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.
Brooks Bridges @ur momisugly 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?
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.
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
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?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
I say we just let em keep doing studies until it’s obvious we’re cooling.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
stevengoddard says:
May 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm
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….
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.
…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.
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.
——-
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.
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.
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.