
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Sadly, Stefan Rahmstorf was foolish enough to believe that CarbonBrief make sense.
But "CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed" is true; and "excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial" is also true. I mean FFS, "excessively aggressive" is almost by definition detrimental. These people are clowns. Of course, that doesn't actually make the report itself good; it just shows you how uselessly debased the "discussion" is.
Update
DOE Climate Working Group RIP says RP Jr and this appears to be true. With just a little luck, I may never have to read the thing; the virtues of prevarication. RP says "Based on my connecting the dots, the disbanding is the direct result of a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists arguing that the empanelment of the CWG violated the bureaucracy in triplicate act" which might be true; though if it is, it displays a considerably greater respect for the niceties of the law than the Trump administration has shown elsewhere. Perhaps, having got their headlines, and the test of the report, they just don't really care that much? Andy Revkin also comments. And Gavin says DOE CWG Report “Moot”? Perhaps interestingly, there's nothing on Curry's ClimateEtc. Tamino suggests they pulled the rug so as to avoid having to revise the report in light of the numerous substantive comments; it is a nice idea but not fully convincing. Ars says Feds try to dodge lawsuit against their bogus climate report but I'm not sure that adds much.