brenthutch

Now you're conflating a third thing. Why do you think I give a rats ass about AGW if was merely an esoteric academic exercise. It is ALL about policy.

OMG you were right! Trump and Tillerson just approved a sweetheart deal for ExxonMobil and Russia, exempting Big oil from sanctions.

[url] h You're conflating two different issues. 1) Is AGW happening? 2) What are the consequences of AGW? If someone did provide an incorrect answer to Q2, it doesn't follow that the answer to Q1 must therefore be 'no'. It makes all of the difference in the world when it comes to policy. If AGW is real and it is happening but there is no real downside and its effects are largely beneficial; has completely different policy implications than, AGW is real it's happening and we are all going to die.

Bump

Just ask Venezuela.

One of my favorite MP skits How about this? http://www.thegwpf.com/steven-koonin-a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science/ "Given the importance of climate projections to policy, it is remarkable that they have not been subject to a Red Team exercise. Here’s how it might work: The focus would be a published scientific report meant to inform policy such as the U.N.’s Summary for Policymakers or the U.S. Government’s National Climate Assessment. A Red Team of scientists would write a critique of that document and a Blue Team would rebut that critique. Further exchanges of documents would ensue to the point of diminishing returns. A commission would coordinate and moderate the process and then hold hearings to highlight points of agreement and disagreement, as well as steps that might resolve the latter. The process would unfold in full public view: the initial report, the exchanged documents and the hearings."

Yep nobody wastes money like the Federal government. As far as renewables go, when they become necessary they will develop themselves. Guided by the invisible hand of economics.

This quote is so dead on and so evident at the moment. That reminds me - Anyone else going to any of the federal funding marches this weekend?

What data would it take to convince you that climate change as a result of man-made CO2 was real? I answered your question, now answer mine. What data would it take to convince you that climate change is natural? How many failed predictions of death and destruction before you question AGW dogma?

I was mindful of my audience. BTW those were bonafide climate scientists making those predictions.

Maybe this will help. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xRNZOlh10rw From Good Morning America, keep in mind that it is now 2017

When it falls outside the range of natural variability.

So it was warmer 1300 years ago.

It was warmer one thousand years ago. http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

An exception that proves the rule.

Yeah....exactly like that.

What data would it take to convince you that climate change as a result of man-made CO2 was real? When the predictions of hurricanes, floods, drought, famine, wildfires tornadoes,etc etc occur at a greater rate then they have in the past. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment (observation), it's wrong." RF

Only when the economics compelled us.

DDT can't be that bad. When I was five we used to run through the smoke screen of the DDT fogger. It was more popular than the ice cream truck. And looked how I turned out.

So there are reasons to support dirtier forms of power beyond economic necessity! Great; we'll keep fossil fuels for the tax base and alternative energy for the millions of jobs (and rising) it enables, and the US exports it creates. You are forgetting the number one reason. 80% of our power!!! and like it or not it will be for the rest of your life. Sorry for the reality check.

I think you got that one a bit backwards. Government could not function without the assistance of fossil fuels. Unplug 80% of America and see how quickly the bodies pile up. Without the tax revenues generated by fossil fuels the government(s) would be powerless (pun intended) to help us.

Now that the EPA will no longer be chasing its tail over CO2, it can get back to science based environmental protection.

What do you say now, that you have heard the words coming out of his head?

" the proposed solar farm would likely not be possible if it weren't for subsidies of this sort of energy" Not possible=not economically viable

FIFY