This paper presents a critique of the characteristic treatment by economists of climate science, which appears as over-presumptive and uncritical. While the paper draws on a range of illustrative cases, the main focus is on six recent and important contributions. The present author argues that the authors and sources concerned, along with a good many others not quoted, have accepted too uncritically the received view as to the current significance of anthropogenic global warming and its possible dangers. They have placed undue trust in the official advisory process that governments have created and rely on, and disregarded evidence that puts that process in question. Hence there is a missing dimension in their treatment of policy aspects: they have not caught on to the need to strengthen the basis of policy by making the advisory process more objective and professionally watertight.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Article provided by World Economics, Economic & Financial Publishing, PO Box 69, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, RG9 1GB in its journal World Economics Journal.
Volume (Year): 10 (2009) Issue (Month): 1 (January) Pages: 59-90 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wej:wldecn:367
Contact details of provider:
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Ed Jones).
Did you know? Citation analysis on IDEAS includes online papers that are freely accessible and whose text could be automatically analyzed, currently about 210000 papers.