America's Climate Choices: missing an option

I’m providing these links for publications “America’s Climate Choices” issued today by the National Resource Council of the National Academy of Sciences without any comments other than this one: The option to “do nothing” is missing.

We’ll give everyone a chance to read through before doing any deconstruction.

Strong Evidence on Climate Change Underscores Need For Actions to Reduce Emissions and Begin Adapting to Impacts

Advancing the Science of Climate Change

Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change

Stay tuned for more America’s Climate Choices…

The America’s Climate Choices suite of studies will include two additional reports that will be released later this year: Informing Effective Decisions and Actions Related to Climate Change will examine how to best provide decision makers information on climate change, and a final overarching report, America’s Climate Choices, will build on each of the previous reports to offer a scientific framework for shaping the policy choices underlying the nation’s efforts to confront climate change.

If your organization has an important forum or event where you’d like to hear more about the America’s Climate Choices studies from the reports’ authors, please contact Nancy Huddleston at 202-334-1260.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimbo
May 19, 2010 5:25 pm

OT – interesting and current
Eyjafjallajokull Volcano

BBC – 19 May 2010
“But if the massed ranks of armchair pundits have been unable to offer a solution to the multi-million pound chaos, neither have the climatologists, volcanologists and aircraft technicians. “

Yet climatologists claim we can adjust the Earth’s thermostate by reducing the trace gas Co2 by reducing our trace output of Co2!!! As someone once commented on WUWT – paraphrase – When you can control a volcano, then come back to me about controlling the Earth’s climate.

INGSOC
May 19, 2010 5:25 pm

Also absent; firing boneless chickens at the sun. (Hey! It would help as much as eliminating CO2 altogether…)

Tangeng
May 19, 2010 5:26 pm

What do you expect from an organization that is essentially a lobby for scientific R&D expenditures? If there was the option to do nothing, the NRCNAS would be out of a job. Of course there would be no option to do nothing.

Dave N
May 19, 2010 5:29 pm

“America’s” climate choices? That kind of attitude reminds me of this:
http://notalwaysright.com/one-nation-under-god-period/5354

Wren
May 19, 2010 5:29 pm

An option to do nothing would be based on a forecast that nothing worth doing anything about will happen. That may be a hard forecast to sell.

May 19, 2010 5:32 pm

There needs to be two more choices:
1) Laugh because of the stupidity of the masses who believe something based on such scant evidence.
2) Cry because of the stupidity of the masses who believe something based on such scant evidence.

P Walker
May 19, 2010 5:43 pm

This is frightening . The Limiting section is a roadmap to economic suicide , while the Adaption section is egregiously alarmist . At the moment , I lack the time to delve further into this and don’t care to pay for the full report but I look forward to a true deconstruction of this . Hint – Fox news reported that the NAS recommends an eighty percent reduction of co2 by 2050 .

May 19, 2010 5:46 pm

OT: In the last few weeks the bashing of Anthony has started again (or did it never stop?), so I did a little experiment on Tamino and Anthony (apologies Anthony!) without their knowledge to test their commitment to openness and free discussion. Anthony passed and Tamino didn”t. See the results here:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/testing-openness-tamino-wattsupwiththat
REPLY: Thanks Ron. I don’t worry much about this anymore as the traffic there is so low, and mostly circular. -Anthony

Dave Wendt
May 19, 2010 5:49 pm

Wren says:
May 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm
An option to do nothing would be based on a forecast that nothing worth doing anything about will happen. That may be a hard forecast to sell.
It would be a better deal than what they’re charging to download these compilations of hogwash.

David L
May 19, 2010 5:49 pm

Wouldn’t the option of “do nothing” be essentially what we’ll end up doing by following “Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change”. No climate change means no need to adapt to anything.

Curiousgeorge
May 19, 2010 5:59 pm

I didn’t even bother to read the “Options”, but I can say without a doubt that every single one will cause buckets of money to be funneled from the subjects to the kings.

Dave Springer
May 19, 2010 6:05 pm

I don’t think they understand that the “decision makers” are the voters where “Joe the Plumber” has as much say as “Mike the Professor”. They’re about to be reminded of that in no uncertain terms come November.

Henry chance
May 19, 2010 6:07 pm

Every day begins and I check the days weather. The weather doesn’t check with humans to decide how to change.

