Andrew Dessler Latest Tweets (inside the mind of an angry climate alarmist)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- January 24, 2021

“Senile, scientifically illiterate, grumpy old men are NOT pleased [with the arrival of Greta Thunberg to New York City and the United States].” (Andrew Dessler, August 28, 2019)

Anger, Disrespect

“The use of old, senile, scientifically illiterate men to promote climate change denial is truly a disgrace.” (Andrew Dessler, August 21, 2019)

“Who should be madder about calling people who reject climate science ‘climate deniers.’ Climate deniers, because it lumps them in with holocaust deniers? Or Holocaust deniers, because it lumps them in with climate deniers.” (Andrew Dessler, July 18, 2019)

“your puny consensus science is no match for my UNCERTAINTY MONSTER! Bwahahah!” “ma’am, this is Arbys. can I take your order?” (May 15, 2019 tweet exchange with Judith Curry)

“It’s awesome that Henri, an MIT student, misspelled [Richard] Lindzen’s name. That tells us everything we need to know about how influential he is now.” (May 15, 2019)

Alarmism & Wealth

“I think a lot of despair comes from the realization that, in the world of Trump, help dealing with climate change will only go to the rich & well connected, not normal folk. In other words, Jeffrey Epstein will do fine, but you and I won’t.” (Andrew Dessler, July 12, 2019)

Scientific Certainty

“99.9% of … climate scientists conclude that humans are now the dominant driver of the climate….” (June 21, 2019)

“… our confidence in climate science comes from understanding the physics of the climate system, not b/c of output from climate models.” May 24, 2019)

Public Policy

“People who argued against climate policies because they oppose ‘big government’ are going to realize that they made a very very bad decision.” (June 20, 2019)

Backdoor Public Choice

“Yes, [Elizabeth Warren] is correct: altering the climate system is good for (short-term) profits. Without appropriate safeguards, you end up with rampant corruption.” (June 22, 2019)

“At some point, the Federal Gov’t is going to decide which cities live and which die [from sea level rise], and will use tax dollars to save those that can be saved. The potential for cronyism is huge. This is going to be socially destabilizing.”

Hedging?

“… don’t forget that uncertainty cuts both ways. It’s possible that models are dramatically overestimating future climate trends, but it’s also possible they’re UNDERESTIMATING them.” (May 29, 2019)

“There is also uncertainty in the model physics, indicated by the spread within each scenario….” (May 29)

“There is clearly a lot of uncertainty in predictions by climate models. (May 29, 2019)D

Adaptation

“First, and most importantly, most people have no idea how bad the impacts of climate change could be. Our reliance on the stability of the climate is obscured by technology that mostly insulates our lives from it today.” (May 10, 2019)

“A painful lesson [from France’s heat wave] is how expensive the ‘we’ll just adapt to higher termperatures’ is going to be. The myth that adaptation is somehow going to be either 1) cheaper or 2) politically painless is getting blown to smitherereens.” (June 28, 2019) {comment on tweet from Michael E. Webber: “France does not have the capacity to deal with heatwaves the way Texas (or other hot climates in developed countries) can.”}

Opaque Politics

Economists love transparency. Rational actors want to know exactly how much everything is costing them so they can make optimal decisions about allocating resources. In politics, though, transparency is a negative. If you open your electricity bill and it says “Carbon tax: $20”, it’s hard to argue that it’s not costing you $20.

A politician can then come along and say, “This $20 tax is killing our economy and costing us jobs — we need to repeal it” and a lot of people will agree. That makes it hard to enact and sustain such a policy.
From a political standpoint, a more opaque policy is actually superior. With something like an RPS (or a tax cut or any regulation), you have no idea how much it costs. Politicians can argue that it’s costing a lot, but other people can argue the opposite … who’s right? opaque policies should be easier to enact and safer once implemented. I think economist’s love of market-based solutions to climate needs to meet the reality of politics.” (May 12, 2009)

David Koch Pile-On