Not exact matches
Two years ago, Asness and an AQR colleague raised hackles with a research paper that
argued that the global temperature trends over the last 125 years do not, on their own, support an
alarmist view of global
warming.
The onus is clearly on the
alarmists, if they want to
argue for high cost mitigation policies, to demonstrate what is the damage cost of
warming.
The climate
alarmists have exploited the public's understandable lack of knowledge concerning climate science to
argue that the developed countries (but usually not less developed countries) should give up some or preferably all fossil fuel use in order to avoid alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global
warming (CAGW).
Moreover, as I've
argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global
warming almost concedes to the
alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.
What all these papers
argue in their different ways is that the
alarmist version of global
warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)-- is a fake ar
warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global
Warming (CAGW)-- is a fake ar
Warming (CAGW)-- is a fake artefact.