I’ve been surprised at the White House’s use of the shady term “carbon pollution” (it’s like referring to drowning as “water pollution”).
Now people are taking a look a policy set on the basis of a “social cost of carbon” (SCC) calculation – and while I agree with setting policy by estimating future costs, I wouldn’t justify the policy based on a spreadsheet.
This shot is probably deserved:
“And finally, I return to the issues raised in the preceding post, 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims. Some commenters seemed to think this was pretty much kindergarten stuff and of course policy makers (or their staffers) understand this stuff. Well anyone taking seriously the White House’s SCC numbers needs to go back to kindergarten and pay attention to the 20 tips.”