Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has put up a new post.
The Biden Administration Just Failed its First Science Integrity Test
Pricing carbon makes good sense but should not come at the expense of scientific integrity
Here is a subsequent Twitter thread on the subject.
🧵Some technical details following my post on the SCC
Here are cumulative CO2 emissions (FFI) to 2300 for each of the 5 USG scenarios (4 are BAU & 1 is policy), along with the extended RCP8.5 & 2 net-zero scenarios (for 2100 and 2200)
Let me emphasize how ridiculous this is🤡
Looking at the high (USG2) and low (USG5) scenarios gives a 2300 temperature increase of as much as >9 degrees C
I have annotated the figure with the red line indicating 3 deg C which occurs as early as ~2070 under USG2
Ok, now let’s look at the IAM damage functions
Here I have annotated the figure by adding the red line denoting 3 deg C
Note that the vast majority of damage occurs >3 deg C (& up to 3C is ~0 +/-)
According to @climateactiontr current policies (BAU) has the world on track for a maximum 2.9C +/- increase
So if the world never sees a T increase of >3 deg, then the vast majority of the SCC damages are imaginary (under the current USG methodology)
And this analysis is insensitive to 3 deg C – that’s just a round number
Pick your favorite BAU value for peak T & invariably the majority of the SCC under the USG method will come from values above that peak
This is a fatal (& obvious) flaw, despite all the apparent complexity
Is climate policy so important that science abuses can be excused?
Or is climate policy so important that science abuses cannot be tolerated?
(Hint: No & Yes)
Read more: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-biden-administration-just-failed
And more generally: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-unstoppable-momentum-of-outdated
/END
Found a typo in this figure at the top of the thread
Corrected version⬇️
Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on March 1, 2021.
All of this reminds me of the Catholic Church selling indulgences prior to the Reformation. While I will not state that the Catholic Church is a cult, the Escathological Cargo Cult of the Church of the CAGW has all the earmarks of one. I sometimes wonder if I have recourse under the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment against these creeps.
Exactly. It’s just the modern version of medieval religious corruption.
The social cost of carbon-based life.
Who will “liberate” Greenland first?
Mining magnets: Arctic island finds green power can be a curse
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2AU0FM
Biden will be sending troops there immediately…
https://www.boothbayregister.com/article/camden-conference-hosts-policy-and-politics-arctic-conversation-senator-angus-king/143595
King on the Arctic and natural resources
https://www.boothbayregister.com/article/camden-conference-hosts-policy-and-politics-arctic-conversation-senator-angus-king/143595
ARCTIC
Sen. King visits Greenland glacier to examine warming climate
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060041879?t=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eenews.net%2Fstories%2F1060041879
I know wind scammer King was looking at the minerals/gas/oil.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37043/this-is-the-cave-facility-in-norway-that-u-s-navy-submarines-could-soon-operate-from
A generic observation. We have let the warmunists twist word meanings to their advantage. Not that Pielke is a warmunist, but he plays their game in his comments.
Here, carbon pricing. They mean CO2 emissions pricing. C has a molecular mass of 8. O is 16. CO2 is 40. They want to price carbon instead of CO2?!?
Two other pet peeve examples.
Lets not play along with unscientific warmunist twisted word meaning PR.
Semantic games, conceptual corruption, even conflation of logical domains, the social cost of carbon was preceded by the social cost of carbon-based life. The philosophers change, the faith persists, the religion is monotonic.
The catistrophic global warming climate kooks keep spreading conspiracy theories about a climate emergency which doesn’t exist!
Five words into the title, and I knew I could stop. “Carbon pricing” is anti-sense. Simply another hidden tax to sustain and grow bureaucratic fiefdoms while enriching the favored nobility.
We are talking about carbon dioxide, not carbon.
If you are quoting and carbon is in the quote, it needs a [sic] out beside it, if you want to be accurate.
Science depends on defining things properly.
I figured bigoilbob would be on this again.
When I consider the social cost of CO2 I think more of the social benefit and then I think about world population graphs which show a true hockey stick, essentially flat forever then exponential growth.
All in sync with the hydrocarbon age and increasing use.
So to me, the social benefit is ~8-9 of every 10 people i see every day, who would not exist without it.
And of course that is really why the climate scientologists HATE hydrocarbons so much as that is the true social cost of hydrocarbons.
8 billion of us
Get rid of one, most of the other have to follow
How many USG scenarios?
We’re used to hearing that an entire generation of so-called climate scientists has to go, but I’m beginning to think the same thing about so-called climate realists like Pielke Jr. who still give any credit to the IPCC CO2 global warming fake physics hoax and its fake “climate sensitivity” numbers, with or without the logarithmic modification.
Nobody seems to ‘get’ that the entire CO2 warming debate is over, finished, kaput. Why? Because CO’s weak puny 15 micron photons have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C and can’t melt an ice cube, much less cause global warming, heat waves, etc. CO2 radiation can’t raise global averages temperatures even 1 millionth of 1C, much less several degrees C. There’s just no heat in -80C. CO2 radiation in watts per square meter of -80C is irrelevant to Earth temperatures because it can’t raise the temperature of any molecules higher than -80C.
The game, set, and match is to wake the public up to CO2’s 15 micron -80C problem and let the IPCC that pushes it fall apart along with its plans to destroy Western capitalism by wasting hundreds of trillions of dollars.
The killer equation for CO2 global warming is so simple, but sadly few possess the background in radiative/thermal physics to deeply understand it and answer all IPCC objections. Only I provide a free online course patiently explaining the physics step-by-step, a better course than all of academia can come up with, if they weren’t under the control of the IPCC anyway. Study it or fall behind:
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
Ideas such as as the social costs of carbon are often wrapped up in ideas such as “social justice.” However, energy taxes, all of them, are about the most unjust forms of taxation there can be, to the poor especially.
I saw a segment on TV today when they were taking carbon taxes to task based on the damage they could do to the economy. Then they said carbon pricing might be okay if the people were reimbursed by lower other taxes. But the proportions for the poor doesn’t work out so good. It’s just total hypocrisy on the part of the SJWs.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. wrote
Pricing carbon makes good sense…
…and he lost me right there, unless he was talking about coal, firewood, or lumber. I only skimmed and I didn’t see anything about that.
Pricing CO2 makes no sense unless you are buying it in bulk to use in some process.
I’m willing to pay good money for CO2 cartridges for my pellet gun.
I’m Looking forward to the day when Pielke Jr. and all carbon dioxide taxers and pricers embrace the pro-CO2 argument, seeing it as a net GOOD for our environment, and for all living things and start ADDING value to the environment for every human emission of this life-sustaining gas.
hmm pricing carbon does NOT make any sense
fify
that idea belongs on the flat earth article;-)
I dunno about you but so-called carbon products, i.e. petrol for my car, mostly, already HAVE a price on them where I live. And the vast majority of that price is already taxes, so I’m unimpressed by the argument that paying more taxes is going to save the world, since we were already paying more in taxes on gas than for the gas itself and the tax-collectors still got us into the state we’re in now (that we allegedly need saving from, which I do not believe for a femtosecond).
When we talk about loss of GDP percentages, it is worth remembering that the global economy will be much bigger in 2100. For instance, with a global GDP growth of 2% a year, the world would be nearly 5 times richer at the end of the century. 3% a year would lead to over 10 times bigger. Taking off even 10% of each of these (6 degrees temperature rise in the worse case above) gives us 4.5 times and over 9 times bigger world economies respectively. Global economic growth over the last 60 years has been about 2.75% (8.75 times bigger in 2100 if current trends continue). Is it possible that a massive massive spend ($2 trillion a year, 3, more?) in converting from reliable to weather-dependent energy might effect global growth? Probable? Might it go from 2.75% to 2%, for instance, in which case we do not lose 5 to 10% but 400%?