Quantcast

Comments about ‘Carbon illusion’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 5 2014 9:06 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ LDS liberal
You have it just backwards!
The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) and 24.4 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents (cpg) per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel.

So, using your numbers we can calculate that your vehicle getting 48 miles/gal cheats the government out of a difference of 36 miles/gal (48-12) @ 49.5 cents/gal=$17.82 in fuel taxes!
My points;#1: We already are taxing em!
#2: Who we should be taxing much more is high mileage vehicles to make up the shortfall in revenue!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@LDS Liberal,
It may take less gas to drive the Corolla than the Van or the SUV to the game. But because you can take more children in the Van or the SUV... the amount of gas per person makes it more efficient (same concept as taking a bus or train to work being more efficient then small vehicles even though they get lower miles/gallon, but can carry more people).

Some families don't fit in a Corolla... And if you car pool... the van or the SUV could actually be more efficient than the Corolla....

Everything's not as simple as it seems through rhetorical glasses...

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Wow! How many more times do right wing posters need to post junk science articles which are quickly debunked by real science?

I say, is institute the tax. There's nothing wrong with creating new taxes if we all get a new benefit! What's wrong with cleaning our air?

I say, redistribute the subsidies. Take them away from dirty oil and coal, give them to green, and tax dirty fuel users.

There's nothing wrong with reasonable taxes. What repubs want to do is ruin our country to the point that we can't have taxes because our country doesn't even exist!

cjb
Bountiful, UT

The earth is heading for an other ice age, at least that's what climate scientists told us back in the 1960's and 1970's. Were it not for the carbon we are putting into the air, we would be will on our way now. (Or they were wrong) Even with all the carbon the earth hasn't heated up for the past 17 years. Probably what is happening is a tug of war, carbon dioxide on one side, and earth trying to go ice age on the other.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Mountanman
Hayden, ID
@ Onion Days. The problem with the "green house" theory of CO2 is that it is a very heavy gas, much heavier than water vapor (H2O) and as such, CO2's mass makes it layer lower in our atmosphere than other gasses making it impossible to create a green house effect. Yes, there is some mixing but gravity solves that and the vast majority of CO2 finds its way to the earth's surface where plants can adsorb it and produce life and O2 back into the atmosphere. Intelligent design?

2:16 p.m. May 5, 2014

==========

Then using your un-Scientific logic -- please explain why we are not all DEAD.

CO2 is heavier than O2
Nitogren is heavier than O2

In your world of make believe, Oxygen would only be found above altitudes over 30,000 feet.

99.999% of all life on Earth would be dead.

un-intelligent design.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Mike Richards: You are looking at one individual study. My quote comes directly from NASA's website here they have analyzed thousands of studies.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Roland Kayser "You are [sic] the temperature in 1998 as a baseline...."

No, he isn't. His statement was "the earth has been cooling for the last decade," which doesn't include 1998. This assertion is true, as shown by Christopher Monckton in a guest essay published July 21, 2013, on What's Up With That?, entitled "Ten years of 'accelerated global warming'?"

Monckton examines the terrestrial datasets HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC, along with the satellite datasets RSS and UAH, and sees a slight decrease over that time period. You should go have a look.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Re: Roland,

Are you really claiming that YOUR NASA information is correct and that MY NASA information is not correct? If a witness to the court said that the defendant was not at the scene of the crime based on photographic evidence and scientific evidence and the prosecution said that the defendant was guilty based on their belief that he might have been there and that he basically fit their profile and that they really really really thought he was guilty, what would the jury think,

It only takes one set of evidence to "prove" that all of the suppositions made by the "official" people are wrong to put into doubt ALL of their "evidence". NASA's own scientists, after observing an event, told us that the claims made by NASA's other scientists were false. Do you have data that discredits that scientific experiment? Unless you do, that single experiment invalidates all other claims made by other NASA scientists.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

airnaut. Have you ever noticed how thin O2 is at higher altitudes? The answer is gravity! Yes, that's right, just like CO2 is effected by gravity except as I stated, CO2 is one of the heaviest gases and therefore it tends to rise less than other gasses, including O2! When your body breathes CO2, it changes the blood gas chemistry and your body automatically increases its respiration rate to compensate (more intelligent design). Also the higher concentration of C02 in the atmosphere, plant photosynthesis increases as well. So actually, higher C02 increases food production and makes food less expensive and fewer people go hungry. C02 is not that "evil" gas liberals want to make it!

