environmental damages would fall as well; that’s why the PDV of such
damage would be only $17.31 trillion. However, even though the gross
benefits of the optimal carbon tax would be some $5 trillion as a result
(because of the reduction in environmental harms), these gross benefits
would have to be offset by the drag on conventional economic growth, or
what is called “abatement costs.” Those come in at a hefty $2.20 trillion
(in PDV terms), so that the net benefits of even the optimal carbon tax
would be “only” $3.07 trillion.

Notice that he's talking about economic benefits? "$5 trillion ... reduction in environmental harms" ... that's endangered species that didn't go extinct, forests and rivers and seas that aren't cut down or dried up or poisoned, fisheries that haven't collapsed. Ya feel?

So there it is. When he says "governments doing nothing would be better
for human welfare than trying to hit the UN’s latest goal of limiting
warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius" he actually means the welfare of the
economy. The global ecology is still fucked to the tune of
$22,550,000,000,000 in the do-nothing scenario.

Frankly, I find it absurd.

It's reminds me of that New Yorker cartoon, "Yes, the planet got
destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value
for shareholders." https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995?verso=true

So, already in the first paragraph, he's shown that he's a propagandist who values money over living things. And so, according to my own world view, I can safely discount anything he has to say on the subject. The saddest part is that I don't doubt that he's sincere and thinks of himself as a good person. (He's not twirling his mustache and cackling evilly, eh?) But I'm not going to waste my time reading his screed. As I said, there is too much other, higher-quality information in the world today, and only so much time to read it.

> That paragraph has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the post.

Then what is it doing there? Not to beat up on the guy but that's
another strike against him as a writer, no?

> It just reinforces that you seem to only consider opinions or arguments
that start out from a position you already agree with, and are happy to
dismiss things without reading them if you don’t.

I can understand why it seemed that way but it's just not true. The
fundamental rule of Information Theory says that the unpredictability
of a message is a measure of its information content. I actually seek out
information that contradicts or modifies my current models of the world.
This article isn't that. (I mean, you can predict what he's going to say from the title alone. As I did, successfully.)

You said yourself that you don't agree with the conclusions of the
article, so what exactly am I missing by skipping it? I mean I could
spend that time reading up on statistics or something, eh?

In any event, well met, and have a Happy New Year.

[1] https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus...