The “deepest pathology” is of course has been the willingness of those who export climate risks to to the rest of society at no cost to them, to continue to purchase relatively cheap political cover, the lack of interest by others to invest heavily in exercising a countervailing balance, and a desire by politicians to benefit by doling out favors. Classic public interest politics, as analyzed by Gordon Tullock and others decades ago.

Your list of climate change “beliefs” is an exercise who purpose and practice that I`m afraid I don`t understand:

- I see many who accept that adaptation is needed, and argue that it`s time to start.

- It`s easy to find “believers” who emphasize the importance of significant technological innovation, and who argue for carbon pricing, direct government expenditures and/or regulatory standards to incentivize such innovation.

- even Krugman, in the editorial you criticize, expresses concern that policies to create higher priced energy may be losing strategy. However, I`d disagree that carbon pricing is a “certain” losing strategy; in fact, rebated carbon taxes have elicited widespread support across industries and the political spectrum: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/27/top-demagogues-jim-hansen-florida-power-exxon-aei-margo-thoring-major-economists-george-will-prefer-rebated-carbon-taxes.aspx. A little honesty by politicians may do wonders.

But even more, what`s the point? Climate science and policy discussion are not – as some like Bret Stephens of the WSJ would have it – a simple matter of “belief” or “mass neurosis”, and disagreement surely not heresy or blasphemy: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/07/mind-games-bret-stephens-of-the-wall-street-journal-panders-to-quot-skeptics-quot-by-abjuring-science-and-declaring-himself-an-expert-on-quot-mass-neurosis-quot.aspx

I`m not sure why you feel that the ground for science and policy dispute are narrowing, at least in ways that you disagree with. The administration is now pointing out the need for adaptation, for example. But it does seem to me that painting the political and social discussion with a broad brush as divided between “believers” and “heretics” is a great way to encourage the oversimplification that you decry.

The “deepest pathology” is of course has been the willingness of those who export climate risks to to the rest of society at no cost to them, to continue to purchase relatively cheap political cover, the lack of interest by others to invest heavily in exercising a countervailing balance, and a desire by politicians to benefit by doling out favors. Classic public interest politics, as analyzed by Gordon Tullock and others decades ago.

Your list of climate change “beliefs” is an exercise who purpose and practice that I`m afraid I don`t understand:

- I see many who accept that adaptation is needed, and argue that it`s time to start.

- It`s easy to find “believers” who emphasize the importance of significant technological innovation, and who argue for carbon pricing, direct government expenditures and/or regulatory standards to incentivize such innovation.

- even Krugman, in the editorial you criticize, expresses concern that policies to create higher priced energy may be losing strategy. However, I`d disagree that carbon pricing is a “certain” losing strategy; in fact, rebated carbon taxes have elicited widespread support across industries and the political spectrum: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/27/top-demagogues-jim-hansen-florida-power-exxon-aei-margo-thoring-major-economists-george-will-prefer-rebated-carbon-taxes.aspx. A little honesty by politicians may do wonders.

But even more, what`s the point? Climate science and policy discussion are not – as some like Bret Stephens of the WSJ would have it – a simple matter of “belief” or “mass neurosis”, and disagreement surely not heresy or blasphemy: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/07/mind-games-bret-stephens-of-the-wall-street-journal-panders-to-quot-skeptics-quot-by-abjuring-science-and-declaring-himself-an-expert-on-quot-mass-neurosis-quot.aspx

I`m not sure why you feel that the ground for science and policy dispute are narrowing, at least in ways that you disagree with. The administration is now pointing out the need for adaptation, for example. But it does seem to me that painting the political and social discussion with a broad brush as divided between “believers” and “heretics” is a great way to encourage the oversimplification that you decry.