2 thoughts on “Obama official to defend ‘social cost of carbon’ in Hill hearing”

  1. Here is a copy of the manuscript submitted to members of the Space Science & Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives for their consideration and action.



    The conclusion: Two seemingly minor falsehoods, were promoted as scientific facts after the UN was formed on 24 Oct 1945 to save the world from possible nuclear annihilation:

    Falsehood #1. Neutrons attract neutrons
    Falsehood #2. H-fusion powers the Sun

    Those falsehoods have destroyed the integrity of science, education, research journals, the news media, and world leaders – and Creator-endowed rights to self-governance, just as a virus living only in nerve cells might totally incapacitate an entire organism without leaving any visible outward sign of its presence.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. Fair is fair. If we’re going to talk about the social cost of carbon dioxide and climate change, let’s be sure we also look at the social cost of carbon dioxide restriction. Then we have to work out the cost-benefit.
    We can quantify some of the social cost of CO2 restriction in terms of reduced GDP, higher cost of living, impact of energy poverty, lost jobs and wages, subsidies etc. Since the actual verifiable social cost of CO2-related climate change is zero, the net social cost is whatever we allocate to CO2 restriction.

Comments are closed.