Brooks Bridges
May 19, 2010 6:08 pm

I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo. You think they’re in business out of love for their fellow man? Follow the big money and who it’s paying to put out propaganda or stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.

Fitzy
May 19, 2010 6:13 pm

Isn’t “Adapting” technically the same as doing nothing?(In bureaucrat speak)
Ultimately the Politicians would steal our money, spend it on themselves and pretend to make sweeping changes for the better,…in the form of Bunkers, stockpiles of ammunition and fuel, really intense symposiums at a luxury resort, to discuss,….adapting to climate change.
In truth people attempt to improve their circumstances unprovoked by mean spirited politicians, its the
politicians who get in the way of people adapting!.
I can see it now…CNN (Communist Network News), Al Gore pronounces we must adapt!, but we must adapt according to this 200 page prescribed programme of peasant austerity, depopulation and military intervention.

James Sexton
May 19, 2010 6:13 pm

Thank goodness scientists aren’t advocates or anything of that nature, poor guys and gals just diligently looking for truth, unaffected by the desire for more grant money, (Advancing the Science of Climate Change) or the intoxicating allure of power and authority. (Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change and Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change). Funny stuff, no, man never had to adapt to the impacts of climate change before, please mister scientist, please show us how we can!!!
Adapting to climate change…….so easy even a caveman has done it.

Pat Frank
May 19, 2010 6:18 pm

They’re also missing the Dan Hughes option: verify and validate the climate models before committing to policy decisions based upon them. This has never been done, nor ever even suggested by any national science body. Can anyone imagine the protests of the NAS or the NAE, should a nuclear plant be built using an unverified model?
The silence on this option is studied, in my opinion, and more than anything else shows the complete dereliction of duty by the National Academies.
Their mission is purportedly to provide “independent, objective, and non-partisan advice about science. Instead, under the oversight of Ralph Cicerone, we get an obvious and professionally negligent partisan advocacy.
Another lesson implicit in the three offered options is the obvious determination to press strongly ahead, no matter any exposed weakness, with the undiluted message that human-produced CO2 is the prime cause of late 20th century climate warming, that reducing CO2 emissions is our only ethical choice, and that concerted human actions can actually influence the direction and magnitude of a change in climate. Given the widely known state of the physical understanding of climate (poor) and the equally widely known predictive coherence of climate models (non-existent), each of the three messages seems hardly distinguishable from a conscious lie.

Geoff Sherrington
May 19, 2010 6:35 pm

Of course there is value in the ‘do nothing’ option, provided it allows for a continuing term to study the climate with increasingly better instruments and methods (and to release the raw data).
Maybe we should compose a referenced list of information that has come available since (say) 2006 , info that did not make the last IPCC 2007 report. A few from the top of the head – we have custom designed satellites like AIRS for CO2, refinement of many software algorithms like extracting temperatures from older satellites (Christy et al), better ocean buoys (Triton data after 2005), someone must have updated some dendro records (apart from Starbucks), there was a paper on mullosc shell laminations Patterson). We have had more recent information on sunspot counts, solar wind intensity, solar flux variation, ocean heat content, global temperatures, deforestation, ice extent and so on. There are increasing calls to rejig the whole surface temperature record of countries like NZ. (It is vital to get a correct temp record because it is used to calibrate proxies; and without it, we can rely little on any proxy data except for unusual ones like Be isotopes for irradiance).
There is an opportunity, say at the end of the decade in 2010, to list those papers now plausibly discredited or lacking updating; and there is a possibility to report on the success or failure of amelioration measures for GHG, physical and political, if GHG are still held as an important part of the equation by then.
The 3 National Research Council reports shown above are ahead of their time. It’s bad so make decisions on scrappy data. It’s lemming-like, as the fable goes. One senses an attempt to galvanise action before the impact of recent findings is comprehended.

Paul Daniel Ash
May 19, 2010 6:37 pm

verify and validate the climate models
Sounds like an awesome idea, Pat… care to elucidate? Verify how and validate against what?

Henry chance
May 19, 2010 6:43 pm

Silent spring for Mongolians after winter kills herds
The long, cold winter killed an estimated 8 million animals, leaving impoverished herders struggling to survive.

What happens when we get false forecasts from warmists. The socialists are more worried about envy of companies tha show profits.

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo. You think they’re in business out of love for their fellow man? Follow the big money and who it’s paying to put out propaganda or stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.

The nasty massive taxes gathered and paid by oil companies are used to subsidize windturbines and outrag electricity costs. The eco weenies were hiding when oil was 8 dollars a barrel.

Dave Springer
May 19, 2010 6:43 pm

@Brookes Bridges
Do you have the number for the human resources department at teh fossil fuel companies? I haven’t been paid anything by them and according to you I should be on the payroll.

Doug in Seattle
May 19, 2010 7:02 pm

The window of opportunity for the alarmists is rapidly closing – and the know it. The trifecta of PDO, weak sun, and volcanism looks to be ready to force temperatures back to where they were 100 years ago.

Pompous Git
May 19, 2010 7:02 pm

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
“I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo. You think they’re in business out of love for their fellow man? Follow the big money and who it’s paying to put out propaganda or stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.”
You don’t think that the reason the oil companies make so much money is because there’s a huge demand for their products? Of course you don’t own a car, you drive a bicycle made of timber (steel requires lotsa energy), uses a leather belt (rather than a steel chain lubricated with mineral oil), live in a house made of mud, or timber pegged (not nailed), with a roof of thatch (no steel, or tile). You must look gorgeous in sackcloth and ashes 😉

Zeke the Sneak
May 19, 2010 7:03 pm

Well, I chose Door Number One, and this is what I got:
PROBLEM: human activities
WHO RESPONDS: decision makers
HOW DO THEY RESPOND? action-oriented programs
IN WHAT INTENSITY AND DETAIL? at all levels
WHAT IS NEEDED? a single federal entity or program
IS IT ADVISORY? a single federal entity or program be given the authority
DOES IT HAVE RESOURCES? a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources
WHAT IS THE SINGLE AUTHORITY’S PURPOSE?
a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources aimed at..

responses to climate change/human activity

HOW DOES THE SINGLE AUTHORITY RESPOND TO HUMAN ACTIVITY/CLIMATE CHANGE? action-oriented programs
PS (stands for Post normal Science alert),
better linkages between research and decision making are also essential

Doug in Seattle
May 19, 2010 7:18 pm

Brooks Bridges @ May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm:
Why should I give a crap about a few pennies per share that the billions you speak about amount to for pension plans and retirees who own stock in the oil and coal industries.
What has this got to do with advocacy by scientists at the public trough? At least the oil and coal companies provide a product that benefits each person who buys it – warmth in winter, cool air in summer, and transportation in all seasons.
The left’s obsession with profits truly amazes me at times. Do they really believe that only the fabulously wealthy own stock in these companies? And that this handful of fabulously wealthy people all get a multi-billion annual payoff?

Tsk Tsk
May 19, 2010 7:22 pm

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
“I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies…”
I think you missed an “m” for a “b” in there. You’re ready to start trading on stock exchanges, I guess.

May 19, 2010 7:24 pm

Ron House
The reason I don’t respond to Tamino is because he censors my posts. He is the kind of guy?? who takes cheap shots, and then censors the target. Pretty pathetic.
BTW, gas pressure does approach zero as temperature approaches absolute zero.
http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/images_encyclopedie/VaporPressureGraph/Helium_Vapor_Pressure.GIF
REPLY: Yeah I second that, he’s incorrigibly rude, condescending, and anti-social. Also since he refuses to put his name to his work, not worth anybody’s time as far as I’m concerned. If he wants to change his tune, I’ll reconsider my position.- Anthony

Zeke the Sneak
May 19, 2010 7:25 pm

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
You think they’re in business out of love for their fellow man?

I think they are in business to make as much as .09 per 1.00 profit, or as little as one cent per dollar, for goods I voluntarily purchase.
Is the Federal government in business out of love for their fellow man?

May 19, 2010 7:29 pm

Ron House
I’m kind of astonished by people like Tamino who still believe that CO2 does not freeze below it’s freezing point of -109F. I wonder if he also believes that the freezing point of water varies with humidity?
Perhaps he also believes that water freezes at a different temperature in Arizona than it does in Alaska.

