Since there is no editing capability, and I'm typing this at breakneck speed, I'm going to repost with corrections. I hope the moderator deletes the previous incarnation.

There are at least two ideological differences that cloud the issue of global warming.

The first has to do with economics, and opposes two static "mind sets", one socialist and the other free market capitalist. This is a distortion: it is a mathematical theorem that neoclassical economics is compatible with a broad spectrum of economic institutions, of which free market capitalism is only one. In general, there is an enormous variety of markets possible; the socialism/free-market dichotomy is a mathematically ignorant caricature.

The second has to do with ideological attitudes towards global warming, some identified with pro-science attitudes, and others aligned against science. Freeman Dyson goes into this in his June 12th 2008 review in the New York Review of Books. See especially the first section on the results of Keeling on atmospheric C02 concentration, and Dyson's review of "A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies" by economist William Nordhaus.

Nordhaus compares several global warming policies using a model he calls DICE (see the review for the meaning of this acronym). Gore's policy would be only two trillion dollars better than doing nothing, which would cost 23 trillion dollars in environmental damage by the year 2100. The Kyoto protocol would net $0 if the United States does not participate, and $1 trillion if the United States does participate. The British proposal (which Nordhaus calls "Stern") would impoverish millions of Chinese and cost $15 trillion. However, there are carbon tax proposals that would make sense (a net gain of 3 trillion dollars), and if Dyson's prediction comes true that at least by 2050, biotechnology will help create "genetically engineered carbon-eating trees," then "...the rules of the climate game will be radically changed. In a world economy based on biotechnology, some low-cost and environmentally benign backstop to carbon emissions is likely to become a reality."

There are at least two ideological differences that cloud the issue of global warming.

And all kinds of legitimate differences about the best way to dealk with it. The option that's not on the table now is denial. The science is in. The debate on how to deal with it is open and crucial. The point of Romm's story is, in order to deal with it, the Republicans have to pull their fingers out of their ears and recognize reality.

Xlp Thlplylp, was it just me or did Dyson himself come of as a bit of the anti-science camp. Especially when talking about the fact that the British government, having looked at the evidence and the research, has decided to make combating AGW a priority-- in Dyson's view they suddenly become "dogmatic" and "anti-discussion".

And I'm always a little worried when someone says they don't trust the science behind climate research, but that biotech will magically cure any problems with the climate (and not create any new ones).

It all seemed a little odd to me.

My point was that global warming denial is only one of the tactics of the conservative naysayers. I agree that the science is in. On the subject of what to do about global warming, conservatives launch into the specious free-market versus socialism dichotomy.

My point in mentioning Dyson is that one did not have to be a global warming denier to take issue with some of the proposed remedies. Nordhaus assumes that a dollar invested today will be worth $54 by 2100--a 6% growth rate. If a certain policy results in less than $54 in this calculus, it will be invested elsewhere. The analysis gives the benefit of implementing various policies, minus the cost of implementing them, in trillions of dollars. A commonly heard conservative allegation against any reasonable policy is that it would be "socialist." This can be dismissed as meaningless.

Dyson is more conservative than I would be, but he does not dismiss the Nordhaus "optimal policy" of carbon taxes as "socialist."

Another ideological thorn in the side of libertarians, conservatives and advocates for universal privatization is that the oceans and the atmosphere cannot be privatized. I forgot to mention this endless source of conservative frustration, which is animating some portion of the attack.

Sorry publicola, you’re reading the wrong stuff. Forget the alarmist junk science sites like RealClimate and read the many original studies out there, if you really want to know what’s going on.

Here are some links to help you understand things better.

Hope this helps.

Solanki et al (2004)

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

Ponyavin et al (2005)

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76.1026I.pdf

Usoskin et al (2006)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025921.shtml

B. Geerts and E. Linacre (1997)

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

R.C. Willson (2003)

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story03-20-03.html

Baliunas and Soon

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html

Dietze (1999)

http://www.john-daly.com/fraction/fraction.htm

Lockwood and Stamper (1999)

http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/grlcover.html

http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/grl.html

Willson (update – 2007)

http://gpolya.newsvine.com/_news/2007/07/11/831692-total-solar-irradiance-tsi-variation-possible-contribution-to-climate-change

Gérard and Hauglustaine (1991)

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/1/c001p161.pdf

Georgieva et al (2005)

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

Krivova and Solanki (2004)

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/iscs2003.pdf

Baliunas and Jastrow (1990)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v348/n6301/abs/348520a0.html

Lockwood et al. (1992)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6405/abs/360653a0.html

Fligge and Solanki (2000)

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j111.pdf

Solanki and Fligge (2002)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-459JDY1-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=45d48b6e14715ed2877f4a6a472f2349

"All kinds of nice all of the sudden"

Alright, we'll do it your way.