Climate Change Costs the U.S. Roughly $150 Billion Each Year, New Report Finds

Not a blog

https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/medi...oughly-150-billion-each-year-new-report-finds
Back in 2006 the Stern Review showed that it was going to be way more expensive NOT to deal with climate change than to take steps to mitigate it. Well, we didn’t act and now it is costing us.

 

It's just a hyper-ventilating version of the usual propaganda.
Fifth National Climate Change Assessment Propaganda “Science Report” Released
Guest Blogger
The White House has released the Fifth National Climate Change Assessment report providing the country the latest government hyped climate alarmism science propaganda updates as noted in the news article…

 

The report will not wear well.
Pielke Jr. on Today’s Release of the 2023 National Climate Assessment
3 days ago
Charles Rotter
It is not a scientific assessment. Climate Misinformation from the Biden Administration . . .

 

I recall something about not confusing bad journalism with good science . . .

Media Ignores Reality – Goes Bonkers Over the Fifth National Climate Assessment Report
ECONOMIC COSTS NOVEMBER 17, 2023

 

I've worked for the government. I've been the Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR)for junk like this (has to be done for any new regulation to "prove" that the implementation of the regulation will save money).

In our case we hired a Beltway Bandit firm (paid them $1.7 million) in 2010 to prove that increased fuel economy standards would save people money.

When it was done (approximately 6 weeks later) the report claimed that it would save 300 lives in 2030 and save $7 billion in the process.

No idea which 300 of the roughly 2.85 million people that normally would die in the US every year would be saved. Also, no indication of who would actually have $7 billion extra in their pockets in 2030 but nevermind.

The point is, it worked.

I personally wouldn't wipe my butt with this report.

 

One.
Just one.

 

Imagine my surprise!. A far left - to the point of looniness - institution imbedded in the Democratic run nation's Capitol spewing the party line.

Seriously a 1.3C rise in temp over 150+ years? That's GOTTA be some very creative accounting. Our biggest expense is the billions Biden is throwing done black holes "fighting climate change".

 

As I said the Stern Review (UK 2006) predicted this as did the Garnaut Revuew (Aus 2007). Both are/ were economists and both reports were extensive - these set the standards and against these you want to hold up a blog???

Also there is this https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/

But of course a blog, especially one found to have a multitude of errors, misconceptions nd outright lies, is better
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/watts/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?

 

What a citation - no problem - when you post one so will I

 

And you lot were poking at me foe not reading a load of twaddle written by a member of the Federalist society! Oh! And I note the lack of citations backing your opinions

 

Blather echoing blather.

 

Sooooo - you are saying that while employed with the government you did a sub par job? Hope that is not what you meant though

 

Yeah but it is very very obvious that you are not reading the content of your links so why should I?

 

Actually, I read them all. I'm always disappointed when others don't do their work.

 

Nope. Did a great job. Got perfect performance reviews. I've still got copies.

This was exactly what I was paid to do.

 

Hint: It will be to an IPCC report.

 

Lols! Then why can you not seem to answer my points when I point out the cherry picking and other underhanded strategies?

 

What? Get a rotten quote from someone? Weird anecdote! Sorry but I would not be putting my hand up for that!

 

Because your claims of cherry-picking and underhanded strategies are always false. They have no basis in fact.

 

Ooooh! You going to cite the IPCC?

 

Are they? I have found more rotten cherries in your posted links than a canning factory reject bin

 

No. That's point; you have not. You are committed to claims without foundation.

 

No I know I have highlighted cherry picked nonsense in the last couple of days eg the paper relating to decreased aerosols - two nice visible huge cherries

 

The editors of Nature were not persuaded, and neither am I.

 

This is how our government works all the time. And it's an example of how statistics can lie.

The other favorite trick is to use massive data to obscure the reality. Another finding we came up with is that increasing fuel economy standards would decrease the average number of fuel stops per week from something like 2.35 to 2.25 (this one's more obscure and my memory's not exact). Each fuel stop takes an average of 6.72 minutes. The average salary in a week is something like $18/hr (this was 2010 long before Biden-flation) so when you add it up for the number of drivers in the country, let's say 6 million, that 6/10s of a minute a week is something like $30 billion a year that could be better used making stuff.

That's where I really learned that if someone in DC's lips are moving, they're lying.