by Jim Manzi

Paul Krugman had a long article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine on climate change. Refreshingly, it attempts to compare the costs and benefits of proposed climate policies rationally. But it also, in my view, loads the dice in certain key passages.

In the interests of not making this post endless, I’ll discuss only two points today: (1) It asserts an expected level of global warming that is about twice as large as that provided in the current IPCC Assessment; and (2) it appears to compare a resulting inflated damage estimate in the year 2100 to a cost estimate that we would start to bear by 2050. In sum, a corrected simple cost-benefit comparison of a policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions indicates that wehttp://oekowatch.org/administrator/index.php should expect the “solution” to cost more than the damages it averts.

read the rest of the article here