To "Twin Lights" it isn't governmnet. It is private companies.
When the governments sets an emissions level, who has to design the components
to meet those requirements? Do we have government automotive engineers working
on the next generation of engine, or do we have private companies working on the
RedShirtUofU,So if the air is getting cleaner and the most
significant source of pollution is our cars, what explains them getting so much
more efficient?Could it be Government?
To "ingslc" but CO2 is not a pollutant, nor has it been proven to be a
significant greenhouse gas. There are much more potent greenhouse gasses that
go unregulated. Nobody regulates the emission of gaseous di-hydrogen monoxide.
Industry is allowed to dump that into the atmosphere without any concern for the
environmnet.You realize that in Utah the largest source of pollution
is NOT businesses. The largest source of pollution sits in our driveways. Yes,
it is YOU and your car. Rather than attacking the minor polluters in industry,
why are you not attacking yourself and others like you that drive a car.But, if you look historically at air pollution in Utah, the air here is
getting cleaner eventhough the population is increasing.
@ RedShirtMITWhen I stated that pollution was enriching people in other
countries, I was not referring to pollution produced in other countries blowing
into Utah. I was referring to the fact that SLC's largest industrial
polluter, Kennecott Copper, is owned by the British firm Rio Tinto. The largest
polluter in our valley contributes significantly to our terrible air quality,
while back at London headquarters, British guys in suits count their fortune.
Furthermore, industrial air pollution and global warming are inextricably linked
since industry puts out plenty of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels and CO2
isn't the only greenhouse gas to worry about. Forcing companies to pay the
true cost of doing business by levying a carbon tax as suggested in this op-ed
would be good for air quality and global warming. However one feels about
climate change in the long term, air pollution is a serious problem right now.
@silo "800+ climate scientists as authors"All of them
fallible human beings who don't understand exactly why the measured results
don't match their previous projections. But they don't match."150+ years of land and ocean surface increasing temperature data"Zoom out a ways, and you will see that, if my 16 years are not
significant, your 150 are not much more so. The earth warms and cools. It always
has. With and without man living on it. I'm sorry that this alarms you.
To "ingslc" you are mixing up issues here. In terms of the climate, the
largest producer of CO2 is nature itself. Nature accounts for 98% of all carbon
emissions.Most of the pollution that industry creates does not
produce more CO2. Typically the pollutants created in other nations do not
reach the US in sufficient quantities to alter autism rates or asthma
attacks.Thanks to the global temperatures getting warmer, NASA has
found that we will have millions of acres more of land become useful for
farming. More farmland means more food for you and future inhabitants.As others have pointed out, over the past 100 years the average rainfall has
increased. The rain is a natural pollution scrubber that actualy makes the air
you breathe better. If anything we should accelerate the warming to increase
food production and rainfall.
Whatever you think about climate change it is ridiculous that big polluters get
to externalize the health, environmental, and quality of life costs onto the
general population while simultaneously making huge profits that only enrich a
handful of people. Why should my view be obscured? Why should I have to avoid
exercising outside? Why should my child suffer worsening asthma attacks? Why
should our mothers bear children with higher than normal autism rates? All so
some big shots, often in other countries, "maximize profits." They need
to pay the true cost of doing business. As a citizen I have rights which these
big polluters are recklessly trodding upon. Whatever the climate future may be,
I and my family have a right to breathe clean air TODAY. Under the current
system, big polluters are allowed to negligently and knowingly do me damage in
order to make bigger profits. That's not right.
jsf,No I don't. My background is economics and finance. In
those spheres I have some amount of expertise. I do deal with folks in
engineering and environmental roles. Most of them have significant study and
experience to accumulate their specific expertise. I would not assume that I
could gain that expertise in my off time any more than they could gain mine in
theirs. I rely on their expertise. Others rely on mine.I afford
climatologists the same respect. I doubt that I could, in a few off hours and
using the internet, gain anything more than a superficial understanding of the
science. It would be irrational to assume that one set of smart folks could
accomplish in a few hours what other smart folks study and work for decades to
accomplish. It doesn't work that way in any field with which I am
familiar.Of course I have heard the conspiracy theories. But like
most such theories they breakdown under analysis. Few folks can keep a secret.
The Mafia kills those who tell theirs and even they can't keep folks from
blabbing.Logic is on the side of the scientists. Not the armchair
twin lights, they are published reports, but like all alarmists you discount
what does not prove your position, why do you think all the reports by alarmist
only reference short periods of recent time and ignore earth historic climates?
You must know what the temperature is suppose to be.
