The same useless (in any practical sense) link you've used to dodge discussion forever.
This message has been brought to you by the Random-C&P Spammeister himself :lol:
Obviously you wouldn't be aware of this if you hadn't followed the relevant discussions, but contrary to your assertion Flogger knows
exactly where to start with that link if he were even
slightly honest about his questions. On numerous occasions I have pointed out to him personally the very chapter, section and paragraph of Working Group 3 in which he can look for information about the estimated cost of mitigation strategies.
Yet in the famous post #115 - his first of many, many attempts to deflect discussion away from the observation-based estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2-specific and anthropogenic forcing trends (which Longview has now helped confirm with information on the current energy imbalance) - Flogger made it overwhelmingly obvious that his intentions were neither objective nor honest:
Or in other words the worst of the damage humanity could ever have done to temperature has happened a while ago now even were CO2 the satanic element that it gets painted as by the screaming harpies. Perhaps we should bear this in mind before voluntarily impoverishing ourselves for absolutely nothing
Let's quietly set aside the facts that
his own graph showed more than half of the effects of CO2 still to come even just in terms of radiative forcing, and that his insults and quasi-religious emotional rhetoric suggest a mindset in which rational discussion with him would be impossible. All that aside, he has clearly expressed the opinion that mitigation of climate change would involve "impoverishing ourselves."
Now, if he were even slightly honest in his intentions to discuss mitigation strategies, he would begin by
providing a point-by-point explanation of why the IPCC estimates of mitigation costs which I have shown him so many times are wrong: The IPCC estimates certainly do not involve impoverishing ourselves - on the contrary they suggest something in the order of 270-890% growth in global consumption by the end of the century!
Threegoofs helpfully pointed him in the right direction, and while I don't blame you for not having followed all previous discussions with Flogger, jumping in just to offer your "moral support" (as he put it) with no understanding of the context - and with such irony considering your own 'debate' habits! - really wasn't very productive.
I guess that doesn't really matter though, because we all know that Flogger will not do this anyway. He is not interested in honest discussion of that topic, only in personal attacks and emotional quasi-religious rhetoric to deflect the topic away from those 'scary' 2.1 to <2.7 degree sensitivity estimates.