Step right up and take your bets! Climate Science vs. Climate Economics!

This is based off an article from Grist.org written by David Roberts.
So as some of you may not know, and I didn't until I read this article, there are two new stories coming out about climate change. No this is not the old debate about whether or not climate change is really happening between scientists and politicians, but rather the two different visions about what we can expect in the future. They don't fit very well though so let's do what we do to all things that don't match up together... pit them against each other and see who wins! So without further ado lets get on with the show!
IN THIS CORNER: SCIENCE!
Now in the corner of science we have something that I am sure no one wants to see... the calm collected group of geniuses we call scientists more and more panicked with every new story that comes in. With this new information it is being predicted that there is a real (if extremely difficult to quantify ) risk of civilization-threatening scenarios kind of like a bad SyFy original movie. The standard line among "climate hawks" (which I am assuming is a term for people who harp constantly about what we need to do to save the enviroment) is that science recommends that developed world countries an "80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050"; globally the goal is 50% by 2050. But even that high amount could be severly underestimated as it is based off the last IPCC which is by all accounts is "woefully conservative" especially when compared to the uniform grim nature of the science since that report came out. For the U.S. to get back to the ambitious target of 350 ppm (parts-per-million) of carbon in the atmosphere the U.S. would have to build the following EVERY YEAR until 2050 according to the IEA (Internationial Enviromental Agency):"... 35 coal-fired and 20 gas-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage; 30 nuclear power plants; 12,000 on shore wind turbines paired with 3,600 offshore ones; 45 geothermal plants; 325 million square meters-worth of photovoltaics; and 55 solar-thermal power plants. That doesn't even include the need to build electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in order to shift transportation away from burning gasoline." ...wow that is alot and that would cost the U.S. a very pretty penny. Probably a 1843 double headed lincoln penny made out of gold and uranium to be precise. Yeah according to the article that would be the equialent of "America's massive industrial build-up for WWII only across the entire globe for 40 years straight (at least) against a faceless enemy." So yeah my brain hurts from trying to cacluate the cost of that, how about yours. So...should we do it? Is such a massive shift "worth it"? Heh...funny you should ask.
IN THIS CORNER: ECONOMICS!
Economists are the arbiters of "worth it" these days, so how do they figure it out? Well the short answer is that they build charts and models that are informed thought various assumptions about the range of damages expected from climate change, the range of costs expected from avoiding climate change, and the rate of economic growth. The general idea is to find the the perfect balance between spending on adaption and the cost of potential damages so we don't overpay to fix it and we don't underpay to fix it. The analogy the writer uses is probably the best I can think of; he says that economists are "...like Goldilocks, economists seek a course of action that's just right: the most economically efficent course. For this discussion the fact of the matter is that virtually every model that shows human growth depending on what the climate does all have two things in common. One; they show human beings getting richer over the next century regardless of what the climate does. The range of scenarios goes from much-richer-very-quickly to... somewhat-less-richer-more-slowly, depending on what numbers or assumptions are plugged in. Two; None of them show human progress just hitting a plateau (with no drop at all, no matter how miniscule) much less falling of some kind of a cliff. According to the article, a well-known british economist named Frank Ackerman has noted that even with what is classified as the extreme worst case scenario (a 35 percent reduction in income below baseline) the world would only be about eight times richer by 2200. So, according to economists, the worst thing policymakers risk by doing nothing to fix climate change is somewhat slower economic growth. So one way or another, we're getting richer. This is a perfect example of what the foundational faith of modern economics is. It is a faith in human adaptability and ingenuity. What that basiclly means is that every chart is based on the belief that humans can master ANY circumstance over time. Because of this you will never find a model with a Jared Diamond- or James Lovelock-style apocalypse. Instead our future generations will be much wealthier and thus be better able to cope with the problem.
So how do we put these two stories together? Is climate change truly an existential threat -- an immediate dnage and a small but growing risk of total or near total collapse of society? Or is it creeping change to which humans need to make a carefully thoughout and economically oprimised response as it continues to grow? How do we fit these two versions of the same story together in our head? And more importantly what, with these tow totally different visions, should we do?
AND THE WINNER IS...
Of course economists would tell you that they have already done the work of fitting these two visions together for you. That's what the models are meant to do. The damages of potential climate change are already built in and the results don't look like a catastrophe because, dammit, Man Will Overcome. Anyway that's what the models will tell you. But if you talk to the economists themselves, well, they are not quite as gung ho. Fpr one they themselves admit that the models are not very good at incorporating large short-term shocks. The "long-tail" possibilities in climate science -- the low-probability, high-impact stuff like iceshelves collapsing or thermohaline circulation shutting down -- completely borks the models. You start seeing wild sings in model projections based on those small adjustments and the models in essence start saying "hell if I know!" When economist run into these limitations of their models they tend to heed the Wittgensteinian injuction: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, which in laymans terms means "You don't know, so don't say anything!" They don't feel comfortable making policy recommendations without solid modeling to back it up. Giving counseling in the face of such gigantics and unquantifiable risk starts to feel less like a science and more like an excercise in politics or ethincs. Heaven forbid. Unfortunately that allows economists whose model tells a nice little story of slowly rising costs, smoothl offset bu a slowly rising carbon tax. The message: don't panic. That message is all too welcome in the halls of power where they are looking for any excuse to sit back and do nothing. The final statement is a rather good metaphor for what is happening. "We are stumbling around in the dark, in an area where scientists tell us some very, very nasty beasties dwell. In that situation, it sems to me the overwhelming bias should be toward action -- getting lean, mean, and nimble enough to handle ourselves no matter what slouches our way."
OPINION
For my part I agree with the author listen to the scientists information and not the economists chart. We are treading in some very dangerous water and if we don't do something now to at least slow down this increase, we will probably learn the hard way that the scientists were right, the economists were wrong, and we are not getting rich any time soon.
QUESTIONS
1) What side are you on? Economists or Scientists? Why?
2) What do you think the effects will be of climate change?
3) What would you do to try and at least slow down the climate change?
4) Do you think that man will overcome?