Sea levels, about 22,000 years ago sea levels were 400 feet lower than they are
now. About 8,000 years ago they made a drastic jump by about 250 feet since
that time they have slowly raised continuing the deicing from the last glacial
period. The rate is miniscule compared to 22,000 years ago. 50 year increase?
No. 22,000 years of increase and no man made global warming to drive it. Fear
factor = none.AGW alarmist distort real truth to foment fear and
terror to obtain an agenda. Notice all the dire claims are based on 100 or 50
year limits, never mind we are in a better place over the last 10,000 years. It
is believed mankind flourished and civilization grew in a period of temperature
hotter than they are now. What is the temperature you think we need
to maintain, alarmists?
Amazing.A quick Google search of facts any layman can interpret
tells us there is no problem.If only scientists had Google the
problem would go away . . .
I love when alarmists misrepresent facts to cause alarm. A quick google of
facts and we learn, "In the last 100 years, precipitation has increased by
an average of about 1% over all the land surfaces on Earth. Across the United
States, alone, precipitation has increased by an average of about 5% in the last
100 years." This is an article dealing about climate change and the
increase of temperatures. So what your implying is in the last 50 years we
haven't dropped below levels in the past 100 years of increases. Fear
factor = none. In another article reviewing CO2 levels, ppm levels
have peaked above what they are now about every 100,000 years. Was no human
caused CO2 100,000 years ago. Levels have been going up since it dropped about
90,000 years ago and we still are not up there. Fear factor = none.
"When a relevant fact exists, and you don't allow it to influence your
conclusion, that is called ignoring it." - NateVery well Nate.
Here's some relevant facts for you.IPCC AR5's position is
based in part on the following details:800+ climate scientists as authors
(selected from 3000+ nominees)9000+ peer reviewed climate studies150+ years of land and ocean surface increasing temperature data* 100+
years of changes in precipitation declines over land100+ years of decline
in northern hemisphere snow cover100+ years of decline in arctic sea
ice100+ years of sea level rise50+ years increase of upper ocean
heat content50+ years of atmospheric CO2 increaseNumerous models and
simulations of best/worst case scenariosYour media-driven
response:There was a 16-year flat trend in one section of the temperature
graph, so IPCC's report model is flawed.
@silo: "the IPCC does acknowledge the flat satellite temperature
trend"They state it as innocuously as they can, and then fail to
take it into account."It still did not change the
findings."Precisely. Right there. When a relevant fact exists,
and you don't allow it to influence your conclusion, that is called
ignoring it. There are not too many other ways to say this.
"Why should we trust "science" that ignores known facts" -
Nate"Castigating people for noticing that your model is flawed is not
good science" - NateExcept that you didn't simply
'notice the model was flawed', you flat out accused hundreds of
scientists of ignoring facts, while conveniently ignoring facts yourself.The castigation results when you don't bother actually read the
IPCC report, you simply parrot the anti global warming talking points from
proven flawed sources. If you had actually read the report, you would have
noted that despite the claims of your previous post, the IPCC does acknowledge
the flat satellite temperature trend of the last 16 years, and even made
comments on the possible influences. It still did not change the findings.Instead of rehashing invalid points, I look forward to your analysis of
the IPCC methodology, the structure of the teams, and the resultant findings.
Since you proclaim to know 'real science', I'm sure you're
already working on submitting your refutation for peer review.We'll wait.
When gambling... I'd like to control my own bets.I
wouldn't want to go to the tables and turn my decisions over to some guy in
the government who has no idea what's going on in my life, much less cares
how his decisions affect me and my family.I can cut my consumption
on my own. I don't need some Czar or Wizard hired by the government to
decide for me and my family, and tax me till I do it HIS way.I can
make good decisions without the need for taxes designed for social engineering,
and nudging me into doing whatever the government wants me to do.I
resent the leftist government worshipers who WANT to turn my decisions over to
somebody in the government.I don't NEED a tax to teach me what
energy is good/bad and nudge me into using what the government wants me
using.It's just like seatbelts... the left needs a law and a
cop to force them to use them, I just need to know it will save my life and
I'll use them on my own. Same with energy.
"Did you know that with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is what
makes the surface of Venus to be over 700 degrees Farenheit?This
universal fact includes the planet right next to it, the Earth we call
home." Are you serious ? The fact that Venus is only 64.8
million miles as apposed to 93.7 million miles from the sun has no bearing on
the average surface temp? Or the fact that Venus has no carbon cycle at all has
nothing to do with that either right?
@silo "Science doesn't care if you believe it, deny it, or in your case
Nate, misrepresent it."One of the first rules of science is that
evidence trumps theory. So, if your climate model predicts warming, and that
warming does not occur, then you need a new model.It doesn't
mean that everything about the model is wrong. It only means that it's
missing something. It's now your job as a scientist to find out what that
something is.Castigating people for noticing that your model is
flawed is not good science.
