To "Tyler D" was man responsible for the midievil warm period? What
about the Little Ice Age? During the midievil warm period, global temperatures
were warmer than they are today. How is that possible if man causes climate
change?1997 was a warm year, but the question that has yet to be
answered is why? Also, why is it that we have not had any statistically
significant warming since then? CO2 has increased, but temperatures have
stagnated. The climate models say that that is impossible, yet nature has shown
that it knows more about climate than our best climatoligists.The
scientific community is less and less convinced of AGW. See "Peer-Reviewed
Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" in
Forbes. Only 36% of geoscientists believe in AGW theories these days.
The problems with climate remediation is that the possible benefits are way,
way, way out into the future (like a 100 years and for a politician that is
practically never), whereas the costs are high and immediate. Our political and
economic system simply can't deal with this. The motto of the the
political class could well be "what's posterity ever done for us?"
liberal open mind stick your head in pure oxygen and see what happens. you know
because of your medical training CO2 can be a whole lot more and not be an
issue. Now some real scientific evidence not silly 3rd grade antics. Evidence
please. The temperature please.
The earth has quit warming, CO2 levels are at an all time high along with the
human population, but miraculously the plant life on the planet is flourishing
so the increased population can be fed and supplied, despite starvation
predictions and other doomsday predictions of the early 1980's. It is as though an all-knowing God has a plan to make things work out and
balance out. So why would we give liberal alarmists all the wealth
of the world? They aren't fixing it. The fix is happening without their
help.Sit back and behold the hand of God. It is glorious!
Our sustained C02 levels are at a 15 million year high. That's right, 15
million years as reliably measured from ice core samples.Republicans
assure you that it won't do anything because they say so. It just happens
to be in their wealthy clients interest to not do anything about it. But that
means nothing.Now stick your head in a plastic bag and see if it
does nothing as the CO2 level increases.
@VST – “Are you really serious about having a meaningful scientific
discussion about the causes of global warming? Or do you prefer to stay in the
realm of political pontifications and “put-downs?””That would be great… where do we go to have one? Seriously,
have you not been following the many climate change comments on DN the last
couple years? If so, there should be no question in your mind as to where the
put downs, obfuscations, misinformation, misrepresentations, and all the other
tactics straight out of oil industry talking points are coming from.But my apologies if I occasionally return like for like… it’s not
always easy to take the high road.Re: your questions – all
good, but uh… I’m not a scientist. So what do climate scientists
say? If they have answers has it convinced any to abandon AGW?And
that’s the only point I’ve ever made – that the scientific
community is overwhelming convinced of AGW (in spite of the many contrary
comments here on DN).Question for others (since you’re
convinced) – where is all the extra carbon going? Is the Earth somehow
Currently with the increased carbon dioxide levels, the earth has greened up by
11%, scientists say this is a direct result. Another benefit they say is that
horticulture will use less water for plant growth as the CO2 increases because
the plants require less water with increased CO2 and increased temperature.
Farmers using less water means more water available in dryer climate areas.
Scientist also have found the Redwood forests in California are growing 33%
faster with the increased CO2. So again what is the temperature and level of
CO2 you think is the right level? And then show scientific evidence to support
Wow, I’ve completely changed my views on this because…@Redshirt1701 - says that climate has historically changed over time and this
change is no different and is not man caused and is… what, inevitable? But
then he says it’s not changing based on a cherry picked (see, I told Judy)
extraordinarily hot year; 1997. Which is it?@2bits – thinks
that math (deduction) is synonymous with science (induction).@chilly
– clearly demonstrated that all polling done on this issue is false…
oh wait, I’m confusing “asserted” with
“demonstrated.”…on second thought, I’m not
yet convinced guys.
Actually, Judy, I'd rather have regulations that prevent polluters from
contaminating the planet that to merely tax them for doing so.
Tyler D: "This is the informed opinion of over 97% of all climate
scientists."All of the polls/studies that claim 97 or 98% of
climate scientists believe in catastrophic man-caused climate change have proved
to be bogus. The one that claimed "97%" attempted to poll 10,000
scientists. Less than 1200 of these responded to the survey. Out of those, the
creators of the survey cherry picked 79 scientists, 77 of whom answered
"yes" to two questions. For a laugh, find the study and read the
questions. (hint - with a very minor revision to one question I, as a skeptic,
would have answered "yes")A real fact for you: 100% of
climate scientists who believed that the climate models were going to be
accurate, were wrong.
