<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Robert Novak does it on purpose]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by John McGrath http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/ Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:56:59 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/1 Definite costs in the future are also ignored

I was writing an essay for school once, and was reading a report from the GAO, OMB, or somesuch that said -- horror of horrors! -- that if the US ratified Kyoto, gasoline would rise in price to $2.30 a gallon.

At the time of writing that essay, gasoline was $2.50 a gallon.

We're going to have to pay our way, no matter what.  Only question is what we're paying for.

]]> Definite costs in the future are also ignored

I was writing an essay for school once, and was reading a report from the GAO, OMB, or somesuch that said -- horror of horrors! -- that if the US ratified Kyoto, gasoline would rise in price to $2.30 a gallon.

At the time of writing that essay, gasoline was $2.50 a gallon.

We're going to have to pay our way, no matter what.  Only question is what we're paying for.

]]> Comment #2 by Doug Snodgrass http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/ Sun, 31 Dec 2006 06:11:37 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/2 Novak getting facts wrong?

Unfortunately he has seemed to fly above the lines of accountability for quite some time.  It's always prudent to fact-check his pieces based on past experience.

Visit the Ecotality Blog at http://ecotalityblog.com

]]> Novak getting facts wrong?

Unfortunately he has seemed to fly above the lines of accountability for quite some time.  It's always prudent to fact-check his pieces based on past experience.

Visit the Ecotality Blog at http://ecotalityblog.com

]]> Comment #3 by EliRabett http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/ Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:06:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/3 Three things are needed

Greg Easterbrook pointed out some time ago that the demonstrated successful way to meet environmental challenges is to first establish governmental regulations and then allow market driven solutions.  

]]> Three things are needed

Greg Easterbrook pointed out some time ago that the demonstrated successful way to meet environmental challenges is to first establish governmental regulations and then allow market driven solutions.  

]]> Comment #4 by GMB http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/ Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:15:47 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/4 A PREMATURE SUBJECT IF EVER THERE WAS ONE.

The context is that we have plenty of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global cooling. And none at all NO EVIDENCE AT ALL for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

So that therefore EVEN $1 of costs imposed for the purpose of emissions reductions is clearly and obviously a disgrace.

This ought to be obvious to even a smart 9 year old. But apparently not to you Dessler.

Now have you got any evidence or not?

Come up for some evidence for the idea that the boat is sinking before you begin waxing lyrical on the finer points of living underwater.

]]> A PREMATURE SUBJECT IF EVER THERE WAS ONE.

The context is that we have plenty of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global cooling. And none at all NO EVIDENCE AT ALL for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

So that therefore EVEN $1 of costs imposed for the purpose of emissions reductions is clearly and obviously a disgrace.

This ought to be obvious to even a smart 9 year old. But apparently not to you Dessler.

Now have you got any evidence or not?

Come up for some evidence for the idea that the boat is sinking before you begin waxing lyrical on the finer points of living underwater.

]]> Comment #5 by Andrew Dessler http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/ Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:04:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/5 You obviously don't get out much

GMB-

Have you ever heard of the IPCC?  Their reports provide lots of evidence that there is a significant risk of severe climate change.

You can check out their reports at http://www.ipcc.ch.

Also, I would note that there is no peer-reviewed evidence at all that global cooling is any risk whatsoever.

Regards

]]> You obviously don't get out much

GMB-

Have you ever heard of the IPCC?  Their reports provide lots of evidence that there is a significant risk of severe climate change.

You can check out their reports at http://www.ipcc.ch.

Also, I would note that there is no peer-reviewed evidence at all that global cooling is any risk whatsoever.

Regards

]]> Comment #6 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/ Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:42:44 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/6 Andrew,

there you go again with your peer-review obsession.

www.grist.org

]]> Andrew,

there you go again with your peer-review obsession.

www.grist.org

]]> Comment #7 by GMB http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/ Tue, 02 Jan 2007 01:13:12 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/7 IF NOT YOU, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

"Have you ever heard of the IPCC?  Their reports provide lots of evidence that there is a significant risk of severe climate change."

No thats not right.

They provide absolutlely no evidence for Catastrophic global warming.
>>>>>>>>>

Yeah great work Dessler.

Bravo.

But it aint evidence for catastrophic global warming now is it?

And if YOU OF ALL PEOPLE cannot come up with any such evidence what does this tell you about the alarmist-denialist movement more generally?

You should be seeing a pattern forming here.

Or if not third parties ought to be.

]]> IF NOT YOU, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

"Have you ever heard of the IPCC?  Their reports provide lots of evidence that there is a significant risk of severe climate change."

No thats not right.

They provide absolutlely no evidence for Catastrophic global warming.
>>>>>>>>>

Yeah great work Dessler.

Bravo.

But it aint evidence for catastrophic global warming now is it?

And if YOU OF ALL PEOPLE cannot come up with any such evidence what does this tell you about the alarmist-denialist movement more generally?

You should be seeing a pattern forming here.

Or if not third parties ought to be.

]]> Comment #8 by Fergus Brown http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/ Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:11:40 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/overestimating-the-cost-of-emissions-reductions/8 Underestimating the benefits...

Andrew, as linked indirectly in Eli's post, the RMI have demonstrated frequently that outlays in improved energy efficiency are more than compensated for by returns for investors. There are plenty of case studies on their website which demonstrate an ROI after three years or less on a range of projects, followed by increased profitability. Perhaps Lovins is right that, if you want to pitch to the money men, you need to talk money.

One wonders if GMB has read the TAR; somehow it seems unlikely. Perhaps he/she has a reasonable explanation for why there is such a fuss being made about this so-called non-threat?

Regards,

Turned out nice again...

]]> Underestimating the benefits...

Andrew, as linked indirectly in Eli's post, the RMI have demonstrated frequently that outlays in improved energy efficiency are more than compensated for by returns for investors. There are plenty of case studies on their website which demonstrate an ROI after three years or less on a range of projects, followed by increased profitability. Perhaps Lovins is right that, if you want to pitch to the money men, you need to talk money.

One wonders if GMB has read the TAR; somehow it seems unlikely. Perhaps he/she has a reasonable explanation for why there is such a fuss being made about this so-called non-threat?

Regards,

Turned out nice again...

]]>