Can anybody tell me when the climate has not been changing?
I like the way some people think a majority vote makes something "Scientific
Fact".You don't have to vote on Science. To become
"Scientific fact" It must be testable and predictable and provable (not
just a majority vote). For example... We don't have to vote on what
gravity should exist for a given mas. It's not up for debate. That's
"Science".If you can't PROVE your hypothesis... and
have to rely on a majority vote, convincing political speeches, and graphs of
selective data, followed by no mathematical proof, just a popular vote to see if
people are convinced... that's NOT "scientific fact".Scientific "fact" is provable, testable and the expected result is
precisely predictable. Global Warming is not to that point yet.If
it were scientific "Fact"... you wouldn't need a popular vote.
You could PROVE it, and there would be nothing subjective left to vote on.
With the increases in CO2 that now exists, and the current temperature that now
exists the earth is at least 11% greener than before. The Redwood forests are
growing at a rate 30% faster than they were at lower levels. CO2 is not a
pollution. And name one tax that ever got back to the poor at a rate that
covered the increases in cost caused by taxing them at a higher rate. For the
poor, a carbon tax means milk will cost more because of production costs rising
and transporting costs rising, food on the table will cost more because of
production costs and transportation costs rising. Heating their apartments will
cost more. The housing they live in will cost more to build. And what
government program has not resulted in graft and corruption at some level. A
carbon tax as proposed will never do more than drive more and more into poverty.
Just look at LBJ's war on poverty, has it decreased poverty in the US?
No.But the really BIG question that all the AGW religion advocates
here will not provide and science can not provide, What is the correct
temperature? Just give it your best shot.
To "David Folland" would you continue to recommend a procedure or
medication for your patients that was proven to be based on bad data or
analysis?According to the NOAA, if we ever have 15 years where there
is no statistically significant warming, then the models are wrong. There are
now official government agencies stating that there has been no warming for the
past 15 to 18 years.The models that the IPCC is based on are wrong.
If the models are wrong, what makes you think that the results are still
accurate?The question is why do you still trust a model that the
NOAA says is wrong?To "Open Minded Mormon" did you know that
Venus' atmosphere is 92 times more dense than the Earth's, so it
doesn't matter what the atmosphere is comprised of it would be hotter than
here. It is like saying that your 3 inch thick quilt is warmer than a flat
sheet. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that a significantly
larger amount of insulation results in a warmer climate.
I'll play along with the Global Warming deniers for a minute, and
pretend that 95% of the Scienticif community 'might' be wrong or at
the very least inconclusive at the moment...ButIf there
was even a remote chance they might be right...With what's at stake,
Wouldn't you want to play it safe, or error on the safe until a final
conclusion is made?So many of you remind me of the people during
Noah's time mocking him about his boat and warning them about the floods,
that is, until it started raining...======== BTW-
cjbBountiful, UTDid you know that with increased carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is what makes the surface of Venus to be over 700
degrees Farenheit?This universal fact includes the planet right next
to it, the Earth we call home.10:38 a.m. Oct. 30, 2013
"And science has demonstrated that global average temperatures have not
risen measurably in 16 years." - NateWhenever I read a comment
like Nate's, it becomes clear why MLM supplement companies are so prevalent
in Utah.For the record, Science doesn't care if you believe it,
deny it, or in your case Nate, misrepresent it.
Strider303,Glad you asked. When we do what is right, like making law
against pollution (adding a fee to it), we often find that other good things
happen. God is good! First, the pollution fee is not tax. It
won't go to government, but equally back to people. It does not generate
revenue. It penalizes & stops pollution because pollution is bad.Who'll lose money & make money because of the fossil pollution fee?
The answer is who uses more than the average fossil energy and who uses less.
Some poor folks who drive further and have leaky houses will find lose money.
But MOST poorer folks will find themselves MAKING money, because rich folks like
Dr. FOLLAND use enough fossils to put things in poorer folks' favor.We should return more to the poorest among us who are most hit by the
fee, but wisely. Put it toward efficiency & renewable energy upgrades, not
to their fossil energy bills. That's simply smart.That's
how this works. The market is smart. People are smart. When we trust them, we
win. But we cannot expect the right thing to happen when our law is immoral and
pollution is free!
Re "WE're in a closed room and we're filling it with
CO2"...The irony in Irony Guy's comment is... if you want
your comment to be credible.. don't start with a false chicken-little
statement. We are NOT living in a closed room (well... maybe he is).The atmosphere is far from a closed system. It's NOT a "closed
room". IF it were... all the C02 ever breathed out by all living creatures
in the millions and millions of years there has been life on this planet would
just be accumulating (hint... it's not), all the smoke ever put out by all
earth's volcanoes, all the smoke from every forest fire, etc, as long as
the world has been around would still be in the air circling the globe (hint...
it's not) and we would be dead (but we aren't).Obviously
nature has ways to scrub the air and even remove C02 from the atmosphere.
Plants are one of nature's recycling mechanisms, but earth's vast
oceans do even more to scrub the air.We do NOT in fact live in a
closed room rapidly filling up with C02.
re Irony GuyBountiful, UtahDid you know that with increased
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plants grow better? This includes plants that
provide food for people.
Every day we live is a gamble. Turning our future over to some government
bureaucrat to tax us and control our access to energy will not make it any less
a gamble. In fact, the case can be made that people acting in their
own self-interest have more information about their own situation and will make
BETTER decisions, and more effective decisions concerning their own energy use
than some politically affected bureaucrat who doesn't even know what's
going on in my house, or in Utah, or in the whole United States, or the world
for that matter.Every day is a gamble. Every day I gamble that I
won't get hit by an asteroid on my way to work. I still go to work.That doesn't mean you don't take any precautions to limit risk
(including global warming). You limit how much energy you use and how much
pollution you cause (as much as you can), and you watch out for asteroids. But
you keep on living. Even though every day is a gamble.Turning
control over to some dude in the government to control my energy use... is not
Yes, agreed. A very substantive (and annually increasing) across the
board carbon tax is the easiest and most effective way to move industry and
consumers away from fossil fuels and fossil fuel-derived products (packaging,
plastic goods, etc.)while at the same time providing a great incentive for
non-plastic products and non-fossil fuel energy sources. Distributing the fee
equally to all citizens and residents provides revenue which further stimulates
the economy. Fee and dividend is clearly a win-win plan for the planet, the
environment, the people - and for air quality.
I'm not sold on man made climate change. I've seen the dinosaur bones.
I heard that climate changed and froze them I heard that the methane gas from
them, was sparked and burned them. I had big dogs in the bed room, I know what
methane gas is. I'm more in cline to think that man has an ego to think he
is as big as the earth and can change the way the earth turns.
We may not gamble here, but we can sure deny.
"To ignore what science has demonstrated would be folly...."I agree. And science has demonstrated that global average temperatures have
not risen measurably in 16 years. Yet the IPCC report utterly fails to mention
this fact, or deal with it in any way.Why should we trust
"science" that ignores known facts?
Man cannot control his environment.Except the history of mankind is
specifically that of shaping the environment to suit.Other
temperatures would be equally beneficial (or more so).Except the
planet has adapted to the current range over millenia. Adaptation is too slow
for the pace of change. Also, OUR adaptation (food sources) are based on the
current temperature range.It will be expensive to change.It will be expensive not to. Just that we will not control the when and where
of the expenses nor the outcomes.There is no science to support man
made global climate change.Other than the actual science. What is
cited against climate change is mostly bogus.
The author writes: "How can we move quickly to clean energy and avoid the
cost severe climate effects ...?" He then blows his cover by offering us a
glass of Kool-Aid, claiming that a "revenue neutral tax swap" is the
answer. Come on! Get serious! A revenue neutral tax swap?
Please. Don't try to pull that worn out trick on us. Aren't we tired
enough with having to deal with political lies?
These comments are from the usual ostriches in the sand. WE're in a closed
room and we're filling it with CO2. This is a dumb thing to do if we want
to survive. We need to move rapidly away from CO2 emissions, which doesn't
have to be hugely disruptive.
If people were this hysterical before the industrial revolution we would be
living in the horse and buggy age. We have zero control over the climate, why
let it control us? And why are people living longer now? It is because of the
Why do we assume that the temperature the earth is now is the best temperature
possible. This is improbable. Chances are the ideal temperature is either
hotter or colder than we are now.
Why is it that solutions to "global warming" always contain a tax of
some kind? Most of those who propose the tax solution seem to be from an above
average income bracket where there is some degree of wealth over and above
meeting basic needs?Physicians make a lot more than the average
person, while I do not decry their earned income in a highly demanding
occupation, they seem to forget that there is a group of citizens that are
adversely affected by any tax increase. I note the author is retired, and most
likely has not children at home. From the news, it appears that
China and India are the two nations who pollute the most, yet the author
proposes to tax Americans as if this will influence the Chinese and Indians to
... do what?In light of the ACA's unknown increase in our
health care costs, talk of a new tax appears to me to be ill-conceived and just
another attempt at control over the citizens by those who think they know best.