To "Tyler D" the climate has always been changing. I have always said
that, and will always say that. It doesn't take a fancy degree or a
multimillion dollar super computer to know that from year to year the
world's climate is not constant. It has been warmer than it is today, and
it has been colder than it is today.It is only the AGW alarmists
that think the global climate should be constant.If it is carbon
like you think it is, then where is your proof.According to the
NOAA, the current set of climate models are correct if the warming trend never
pauses for 15 years or more. Depending on who you talk to, we are now at 15
years with no statistically significant warming, and possibly at 18 years with
no warming.The models are wrong. The models all assumed that CO2
was the driver, and now the models have proven themselves wrong.So,
where is your proof? There are NO accurate climate models.Read the
article "The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming
Theory" in Forbes. It explains the current state of AGW theories.
Tyler D,Climatology is not a pure-science. Pure-science is something you
can prove with mathematical proofs or 100% reliably predict the outcome of
experiments (like gravity, kinematics, chemistry, etc). Pure-science isn't
scientists voting and the theory that gets the most votes wins.Pure-science isn't a popularity contest. It's provable and
predictable. Climatology isn't at that point yet.IMO Climate
is way to complex to be explained by just one thing (ie C02).It's so complex I doubt man will ever be able to reliably predict it or
come up with mathematical models that predict reliably what will happen when any
of the variables change.Climatology is as much like religion as it
is science at this point. You can't see the whole picture at once, you
can't comprehend it's full complexity, you can't predict it, you
can't prove it, you just have to believe that you have it all figured out
and hope you got it right.IF climatology gets to the point of
Kinematics or Chemistry (where the equations work 100% of the time)... it will
be a pure-science.
Re: "How far right can republicans move before we call them the fascists
that they are?"Uh, that would require a move to the left.Both German and Italian fascists were socialists. Both Hitler and
Mussolini explicitly adopted Karl Marx' ideas. Mussolini -- who gave
fascism its name -- was first arrested as a leftist organizer and
pamphleteer.The American left has frantically concocted and spewed
enormous amounts of disingenuous propaganda since WWII, trying desperately to
disassociate itself with the nationalist branch of world socialism.But the similarities, in both ends and means -- as well as using the former to
justify the latter -- are simply too great for real people to buy it.Socialists and fascists are simply two sides of the same coin. Both seek to
forcibly impose their will on others they foolishly consider less worthy or able
to decide for themselves.
@Redshirt1701 – “Is it CO2? Is it the Sun? Is it water vapor? Nobody
knows for sure, not even the leading climatologists.”Nice to
finally have you onboard the “it is happening” reality train…
considering what a big step that is for any far-right true believer, I’m
tempted to just end this here.Except scientists do know what causing
it – it’s not the Sun and it’s not water vapor (both of which
have been part of the climate for millions of years) – it is carbon and
the fact that we have overloaded the natural carbon cycle causing a sustained
increase in global temperature at an unprecedented rate (and speed of the change
is the big concern).This is the informed opinion of over 97% of all
climate scientists. All the arguments currently taking place among scientists
are around the details, not the AGW theory itself.And a carbon tax
can in fact be revenue neutral because (greedy liberals aside) it’s about
altering incentives, not generating revenue (why Republicans came up with it),
and is why it worked wonderfully for acid rain (don’t hear about that
Anti Bush-ObamaWhere did you get that the military is the biggest
polluter? References please.Just because you don't like them
doesn't automatically mean they are the biggest polluters (If you're
talking about greenhouse gas emissions, which I assume we are).I
think CARS rank WAY above the Military in greenhouse gas pollution they put out.
But why let rational thought and logic cloud your coolaid filled mind?----I googled "biggest polluters in the US" and so far the
military hasn't even made any of the lists (not even the Huffington
Post's top 20).Where did you get your little factoid that the
military is one of our top 2 biggest polluters?
Which climate change are we on now? In the 70's you wanted to heat up the
earth, then in the 90's it was getting too warm, now we find out that
nothing has changed much for the past 15 years....Please clarify for me which
direction you want to FIX mother nature and then explain how taxing people will
To "Judy Weiss" the problem is that we don't know what the triggers
are for climate change.Is it CO2? Is it the Sun? Is it water
vapor? Nobody knows for sure, not even the leading climatologists.The problem with taxing carbon is that it just sucks money out of the economy,
and does nothing to help. Go and watch the documentary "Cool It". It
was written and produced by liberals, and teaches that all of the carbon taxes
will just hurt economies and kill people, where doing nothing will actually save
What this person doesn't want to say is that. The biggest polluters, which
are the Military and these power plants, will just buy up carbon credits and we
the people will get stuck with paying the taxes on top of our tripling
heatlhcare costs. I'm glad I'm leaving.
