****************************************************************
ZT says:
Looks like the science is now understood to be a washout, but the key component is on slide 47:
0.5 trillion per year “much of it a transfer, not a “loss”"
Translation:
“We need to set up the necessary governmental spending apparatus to interfere with sufficient aspects of the world’s activities to transfer 500 billion per year in ways that we will specify after we have passed the legislation. Get ready Goldman Sachs et al – here comes some more money, and can we all have jobs when we leave office?”
“This is the IPCC’s assessment in the 2007 report. No part of this has been called into question by the way.”
Is he joking?
The presentation is what passes for good public policy in most government offices in America. These guys have had 20 years of the “Debate is Settled” monopoly and know they preaching to the choir. No one dares to contradict for fear of their position. This has not changed substantially since Climategate either.
One wonders how an educated, honest person can reach the high position Holdren has & still display a lack of critical thought as evidenced by this speech
You have just described a con man. The big difference is this guy is trying to sell something to the world. A con depends on the receiver of the pitch not having the critical thought process to poke holes in the argument. A con plays on a persons emotions and in this case it’s fear instead of greed.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is going to have a field day with this.
Was there a Q&A or did he bolt from the podium for the exit when he finished?
[SLIDE 63] Last, legislation. The President has been emphatic that new US energy legislation should include climate science; above all should include a price on carbon emissions. Hasn’t happened. That climate component was reluctantly, and I should emphasize temporarily abandoned, because of insufficient support in the US Senate, but we will be back. We will try anew in the next Congress. And in the meantime, the EPA is moving ahead to control greenhouse gas emissions by regulation.
God help us — the EPA — the litigation is going to cost taxpayers more than the national debt.
[SLIDE 64] Last slide. It is still the case, widespread rumors to the contrary not withstanding, that the American public supports and continues to support taking action on climate change. This is a poll from the Academy’s America’s Climate Choices, Volume 4 just released last month, and when you look at these figures, you see that, for example, 71% of the American public support somewhat or strongly regulating CO2; tax rebates for efficient cars and solar panels: 82%, international treaty: 61%; and so on through the list. The least popular one is increase the gas tax by 25%. People hate taxes, and with that – and with apologies for going on too long – I thank you for your attention.
“Poll: 70 percent of Americans reject cap-and-trade”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-70-percent-of-americans-reject-cap-and-trade-98033709.html
Its probably much higher now.
“When pollsters ask Americans to name the most important problem facing the country, fewer than 3 percent mention the environment. But when asked to name the most serious problem facing the planet if left unchecked, the environment and global warming rise to the top, according to a May 2010 study by Woods Institute Senior Fellow Jon Krosnick.”
http://woods.stanford.edu/research/polls-underestimate.html
LOL: its all in the way you design the questions.
Well actually the emails from East Anglia showed that climate science is a hoax.
One wonders how an educated, honest person can reach the high position Holdren has & still display a lack of critical thought as evidenced by this speech