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . we could (and should) . . . stop subsidizing oil companies."

We don't, of course, subsidize oil companies.

Liberals love to sit and spin, suggesting that, since we don't tax someone as heavily as we could, we're subsidizing them.

They don't fool most of us. By that same argument, we're subsidizing environmentalists, abortionists, anti-Second Amendment activists, atheists, and, worst of all, liberal politicians. Yeah, we directly subsidize politicians, but we're also not taxing them as heavily as we could/should.

As our Marxist friend points out -- but liberals refuse to admit -- the burden of all taxes are most likely to fall on those least able to pay. Evil corporations don't pay taxes. We do. Corporations simply pass them along to those least able to avoid them.

Us.

Taxes are a liberal scam to funnel money to them, so they can engage in vote-buying giveaways. They're never a good idea to bring about social change -- unless the change you're seeking is to injure and beggar the real people you're supposedly looking out for.

So, what change are liberals really aiming for? Their actions speak louder than words.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

"NASA's own scientists, after observing an event, told us that the claims made by NASA's other scientists were false."

No, Mr. Richards, they did not. Cutting and pasting misleading summaries of their report from anti-science websites is not evidence. A review of the actual report shows that the scientists are not making the claims you assert they are.

And even what you have cited is not evidence that C02 has a cooling effect on the atmosphere. What was observed is that the C02 deflected the majority of energy from a major solar event. Great. The atmosphere did its job.

But climate change isn't about external high-energy, coronal mass ejections. It's about slowly turning up the temperature inside our atmosphere because of gases we're producing, in effect moving to a pressure cooker-like atmosphere such as that of Venus.

It's vital to understand both what you're observing and what you're criticizing before you claim that the former invalidates the latter. Your cut 'n paste job shows comprehension of neither.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

It's amusing that some discredit anything that contradicts their point of view. I quoted the report. It reported exactly what the pro-tax people don't want to see. They resort to using FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to "prove" their point.

The claim has always been that the heat from the SUN would be trapped by CO2 and that we would all die. The report that I quoted clearly said that we don't need to worry about the SUN. So now the pro-tax people morph into another argument. That's just another example of "snake oil" salesmen at work.

In a court, they would have been thrown out. It's time to see them for what they are, not who they claim to be.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Are you really claiming that YOUR NASA information is correct and that MY NASA information is not correct?

Mike, NASA scientist, including the one you cited, do not conclude what your post said they did.
NASA climatologists clearly state that they believe the exact opposite.

"It's amusing that some discredit anything that contradicts their point of view"

Yes Mike it is. For proof, just look in the mirror.

I notice that you did not address my posts with excerpts from NASA own climate website.

Why is that? Possibly because it "contradicted your point of view"?

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

"In a court, they would have been thrown out. It's time to see them for what they are, not who they claim to be."

Mr. Richards, I'm a lawyer. You don't have a clue what you're talking about by trying to invoke evidentiary standards to spin a NASA report to say something it doesn't.

"So now the pro-tax people morph into another argument. That's just another example of "snake oil" salesmen at work."

That's pretty aggressive from someone who just posted on another thread:
"The most common form is found right here on this thread when people attack one person and then smear whatever "group" that person is thought to associate with. That is hate speech. That is something that polite people in a polite society would never do."

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

There is still no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.

All climate researchers agree that if CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the temperature will go up, all other things being equal. The amount the temperature will go up is also undisputed, all other things being equal. The divergence of opinion among climate researchers (it isn't 97% vs 3%, by the way) occurs because "all other things" are not equal. The computer models used by alarmists suggest positive feedbacks will potentially drive the climate into thermal runaway. The data, however, shows that the climate is far more stable than the models, to the degree that nobody has even been able to detect a CO2 signal in the temperature data despite decades of trying. So yes, I'm skeptical (but please take your "denier" language elsewhere).