James Sexton
May 19, 2010 7:34 pm

@Brookes Bridges
You do any research on the “fossil fuel companies” you referenced and where they’re putting their money? You should check out everyone’s recent fav, BP, or may Dutch Shell. You should ask them where they stand on the carbon trading schemes. I’d give you the links, but all you’d have to do is confront your belief system and check for yourself. You almost had it right when you stated “Follow the big money and who it’s paying to put out propaganda or stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.”, only the “Dupe” isn’t on mine.
I’d go into detail about why energy companies are funding CAGW research, but I’m not sure you’d handle the economics of it yet. I’ll just say, if a cap is imposed, then the existing companies would have effectively eliminated any future competition and regardless of the desires of any group of people in this world, fossil fuels will be a large part of our energy source for over the next generation or two. Beyond that, the profiteers don’t care. We’d literally be giving them a license to steal. Not just today, but for many years going forward without fear of an upstart company doing it better or government interference, it would be sanctioned. Dupe. Yeh, that would be a word.

May 19, 2010 7:38 pm

Ron House, May 19, 2010 at 5:46 pm,
That was a very interesting article. Thanks for posting.
And Brookes Bridges is clearly jealous of the money being earned by energy companies.
The solution to Bridges’ covetousness is simple: buy stock in those companies, and collect the dividends.

Mike
May 19, 2010 8:02 pm

Ron House said (May 19, 2010 at 5:46 pm): “OT: In the last few weeks the bashing of Anthony has started again (or did it never stop?), so I did a little experiment on Tamino and Anthony (apologies Anthony!) without their knowledge to test their commitment to openness and free discussion. Anthony passed and Tamino didn’t. See the results here:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/testing-openness-tamino-wattsupwiththat
I am pretty critical of the majority of Anthony’s statements. I have only been edited once: the word “deniers” was replaced with “[snip]”. One posting I made on Climate Progress was not approved, but I reworded it and it was accepted. I am not familiar with Tamino’s blog.

Pofarmer
May 19, 2010 8:02 pm

I say we just let em keep doing studies until it’s obvious we’re cooling.

James Sexton
May 19, 2010 8:04 pm

@ stevengoddard
lol, I don’t know if you’ve seen this or not, but some girl came by looking for you!!! Well, I think it was a girl……
From this thread….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/19/noaa-delays-due-to-monkey-business/#more-19684
” Krishna Gans says:
May 19, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Is it allowed to ask and is it possible to get an answer to the question, who and what is Steve(n) Goddard, please ?
Has he do do with these publications ?
Reason for my question is, that often it’s referred to Steve(n), but a lot of alarmists and AGWists claim he doesn’t exist or it’s a fake name and he has nothing to do withclimate research as actually it’s dicussed here in a German Blogg.
Thanks !!
mumbling….i never get chicks coming by looking for me.

R. Gates
May 19, 2010 8:07 pm

As the political pundits spin their webs on both sides of the issue, Arctic Sea ice is now below the level it was at in 2007 for the same date, May 18th. As pointed out numerous times, this is a matter of statistics (probably) but we’ll know by September when we hit the summer low.

Don Shaw
May 19, 2010 8:19 pm

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
“stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.”
Brooks you might stamp you own forhead when you realize the amount of Revenue the Treasury collects from oil/gas royalities and leases. Often it is second only behind income taxes.
“In a given year, how much does the Minerals Management Service collect in federal royalties?
According to the MMS, annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore (OCS) mineral leases are one of the federal government’s largest sources of non-tax income. In 2000, the MMS collected $5 billion in oil and gas royalties. The bulk of this ($4 billion) came from offshore production, with natural gas production generating 60 percent of the royalty revenue. For federal onshore lands, gas production generated over 70 percent of the almost $1 billion in royalties. The MMS also collected over $1 billion in bonus bids and rental payments to bring the total federal revenue collected by MMS from oil and gas leasing to approximately $6.3 billion. In addition, Indian lands, separate from federal onshore lands, generated about $200 million in revenues for Indian tribes. See the MMS website for more information on royalties paid for oil and gas produced from federal or Indian lands.”
While you are learning about basic economics including the industry contributions to the Treasury, you might also do some research on how much taxes the oil/gas industry pays to the treasury. One wonders how the anti oil group thinks they will fund their give away programs after they phases out oil. Where the US treasury will get the funds to replace these revenues? Probably you!!!
Another fact never reported is that ExxonMobil earns circa 50% of their income from overseas and bring portions back to our economy and pays taxes while employing US workers. I’m sure other US companies similarly contribute to our economy.

John Robertson
May 19, 2010 8:31 pm

Considering the booklet was released in 2008 it appears that they haven’t bothered to update it with more recent information – such as the ice caps regrowth, temperatures falling in parts of the world, and so on.
Old news pretending to be new…sad – they have nothing to add obviously or they would have updated the booklet.

