Hill Heat has an exclusive on the first state “climate change dialogue” conducted to try to scare American with the truthiness argument that dealing with global warming will cost jobs. (REMEMBER: This claim takes the truth out of truthiness: we can create a stronger, richer, more jobs intensive economy by getting off our carbon addiction!)
Now, as to the road test …
It was train wreck I am certain they will not want repeated.
Well, normally I don’t cheer transportation disasters, but I hope this is a disaster that the NTSB doesn’t investigate and the “operators” learn nothing: this is a train wreck worth repeating time and again.
Question 1 came from Global Warming denialists seeking a statement that nothing needs to be done. The response:
the IPCC report is in, and attacking the science is no longer politically tenable.
But, I do love the commentary:
Subtext read in the facial expressions from the dais: we’d love to, but we’re stuck now fear mongering the economics of an American energy future of stable prices, domestic job growth, and intact Florida coastlines.
But, the basic point, key to me, is whether ACCF/NAM would provide transparency to the study:
allowing peer review, disclosing assumptions, etc, like all the competing 25 climate-economy models which project only very modest impacts. Answer: an embarrassed no.
Should we wonder why the SAIC study team of this “independent study” disavowed their own report with this footnote?
“The input assumptions, opinion and recommendations are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC.”
Sadly, ACCF and NAM will get some play with their “independent” study from SAIC, this work that takes the truth out of truthiness.
In any event, go to Hill Heat for some additional commentary.