Republicans can't even agree with their own ideas anymore. A carbon tax
used to be seen as the "market solution" but would be branded communist
by the republicans now. How far right can republicans move before we
call them the fascists that they are?
Better, more effective solutions: Speed the approval and construction processes
for nuclear power plants. Ease OSHA and NTSB rules to allow high-MPG European
vehicles into the U.S. Encourage conversion of diesel trucks and gasoline
vehicles to natural gas by giving tax incentives. Fund creation of timed lights
on busy commuter roads and additional freeway lanes (NOT commuter lanes) to
ease congestion.These things would reduce air pollution more than
carbon taxes and the fabulously corrupt cap-and-trade system.
See Judy, why bother? Our destruction is being accelerated by those who would
bury their heads in the sand because pulling it out would cost money. Heaven
help us if we investigate different avenues until we get it right. Instead of
calling the stuff in the air a mirage figure out how to get rid of it.
Re: "Readers should please ask their representatives to sponsor
revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation . . . ."There's no
such thing.ALL taxes have revenue consequences. NONE are neutral.
And, ANY carbon-tax, or carbon-cap, or carbon-trade scam WILL increase
particular beneficial effect on Earth's climate.In other words
-- it's actually absolute, unmitigated lunacy for readers to ask their
representatives to unilaterally penalize and disincentivize American jobs,
American well-being, and American prosperity, by sponsoring
"revenue-neutral" carbon tax legislation. Or ANY unilateral,
Judy, Judy, Judy (said in exasperated Cary Grant voice)The issue of
climate change is no place for logic & reason and certainly not pragmatism.
And as others have pointed out, today’s Republicans are not your
father’s Republicans or even your slightly older cousin’s…
today they are the party of “no” even to their own ideas.
@chilly"Arctic sea ice is increasing over record lows,"That's a one year change. The overall trend the last few decades is
No tax ever ends up where it is supposed to. Government administration equals
corruption. And please justify the temperature you think is the correct
temperature for the earth. GOP progressives are as bad as liberal progressives.
Forget it. The armchair climatologists of Utah know climate change is a myth. We
didn't cause it, so we don't have to fix it. Real science is bunk and
can be denied.
JoeBlow,Precisely. The irony is beyond belief.
"Which would you prefer: Regulations and higher prices, or a carbon tax and
higher prices with an offsetting rebate?"Lets choose the third
option: do neither. Since temperatures have not risen in the last 15 years,
Arctic sea ice is increasing over record lows, Antarctic ice is increasing all
despite record levels of man-made CO2 (the dreaded "carbon" referred to
by alarmists). The dire predictions made by climate models have failed
miserably. The effects of man-made CO2 on our environment are not yet well
understood.Let's stick to getting rid of as much air, water and
ground pollution as we can while continuing to study the climate, which by all
measures appears to be functioning well within natural variability.
One proposal for a carbon tax is that taxes on income would be decreased while a
"consumption tax" based on the carbon emissions of each
product/transaction is assessed (or increased) -- making the carbon tax
"revenue neutral." Thus, people would not be paying taxes on
income. Rather, they'd pay a tax for the amount of carbon they generate on
consumption. The beauty of the tax is that it would probably
create incentives to save money (e.g., no or lower taxes on interest income) and
direct consumers to buy energy-saving LED lights over energy-guzzling
incandescent bulbs based on the carbon taxes assessed at time of purchase and
for the purchase of electricity to power them. A carbon tax would
change how we view our electricity and air quality as well. In Utah, with our
80 percent coal-fired power dependency, we would probably see our rates go up.
Because our electricity is provided by a monopoly, Utahns would probably have to
pass laws to force Utah utilities to switch to low-carbon alternatives -- all to
lower our taxes!! Imagine laws aligning low taxes with clean air!
They'd pass in Utah!
Brace yourself Judy.You are advocating for the implementation of
another Republican idea. No way could it fly today. At least not with the
GOP.Yes, Carbon Tax = Cap and Trade = Emissions Trading.And yes, Emissions Trading was born under G HW Bush as a way to fight acid
rain. The idea was to let the free market system work. Oh yes
Judy. You will be blasted, by Republicans, for advocating a Republican idea.