Sioned L
May 19, 2010 8:31 pm

Pompous Git says to Bridges:
“You don’t think that the reason the oil companies make so much money is because there’s a huge demand for their products? Of course you don’t own a car, you drive a bicycle made of timber (steel requires lotsa energy), use a leather belt (rather than a steel chain lubricated with mineral oil), live in a house made of mud, or timber pegged (not nailed), with a roof of thatch (no steel, or tile). You must look gorgeous in sackcloth and ashes ;-)”
P.G. you’re wrong, Bridges cannot use any of the following because:
1) timber – it is a CO2 sink
2) leather – bovine flatulence
3) thatch – another CO2 sink and as it rots it probably lets off CO2
4) ashes – had to burn something so it releases CO2 in the air
5) mud – sorry cannot think of a good one here – any help?
Oil companies make Billions because they invest Hundreds of Billions. The average net profit margin for the energy sector of the S&P 500 is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/) That is hardly what you’d call excessive profits. Google makes 25% (2008).

Alvin
May 19, 2010 8:44 pm

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo. You think they’re in business out of love for their fellow man? Follow the big money and who it’s paying to put out propaganda or stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.

Yet another anti-capitalist ready to blame big (insert any energy producing market) for evil profits.

old construction worker
May 19, 2010 8:46 pm

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
‘….. “Dupe” on your forehead.’
Do you want to buy a space blanket? I got them on sale. No refunds.

Pofarmer
May 19, 2010 9:16 pm

As the political pundits spin their webs on both sides of the issue, Arctic Sea ice is now below the level it was at in 2007 for the same date, May 18th. As pointed out numerous times, this is a matter of statistics (probably) but we’ll know by September when we hit the summer low.
Well, that’s it then, if summer ice is gonna be below 2007, then it’s official, we’re all gonna burn.
Where do I sign up to install my solumnar windmill?

RK
May 19, 2010 9:30 pm

Well, I feel much better now having read one of the chapters. For example, this little paragraph really warms my heart:
Policies for limiting climate change must remain
durable for decades. ****Durability is enhanced if
key constituencies benefit from the policies and
therefore have a vested interest in maintaining
them.***** At the same time, policies must be sufficiently
flexible to allow for evolution in response
to new developments (e.g., in climate change
science, in socioeconomic trends, in technological
innovation, in our understanding of climate
policy impacts). It will be an ongoing challenge to
find a balance between these goals of durability
and flexibility.

Editor
May 19, 2010 10:12 pm

stevengoddard says:
May 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm

I’m kind of astonished by people like Tamino who still believe that CO2 does not freeze below it’s freezing point of -109F. I wonder if he also believes that the freezing point of water varies with humidity?

I’m kind of astonished that you still haven’t figured out that water frost doesn’t necessarily form when nighttime air drops below freezing. It forms when the temperature drops below the dew point (actually, the frost point, which is a bit warmer).
And that Helium pressure graph was for helium in a pressure vessel, not a gravity well. We’ve been through that too many times too….

jorgekafkazar
May 19, 2010 10:15 pm

Brooks Bridges says: I love how you guys…seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies…”
Fossil fuel companies provide value for our expended dollars. We get gas and oil and coal, they get income plus, if they’re lucky, profits. What does the grossly inflated AGW industry provide that is of any value at all? Propaganda? Circle-jerk peer review? Tools for politicians to take control of our every move? Excuses to tax us and our entire economy to destruction? The entire AGW industry has negative worth to society. Give me the fossil fuel companies any day over those useless parasites. The sooner they are put out of business, the better off we’ll all be.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
May 19, 2010 10:44 pm

…well, they are also missing the option that our own sun, locked into an ongoing minimum, might not reawaken to previous activity, resulting in a new ice age!
I suppose we’ll be forced to pump methane into the atmosphere if that happens, or just relearn how to eat mammoth meat…
This talk is all quite ridiculous, considering that China will never agree to forego consumption of their primary fuel (coal). Current mitigation strategies for carbon dioxide are too little/too late, so adaptation is the best strategy.
I suggest the medical approach of “watchful waiting,” let’s not hamstring humanity with forced reduction of energy until we know it is for a damn good reason.

morgo
May 20, 2010 12:00 am

when thay spend a gov grant what is the next step ? make up more climate crap and you recieve another grant and it just keeps going untill one day somebody in gov will wake , but I will not live to see the day.

