Close-Minded Environmental AGW Lawyer Plays The Bait « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

Trouble is, the “User’s Guide” looks just like a glorified appeal on managing risk by concentrating on the “fat tail”, the potential, enormous risks should things go very badly. Its conclusions are not climate-specific: they apply to any problem with a “fat tail”. And they are wrong.

Man shall not manage risk on “worst-case scenario” alone. If one were to educate one’s children only based on that principle, one’d make their life a hell on earth. If one were to live by that principle, one’d never get out of bed in the morning. And if one were to make politics by that principle, well, no need to imagine things there, it’s been the Cheney/Rumsfeld strand of foreign policy for a few decades.

BBC NEWS | [If someone's bogus projections are "worse" than someone else's bogus projections, is that evidence that politicians should give our money to fraudsters?]

The projected impacts are "worse than the government had feared," according to a source familiar with the project.
...
Using a range of online tools including a "weather generator", people will be able to enter their postcodes and see projections of how conditions are likely to change within 25 sq km grid squares at different points in the future.

Investors.com - Global Warming Bill Is A Job-Killer

Democrats argue the bill will create jobs "in the long run" by creating a green economy. They cite "green jobs" like making parts for windmills and growing grass on building rooftops. Luddites unite!

"I think the creation of jobs by this bill far outstrip any losses," Gore recently testified before Markey's panel. "There would be potentially massive job losses if we did not adopt this legislation."

To date, how many US jobs have been lost (or gained) due to global warming?