You’ve misread much of what I said, I suspect willfully. There is not likely too much point in going back and forth much more. The burden of scientific proof has been asked, answer, met, reviewed, met again, reviewed again, ad nauseum. You can keep saying I’m not pointing to ‘real’ science all you want, but it doesn’t make it true.
But to quickly respond.
- There are also jobs in the energy efficiency technologies and installation. You’re just talking about energy generation jobs. But fwiw, on that front, there are more people in solar and wind than coal…by a lot.
- I know what LCOE is. See my feature article in Harvard Business Review magazine a couple months ago on energy strategy. We discuss and show the latest LCOE from Lazard — yes, unsubsidized — which shows that large-scale solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels now (there’s of course nuance to that statement on new build vs. marginal cost of energy production form existing sources).
- I said specifically that CO2 is correlated with burning fossil fuels which produces the pollutants that cause bad health outcomes. Yes, CO2 is good for plants, but not good for the climate. And Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA can and must treat CO2 as a pollutant as well.
I can’t go into hypotheses and falsification, etc, etc. If you’d like to take a shot at ‘proving’ why cutting carbon isn’t good for us, knock yourself out.