Jimbo
May 20, 2010 12:25 am

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
“I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo. …”

——-
Even if the oil companies couldn’t give a hoot for mankind they are providing a service which you use in one way or another EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE. You also forget that most of the oil companies in the UK at least have thrown their lot in with the warmist camp as I have highlighted many times as they see money to be made from carbon credits and co2 sequestration in redundant oil and coal fields. Now, just go to the CRU and look at the bottom of this page http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/ and see BP, Shell and oil and coal burning power generation companies. I have lots more examples like this Brooks.
Do you think oil companies only provide oil for burning to create useful, life-saving energy in hospitals and heating during the UKs’ worse winter for decades for example? Think plastics, lubricants, fertilizers, pesticides, synthetic rubber, synthetic fibers, dyes, paint, detergents, photographic film, food additives (canned food), medicine, synthetic fibers (such as polyester, nylon, acrylic), make-up, candles.
If you hate oil and coal companies then GET OFF THE GRID and use a wind turbine on your roof.

Joe
May 20, 2010 2:41 am

If the science ‘is settled’ with ‘strong evidence’ then why do they need the ‘Advancing the Science of Climate Change’ report? Surely no further work is required.

Spector
May 20, 2010 3:23 am

I suppose if the third option were slightly re-titled to read, “Adapting, As Required, to the Impacts of Climate Change[s],” we might have the fourth option covered, however I suspect more than a simple title change would be needed, as the author[s] may believe they know just exactly just what those consequences are going be as an established truth.

Doug
May 20, 2010 3:27 am

re: Brooks Bridges
Government’s profit margin from theft (i.e., taxation)? 100%. Brooks can actually choose not to use petroleum products and maintain his/her caveman lifestyle, but can I actually choose not to pay taxes and maintain my frugal, environmentally conscious lower middle-class lifestyle?

Doug
May 20, 2010 3:41 am

I just noticed that one of the members of the Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change works for Boeing (evil profit-monger). So I guess we can now discount everything they are saying!

Enneagram
May 20, 2010 5:48 am

What if prosecutor Cuccinelli succeeds in finding the origin of all the climate scam?
He is really near: Mann-Salzmann………..Investment Banks?
This is not and was never about science. Follow the money, take apart the bedwetters, and find the truth.

May 20, 2010 6:03 am

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo. You think they’re in business out of love for their fellow man? Follow the big money and who it’s paying to put out propaganda or stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.

I also love how you underestimate how much money Big Environment makes by several billion and conveniently ignore the known and provable fact that Big Environment makes far more money than all of the oil companies combined and doubled. Of course oil companies aren’t in business for their fellow man! It is called capitalism! Look into in, or move to Cuba. Publicly traded corporations must answer their shareholders, and shareholders don’t want to see “we lost a millions because we helped our fellow man.” When that happens, the shareholders force a change.
But since you brought up money, do you really think Big Environment with all that money they are making from government subsidies is doing for the good of man? You sir are the biggest “dupe” I’ve ever seen if you think that. I am sad for you.

Gail Combs
May 20, 2010 7:02 am

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo. You think they’re in business out of love for their fellow man? Follow the big money and who it’s paying to put out propaganda or stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.
____________________________________________________________________
Yes Brooks, Why don’t you follow the big oil (Standard oil) money straight into the pockets of greenpeace and WWF.
I suggest you check out the Big oil/Big banking connections of Maurice Strong (father of environmentalism) and his mentor David Rockefeller. Checkout their PLANS for you and us. Even the people at the UN peace college figured out Maurice Strong was bad news and was co-opting the UN.
Radio for Peace International stated:

The university’s administrator, Canadian Maurice Strong, came in on
a wave of influence based on the promise of Ted Turner’s foundation
to give a billion dollars to the UN. His connections to the Turner
foundation, the World Bank, and to those environmental groups you hear
criticized for allowing domination by big business, are just the tip
of the iceberg.
Anyone searching “Maurice Strong” on the web encounters a very
interesting array of entries. (To quote Lewis Carroll, the story
becomes “Curious and curiouser”) If we can believe even 10% of the
story of his ascent to power and influence, an astonishing tale of
subterfuge emerges, consistent with his attack on RFPI. Beyond the fig
leaf of NGO’s that he uses for cover, Strong’s real alliances are with
the enemies of the UN, which they are busily “reforming”. His
comprehensive biography is posted on the webpage of an anti-UN
organization….”

Gail Combs
May 20, 2010 7:28 am

Sioned L says:
“…..P.G. you’re wrong, Bridges cannot use any of the following because:
1) timber – it is a CO2 sink
2) leather – bovine flatulence
3) thatch – another CO2 sink and as it rots it probably lets off CO2
4) ashes – had to burn something so it releases CO2 in the air
5) mud – sorry cannot think of a good one here – any help?”

______________________________________________________________________
No problem WUWT had this headline: Earth follows the warming: soils add 100 million tons of CO2 per year
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/earth-follows-the-warming-soils-add-100-million-tons-of-co2-per-year/

Steve Keohane
May 20, 2010 7:46 am

Options? We have many climates here in the US, and globally for that matter. Don’t like the one you are in? MOVE.

May 20, 2010 8:33 am

Apropos Brookes Bridges’ comment;
Years ago, the New Zealand manager of a multinational oil company remarked to me “If oil companies were truly greedy and only concerned with profit, they would get out of the oil business and into the government business”.

Tom in Florida
May 20, 2010 9:08 am

Brooks Bridges says:(May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm)
“I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo.”
Fossil fuel companies are publicly traded. ANYONE, including you, can buy stock and share in the profits (or losses). It is the responsibility of the boards of directors of these companies to make a profit for their investors, that is anyone who buys their stock.
Government research grants do not come from investors. They come from the legal theft of money from ordinary people! We must pay our taxes, we can choose to invest.
Perhaps you should give away all your money to these researchers. And when you need to eat, maybe they will send you a chart to feed on.

Tim Huls
May 20, 2010 9:29 am

The author states, “how to best provide decision makers information on climate change.” Just who exactly are these decision makers? The wise oligarchy who gets to make decisions provided to them by the degreed priests of science? The army of Davids may upset that formula.

Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2010 9:31 am

Wren says:
May 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm
An option to do nothing would be based on a forecast that nothing worth doing anything about will happen. That may be a hard forecast to sell.
Not really. It would actually be based on the fact that CAGW/CC is nothing more than conjecture, and that if anything, we are more likely to face cooling in the coming decades. We might actually want to start thinking about cooling, and planning for it, because it is much harder to adapt to and to live with than warming is. It will be even harder to adapt to if we hamstring our economies for no reason whatsoever on the basis of faulty information and outright lies.

Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2010 10:39 am

“A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change
is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant
risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
Climate change is occurring? Stunning revelation that. Wow, whodathunk?
As far as the “credible body of scientific evidence” showing it is caused by human activities, and posing significant risk one can only presume they are referring to the IPCC 4AR, which would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
“Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is
largely caused by human activities, especially the
release of greenhouse gases through the burning of
fossil fuels”
I don’t suppose they would care to state what that “strong evidence” is exactly? I didn’t think so.

Social Antisocialist
May 20, 2010 10:42 am

What’s the track record of these guys from the NAS anyway? I tried googling “NAS errors” and “NAS wrong” but couldn’t find anything but a bunch of computer stuff. Anybody got any leads?

Monique
May 21, 2010 5:17 am

“mumbling….i never get chicks coming by looking for me.”
lol

Monique
May 21, 2010 5:21 am

“multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo.”
Friend, a sincere question for you. What would you (or any AGW advocate) substitute for a global fuel supply that is
1.) as plentiful and widely available and
2.) as economical
as fossil fuels?

David Alan Evans
May 22, 2010 3:47 pm

Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/19/americas-climate-choices-missing-an-option/#comment-393334

I love how you guys are always worried about the millions spent on research by scientists yet seem oblivious to the multi-billions of dollars profit being made by the fossil fuel companies and by their obvious interest in maintaining the status quo. You think they’re in business out of love for their fellow man? Follow the big money and who it’s paying to put out propaganda or stamp a big “Dupe” on your forehead.

If you think the oil companies give a rats ass about how this goes, you’re mistaken!
They will always make money. Their only real interest is to have a business plan to provide the right balance of oil to make them money.
In general, that means producing little enough to keep prices up but not so little as to drive prices too high. It’s a balancing act. They have to have an idea of what demand is likely to be to do that. That means accurate, (as accurate as can be), predictions of likely weather. They’re in business to make money, that’s what they do well, whatever the climate.
DaveE.

%d bloggers like this: