Wonk Room » Senate Democrats Doubt Obama Can Find Votes For Climate [Hoax]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “I’d support it, but I don’t see 60 votes for it.” [Politico, 6/17/10]

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “I don’t see 60 votes for a price on carbon right now.” [E&E News, 6/18/10]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT): “For a variety of reasons, with virtually no Republicans supporting us, it would mean that every Democrat has to step up to the plate. Do I think we have 60 votes to come up with strong global warming legislation? No. I think that’s a tragedy, but that’s the way it is.” [E&E News, 6/18/10]

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE): “There’s a better chance of having 60 votes with a straight energy bill.” [E&E News, 6/18/10]

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): “What’s the point of doing anything without 60 votes?” [The Hill, 6/10/10]

Star positions matter « Calder's Updates

Why star positions matter for climate physics

But What About Positive Feedbacks? | Climate Skeptic

I found the trick. Apparently the model gets a 50% reduction in greenhouse gasses in the US with a trivial (e.g. 25-cent per gallon of gas, 3-cent per kwh of electricity) affect on prices....Wow, that must be a really high sensitivity of output to prices. Where have we heard issues about overly high sensitivity assumptions in computer models before?

Coyote Blog » Blog Archive » Now They Tell Us

...And everyone on the Left is credulously lining up to say that this sounds about right to them. Well, now you tell us. And if this is true, why have you been hammering on the oil companies for 40 years if oil price increases are virtually irrelevant to the economy.

Look, the is is utter BS. I have a wild optimism about the power of free minds to innovate and handle about anything if they are allowed, but even so there is no way that an energy price increase (or artificial shortage, take you pick of mechanisms) large enough to cut output by 50% in 20 years will have a negligible impact on the economy. No way.

The Coal Age Continues - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

It’s hard to see anything shifting these coal trends unless and until other energy choices become as cheap and convenient, or countries are kicked so hard by climate disruption that they realize the value of a global push to limit the human contribution to warming exceeds the economic value of abundant fossil energy.