The political component of the argument far overshadows the scientific component - it's basically those who believe in freedom vs. those who don't or who think freedom ought to be far more limited than it is today.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

re: Unreconstructed Reb,

I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering why a lawyer would do what you did. It seems to me that you rejected the findings of scientists without showing any evidence that they had lied about their findings. You quoted a post from another thread to smear a poster, but I don't see that he smeared a group, unless you inferred that you belong to a group that rejects the findings of scientists and then, like the snake oil salesman mentioned, morph the debate into something other than what is being discussed. No lawyer that I know would try doing that. No scientist that I know would reject the results of a scientific experiment just because those results contradicted his opinion. In fact, every scientist that I know would carefully study that test and then modify his opinion based on the results of that test. You, on the other hand reject that new "evidence". Rejecting evidence (observed phenomena) is not scientific. I'm wondering why you reject "evidence" that conflicts with your opinion?

jfreed27
Los Angeles, CA

The first point is that the carbon fees are returned to the customer, leaving that customer with a free market choice. He could continue to buy dirty energy products. Or, not.

Dirty energy (due to fees) will go up in price of course, but the consumer (with the fees in his/her pocket) is free to buy low carbon products, which are now more competitive - once the polluters have been charged for the social cost, or fee.

Second, thank heavens for Mr. Obama! He is doing more to reduce emissions than any President has. CAFE standards are higher. The EPA will regulate coal pollution. A large list of other interventions for our oil habit is listed on the White HOuse website

BTW: Also, most citizens are unaware that coal, for example, represents a "hidden tax" on citizens of $100-$500 billion per year (Harvard School of Medicine study, Epstein lead author, and the World Bank) in over 70 negative costs, primarily in health costs.

As we move to a low carbon energy society that coal hit goes away.

We need to vote smart, look at voting records, and "extract" the "fossil tools" from Congress.

==

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

J. Thompson, you should read my posts more closely. I said nothing indicating rejection of scientific findings in conflict with my views, nor did I accuse scientists of lying. Quite the opposite.

I am rejecting the cut 'n paste smear job from an anti-science website which twists scientific findings to suit its own rejection of climate change. The original report does not make any claims to study, much less reject, climate change, and therefore does not stand for the propositions Mr. Richards asserts. I am upholding the scientific process rather than getting my information from sources which manipulate scientific reports to fight overwhelming scientific opinion. In short, I am doing the reverse of the very thing you accuse me of, which should be obvious by any clear reading of my previous posts.

Mr. Richards asserted that claims contrary to his own would be thrown out of court. As happens frequently when he comments outside his expertise, he is wrong when misapplying evidentiary standards. If I proffered in court what he claims is scientific evidence, I'd face the prospect of sanctions from the judge, and I object to his pseudo-authoritative use of terms he doesn't understand.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

re: Unreconstructed Reb,

With all due respect, I think that I read your posts carefully enough to see what you are trying to do. You disagreed with quotes from scientists whose observations showed that solar flare radiation coming from the sun bounced off earth's atmosphere. You didn't rebut those quotes, you simply smeared them and the website that published them. Doing that does not further the debate. Doing that does not examine the science behind the findings.

Science explores things. It changes its "mind" when new data contradicts old data, otherwise we would still think that the earth was flat and that everything revolves around the earth. That concept was "settled science" for millenia - until scientists with enquiring minds noticed irregularities in that "settled science".

Everyone is free to express opinions. Some use that freedom to attack the messenger instead of debating the subject of the message using factual data. If you have data that NASA found after that experiment that proves that solar flares do reach earth (meaning we'd all have been toasted when the first flare hit earth), then please present it.

L White
Springville, UT

Mr. Reb,

If you'd allow me to interject something, I'd like to give my opinion.

Mike Richards wrote: "The claim has always been that the heat from the SUN would be trapped by CO2 and that we would all die. The report that I quoted clearly said that we don't need to worry about the SUN. So now the pro-tax people morph into another argument. That's just another example of "snake oil" salesmen at work.

In a court, they would have been thrown out. It's time to see them for what they are, not who they claim to be."

It looks to me like he told us that "snake oil salesmen" would be thrown out of court. I can't find anything in his post that even slightly claimed that those people who didn't agree with his ideas would be thrown out of court. In fact, I didn't even see where he claimed to have his own ideas about the matter. It sure looked to me like he simply respected the ideas of NASA scientists whose observation disproved much of what other scientists have claimed.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments