Look, T-tard, page 20 has cites on it, not estimates, you lying shitter. This publication is neither scholarly nor useful, as reference. It has nothing, about CO2-neutral biomass or re-greening, just shit about the how the bad, old Clean Air Act will mess up the crime-pays economy, which pays wingpunk-pubs and their blow-buddy Democrats, for daisy-chaining and circle-jerking, in their usual way.
Here's the junior wingpunks who wrote all this shit, who aren't anything but pubs, with tiny brains, scamming a pub-infested committee, with Tea Party propaganda, while the jerks circle, and jerk some more:
Contact:
Matt Dempsey [email protected] (202) 224-9797
David Lungren [email protected] (202) 224-5642
"Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 C by 2100"
How many trillions of dollars do you think we should spend to achieve that massive reduction in future temperature?
Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.
Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate
Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!