Actually, it is the opposite. They play up to the shoddy narratives that pretend to be real science and ignore the fact that after $100 billion in spending there isn’t a single empirical study that backs up the scary predictions made by the IPCC. The pretence of consensus is not very useful because even if there were consensus on something meaningful it could simply be wrong. After all, the overwhelming consensus on eugenics, lobotomies, the causes of ulcers, the superiority of central planning, the competence and prudence of central bankers etc., all proved to be wrong.

In the real world what matters is empirical evidence, not models or narratives. Until the IPCC and the AGW proponents can show that the feedback assumptions that create the scary warming scenarios have merit it is to be treated with the contempt that most political bureaucracies deserve. And until there is a free and open debate the AGW proponents who run from such a debate are to be dismissed as empty suits who know a lot less than they imagine.

Geoengineering, for example, is treated as a possible cheap bottom up solution to what appears as an expensive and intractable problem when addressed from the top down. Their introduction gives an historical example of just such a solution (automobiles completely eliminating the problem of horse manure in growing cities). Their discussion of how television has improved the lives of Indian women can be seen as another example.

The power of bottom up innovation compared to top down planning was probably the strongest theme of the book but there are others that show up throughout the book that return in chapter 5.

Another theme is how hard it can be to get people to do what they know is right, much less getting them to behave altruistically. Feied’s story of the difficulty of getting modern day doctors to wash their hands is directly related to how difficult it will be to get people to change their consumption habits in order to reduce CO2.

Seriously, read the first four chapters then re-read chapter 5. It gives you a completely different perspective and makes their choice of climate related subjects far less controversial. Looked at holistically, their choices in chapter 5 make sense as examples of how to apply earlier tidbits of economic reasoning to the subject of global warming.

What I was most disappointed in was a great teachable moment in their prostitution chapter. Their high priced call girl raised her rates from $300 an hour to $500 an hour with no discernible impact on demand. Immediately I thought “Cool, there could be a lot of things going on like very inelastic demand, a non competitive market or perhaps it’s a market that isn’t in equilibrium. This could be an example of a market where the supply and demand curves don’t meet for some reason.” They had an opportunity to illustrate a lot of consumption theory with that observation alone. Instead, they carry on with the story and eventually come to the conclusion that more call girls would necessarily lower prices. It felt like they dropped the ball there.

Not in the least, they are principally criticized having conducted shoddy, lazy research that resulted in a book chapter that is error filled nonsense, as is well documented at the many links collected here:
http://leftasanexercise.simulating-reality.com/?p=90
Building on that foundation, is it any wonder that their discussion and conclusions are drivel?

We are currently in an interglacial. Interglacials typically last about ten thousand years, with a good deal of variation. As a very crude back of the envelope estimate, that gives us one chance in ten thousand each year that the interglacial will end–or about a one percent chance in a century.

A mile of ice over the present locations of Chicago and London, and a sea level drop of hundreds of feet, I think classifies as catastrophe. It’s at least possible that global warming due to human action is what is currently preventing it.