Monday Mirthiness – dollars and sense

Josh weighs in on this story, writing:

What is it with the new measuring climate in terms of money? Just bizarre.

As Carl Sagan* might say, “billions and billions”.

* Carl Sagan didn’t actually use that term but it is universally attributed to him due to how he often used the word “billions” in the 1980’s TV series “Cosmos”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 23, 2012 9:00 am

Catastrophic Climate Inconvenience!

January 23, 2012 9:08 am

Is my loss due to climate change a net capital loss I can carry over to next year??

January 23, 2012 9:11 am

Laugh !

January 23, 2012 9:12 am

or the Far Side cartoon ‘carl sagen as a kid’…look Becky, there must be Hundreds of them!

January 23, 2012 9:13 am

Josh is off by a comma…it is in the TRILLIONS!

January 23, 2012 9:30 am

They should be using (sadly defunct) Zimbabwe dollars. Those give more impressive numbers.

January 23, 2012 9:33 am

Umm… but haven’t you been arguing that the costs of dealing with climate change would outweigh the benefits? Isn’t that measuring climate change in dollars? And so why do think that estimating costs is “bizarre”?

January 23, 2012 9:44 am
January 23, 2012 9:50 am

This is truly the end of the CRU climate center me thinks. Its the first legal ruling against UEA on all 3 counts for withholding information, When this hits mainstream media…..

John F. Hultquist
January 23, 2012 9:55 am

Good one!, Josh.
The temperature trend has come unhinged from the CO2 trend. Not so with the $$. Increasing $$ mean increasing wealth and well being, when not meaning inflation. A wealthier population is much better off when a disaster does hit and recovers quickly, even though the “apparent cost” has gone up.
Example: Say you have a rusty old auto and a deer jumps from the side of the road and hits the front right headlight and right fender. You might lever the light socket back to forward, replace the lamp, repaint with a brush and house-paint. Cost: ~$30. The same repair to a new car with 3-layered satin/pearl paint: $2,000. And those “greedy” insurance folks pay almost all the cost. Greed is good.

Anthony Scalzi
January 23, 2012 10:07 am

This is probably not Josh’s intended meaning of the chart, but it could also mean the billions for funding for climate research.

Dr. John M. Ware
January 23, 2012 10:08 am

“Billions and billions” comes straight from the old MacDonald’s signs: “Billions and billions served.” Sagan wasn’t all that original in using that phrase . . .

Bob Diaz
January 23, 2012 10:20 am

LOL, Josh may be on to something, increases in CO2 reselts in increases in their cash.
I guess we can call it, “Cash Change”! 🙂

January 23, 2012 10:53 am

@ JPY:
The benefits of ‘climate change’ are measured in increased agricultural productivity (CO2 fertilization of crops, read “more food for everybody”) and fewer lives lost to hypothermia.
The purported benefits of “dealing with climate change” are spurious at best, since none of the proposed hyper-expensive measures are capable of affecting a measurable difference in the alleged anthropogenic climate change/disruption/inconvenience.
Any and all moneys spent for a net zero tangible benefit are wasted.

January 23, 2012 10:57 am

“Catastrophic Climate Inconvenience!”
The greatest threat of marginal discomfort mankind has ever faced!

January 23, 2012 11:27 am

May be of some interest (this is proper science):
Telescope to be built in depths of Mediterranean sea

January 23, 2012 11:31 am

Pecunia non est quid erat.

January 23, 2012 12:51 pm

JPY says:
January 23, 2012 at 9:33 am

Umm… but haven’t you been arguing that the costs of dealing with climate change would outweigh the benefits? Isn’t that measuring climate change in dollars? And so why do think that estimating costs is “bizarre”?

Umm, . . . but haven’t you been arguing that the monetary costs of dealing with climate change are meaningless because the damage done would be nearly limitless? Isn’t that insisting that anything except money be used as a metric? And so why do [you] think that suddenly switching to dollars when literally nothing else* is panning out is correct?
*fewer strong tornadoes, fewer and weaker hurricanes, less drought, greater food productivity, fewer floods (& far less deadly too), more arctic wildlife, temperatures lower than the 1930s, etc.

R Barker
January 23, 2012 1:50 pm

Good one Josh!

January 23, 2012 1:59 pm

You haven’t seen nothin” yet.
Australia’s ABC Radio is promoting (despite it being a Government broadcaster strictly forbidden to advertise) a new gardening book which according to the title and author will allow the reader to prepare their garden to deal with climate change – CAN YOU BELIEVE IT ???
No matter that the IPCC predictions relate to at least a hundred years in the future when all current gardeners will be fertilizing from below, or above if they choose cremation, not tending the gardens.
No matter that the range of IPCC predictions incluse everything from heat to cold, drought to extreme flooding, from severe storms to hurricanes drowning polar bears etc etc.
Don’t alarmists have any common sense ???
Prepare your garden for climate change – c’mon do they think we are as stupid as this notion or is this simply what they all seem to be good at – grabbing cash by any means ??

January 23, 2012 2:01 pm

JPY says:
January 23, 2012 at 9:33 am

Umm… but haven’t you been arguing that the costs of dealing with climate change would outweigh the benefits? Isn’t that measuring climate change in dollars? And so why do think that estimating costs is “bizarre”?

1. Because they are longer able to measure temperature / sea levels / sea ice / glaciers since these metrics are no longer toeing the party line.
2. As we get richer and there are more of us, the monetary cost of any kind of negative climate occurrence will, perforce, become greater.
3. They are not measuring “Climate Change” in this, seemingly they are measuring the exact same climate we have been experiencing for a hundred years or more. The number of ‘disasters’ accorded to climate has just not increased! The cost has, however (see (2)).

January 23, 2012 4:37 pm

I disagree with the * footnote. I sure remember (though long ago) Carl saying ‘billions and billions’ during some of his visits to the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, BEFORE Cosmos.

January 23, 2012 6:25 pm

I sense correlation with the funding requirements to study the inconvenience.

January 23, 2012 6:40 pm

I don’t get it. Hasn’t climate alarmism ALWAYS been about the money? Of course climate “change” is measured in dollars and cents — specifically, how much money alarmists can steal from the rest of us.
Yes, it is raining money today. But not at your house or mine.

January 23, 2012 8:05 pm

The last book by Carl Sagan was:
Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

John Silver
January 24, 2012 5:11 am

It’s Zillions now

John Blake
January 24, 2012 7:49 am

Sagan’s thesis in his last book “Billions and Billions” (1997) was that despite any conceivable scientific-technological advances a detailed catalog of cosmic objects would be “defeated by (sheer) number.”
Spread over near 10-million light-years our Milky Way’s “Local Group” of some 54 galaxies is but a part of the Virgo Supercluster centered 65-million LYs off in a great galaxy roughly 3 – 5 times our size, comprising three trillion stars plus many tens-of-million enormous globular clusters. At 110-million LYs, the diameter of this “local supercluster” of some 100 galaxy-groups and sub-clusters is less than one ten-thousandth of the cosmic radius.
On this scale, what “weather” on what basis governs a 12.5-billion LY “climate”? Yet as a complex dynamic system, Earth’s prevailing climate patterns (sic) are precisely analogous to those (if any: See Edward Lorenz) of the cosmos as a whole. Number aside, this system’s chaotic/fractal nature renders meaningless any extrapolation

%d bloggers like this: