Steve–again details are important. What level of US government are you asking to see “draft plans” for– Federal, State local. Where?
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Steven Mosher
Start with national.
Pretend you have a pen and a phone
Or step aside and let those who need less detail run your life.
Question and delay is not a thread winning strategy.
Go
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by AK
@Stephen Segrest…
You’re welcome. It’s hard communicating these ideas sometimes.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
It is funny how one chooses to look at tails. They are fat tails when it helps your point and most often thin tails in reality. The PM2.5 policy with respect to coal is working on the left over thin tail between coal power plant emissions and background concentration.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Roger Caiazza
PE,
“But really just building CC’s like crazy is a great plan that with a plethora of alternative potential details could beat the pants off the clean air plan with it’s promotion of inadequate technology.”
Do you mean the EPA’s final rule the Clean Power Plan when you say clean air plan? I agree that the final EPA rule changes to encourage renewables at the expense of natural gas is a mistake.
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by aplanningengineer
Peter – TI suggested a plan for the U.S., just at the EPA plan is for the U.S. The request was not for an optimal plan or even a better plan, though I think this plan is clearly better. It it’s only an incremental change to the EPA’s plan, so what?
It may be no more practical for Africa, India or China to follow our lead in natural gas versus following our lead with “renewables” (or nuclear for that matter.) I think the plan is good for 30 years easy, 20 would be plenty enough though. (I suspect AK is right that it will last much longer). I suspect that in a significant bridge time range we could export a lot of LNG to assist others in limiting emissions much more cost effectively than having them emulate our efforts at inadequate renewables.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Peter Lang
Steven Mosher keeps telling skeptics they need an alternative theory. I’ve asked him to explain what the alternative theory has to explain. He hasn’t replied. I honestly don’t know what he is asking for.
Mosher believes that GHG emissions are dangerous. I am not persuaded that is true. In fact I am not persuaded they are doing more harm than good. However, I am strongly persuaded that any policy to mitigate GHG emissions that increases the cost of energy will do far more harm than good. Therefore, I advocate for least cost energy for the whole world, and especially for the developing countries.
It is up to those people who are concerned about cutting global GHG emissions to advocate for policies that will enable low emissions energy to be cheaper than fossil fuels – I.e much cheaper.
By far the easiest and fastest way to do that is to remove the impediments to nuclear power.
So, it’s up to the ECAGW alarmists, not the CAGW skeptics, to argue for nuclear if the genuinely want to reduce global GHG emissions.
Over to you, CAGW alarmists.
Go, Mosher.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by aplanningengineer
Sorry Roger, yes Clean power not clean air.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
RobS: If we knew the models were going to be “over predict” temperature rise by a certain percentage over a certain time it would be easy—nobody does.
Cap’n: We are looking at more like 300% high.
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
> I’ve asked him to explain what the alternative theory has to explain.
Global warming.
Over to you, Denizens.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Peter Lang
Same cause as previous warnings.
Done!
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Berényi Péter
Funny, but it can. With real money it would not happen, but that’s something no one uses any more. What we actually have is token money, and that’s something completely different.
Even commercial banks are legally authorized to create it out of thin air and that’s what they do. They let you borrow money they don’t have for interest. That’s how fresh money is created from nothing as debt.
This is why money supply is increasing exponentially. For a while.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by AK
<blockquote>Even commercial banks are legally authorized to create it out of thin air and that’s what they do.</blockquote>So are you! Every time you write a check, it's money. Assuming you had the money in your account, you've just doubled it. <b>Until</b> somebody cashes it. But if they just swap it around, then it remains money.
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
> Same cause as previous warnings.
So there’s no AGW.
Fascinating.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
> Every time you write a check, it’s money. Assuming you had the money in your account, you’ve just doubled it.
What?
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Steven Mosher
Steven Mosher keeps telling skeptics they need an alternative theory. I’ve asked him to explain what the alternative theory has to explain. He hasn’t replied. I honestly don’t know what he is asking for.
1. They do not need an alternative theory
2. The claim I made, unchallenged to date, is this :
If skeptics want to be taken seriously they need an alternative theory.
Theory of what? A theory of the climate, how it works, and why it has, warmed.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Steven Mosher
Steven Mosher keeps telling skeptics they need an alternative theory. I’ve asked him to explain what the alternative theory has to explain. He hasn’t replied. I honestly don’t know what he is asking for.
1. They do not need an alternative theory
2. The claim I made, unchallenged to date, is this :
If skeptics want to be taken seriously they need an alternative theory.
Theory of what? A theory of the climate, how it works, and why it has, warmed.
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Steven Mosher
Peter
Mosher believes that GHG emissions are dangerous. I am not persuaded that is true. In fact I am not persuaded they are doing more harm than good. However, I am strongly persuaded that any policy to mitigate GHG emissions that increases the cost of energy will do far more harm than good. Therefore, I advocate for least cost energy for the whole world, and especially for the developing countries.
1. I don’t hold that ghg emissions are dangerous.
2. Co2 emissions pose a risk
3. It doesn’t matter what you are persuaded of.
4. I advocate for zero cost everything… Weeeeeeeee
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Arch Stanton
Learn something every day.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Bad Andrew
“So there’s no AGW.”
It’s almost amazing it took someone of your brainpower to discover this, Willard.
Andrew
↧
