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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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….”
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/
Options? We have many climates here in the US, and globally for that matter. Don’t like the one you are in? MOVE.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
“mumbling….i never get chicks coming by looking for me.”
lol
“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?
Brooks Bridges says:
May 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/19/americas-climate-choices-missing-an-option/#comment-393334
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.