Robert Samuelson says we have no solution to climate change. This is best
understood to mean that we have no "off-the-shelf" solution. However,
there is plenty of technology which, considered all together, makes up a
potential solution. This includes wind, solar, advanced nuclear fission,
geothermal — and conservation. Some people acknowledge this, but say it
makes no difference whether the U.S. deploys this technology, because other
nations (esp. China) will not go along.I don't have space here
to go into much detail. But the situation in the U.S. for the last 20 years or
more has been one of low and intermittent funding for alternative-energy and
advanced reactor development, while the much larger subsidies for traditional
reactors (the Price-Anderson Act) and for oil production (currently the most
profitable industry in absolute-dollar terms) have remained inviolate.If the U.S. got behind advanced reactors, conservation and renewable energy,
it could lead by example and by exporting the technology. Instead, it is China
that is forging ahead in this area.
To "JoeBlow" before I consider your request I must first understand your
viewpoint on Progressivism. That can be done if you answer the follwing
question honestly.What is the difference between Obama policies and
I hate it when people say we don't have the technology to solve this
problem. It was technology that got us into this mess. The lack of technology is
actually GOOD for this issue. It's the developed countries with the most
technology that are driving the problem.Technology caused mortality
rates to skyrocket and the population booms in the 19th century. Before that,
women usually had many children but on average only two survived and the
population was stagnant or grew very very slowly. Enter technology and all 12
kids survived to have 12 kids leading to this mess.
Pops... I get your point about CO2, and everyone seems to be fixated on that one
element. But what is going on has a lot more involved than a singular element.
Pollution is made up of a lot of different things, some more harmful that
others. As you point on Carbon Dioxide in of itself is not harmful, but the
more common carbon monoxide that things like cars produce, are unhealthy. When
you add in things like Nitrogen and Sulfur oxides, fine particulate matter,
heavy metals, and ozone, you end up with a lovely cocktail. I think as you
pointed out in some earlier post that CO2 is only one part of the equation.
RG... I think you are being too literal. But if we must, perhaps
driving "safely" doesn't hurt the economy, but driving unsafe does
in that it adds risk to everyone on the road no matter how careful everyone else
is being. The damage that unsafe driving does hurt the economy is higher
insurance premiums, damage to vehicles and people, and the increased consumption
of fuel and accelerated wear on the car. Taxing careless behavior may cost in
one area, but save in another.
OK Red,Can you give me a list of presidents that were not, by your
definition "progressives"?And while you are at it, how about
a list of those in congress who are also not "progressives"You would be hard pressed to include even Reagan on your list.
To "JoeBlow" I hate to break it to you, but Bush is a Progressive. The
only differences between him and Obama are political party and the rate that
they are progressing towards a socialist state.To "GaryO"
there is a difference between war and investment.We don't elect
politicians to invest tax payer money. We elect them to represent us and to
hopefully make good decisions. If I wanted to invest money in private companies
I would hire an investment specialist, not a politician.
Hey RG - Obama . . . Wasted billions on Solandrya, and
others too, to help his cronies."Why do Right Wingers exaggerate
so much?Actually, it was ony half a billion. It was an investment
that didn't work out, largely because China was able to lower its asking
price for solar panels so much that an American competitor just could not
compete.We shouldn't quit just because of a bad investment.We lost the first major battles of World War II as well. If your mindset
prevailed back then, we would have surrendered to Hitler and Japan.Fortunately the Greatest Generation had some sense and dedication, and loved
their country.Your argument does not hold water.
@Bluedevil “Absolutely love the logic. Unless I can get everyone else on
the highway to drive safe, why should I? It seems the "righties" have
and excuse not to do anything for everything. Now its the other guy will not go
the right thing, so why should we bother doing the right thing.” You don’t understand the point. Driving safe doesn’t hurt the
economy. There is no downside to you. But a massive carbon tax does hurt it, and
will not help anything as long as China keeps polluting.@Tyler D
“and really our entire education system… all highly stimulating (not
to mention spurring of innovations) public endeavors funded through
taxes.” You’re comparing apples and oranges. The carbon
tax is a tax on a specific activity, and it will oppress the economy. Your
income tax is not on a specific activity.@GaryO “Why not
intensive GOVERNMENT focus on green energy development?” Obama
did that. Wasted billions on Solandrya, and others too, to help his crony
friends. @OpenMinded Mormon: Eugenics was really pushed by Margaret
Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, darling of the liberals.
@JoeBlow: "Funny how deniers question the impartiality of 97% of climate
scientists ..."From Wallace Mayo’s recent Roanoke Times
article “Global, not local, trends key to climate”“Surely, with 97 percent of scientists all agreeing now, can't we
be confident? Well, this number partially came from a University of Illinois
professor who sent a two-minute online survey to 10,257 scientists which got
3,145 responses, of which only 5 percent were actual climate scientists. The
authors focused on only 79 respondents who described themselves as climate
science experts. Out of many thousands of experts in this area, coming up with a
97 percent figure with such a small working figure is ludicrous."97%" also came from AGW alarmist John Cook …who published a
paper claiming a review of nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the
peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found
that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global
warming "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global
warming." But investigative reporting by Popular Technology revealed that
Cook's study is clearly littered with falsely classified
papers…” There's much more, but I'm out of
We now see in the news that Hurricanes or Typhoons are moving North, the West
Antarctic Ice Shelf is on the move, there is a 70% likelihood of that 2014/5
will be a Super El Nino and the list goes on.So do we throw our arms
up in the air and give up? That is not what Heavenly Father put us on the Earth
to do.Blaming the Chinese who produce only 30% of the CO2 per person
than us Westerners particularly when you consider they manufacture most of the
stuff we use is not a solution. Collectively it is our problem there is no
planet!It is not about using less energy (although we are) it is
about use it to greater efficiency. It is about sourcing energy in a
sustainable manor. Just as London changed in the fifties when smog
was killing people every winter so China is doing now. It is time to catch the
train or be left behind!!
Rising energy prices will reduce the number of white collar jobs that can be
supported by the economy, so be prepared to have to grow your own food if the
alarmists succeed at getting a carbon tax enacted.@GingerAle,Your analogies fail because without CO2 there could be no life on earth.
Plant life, in fact, prefers two or three times as much CO2 as we currently have
in the air.What climate science has been trying to determine is the
climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Alarmists claim a large
positive feedback exists that will cause significantly warmer temperatures. So
what does the data say? So far, nobody has been able to establish a mathematical
correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature over a period of
thirty years, despite spending billions of dollars in the effort. For this
reason, it is my opinion that the alarmist position is scientifically
indefensible. It fails the data test. If large positive feedbacks existed, they
would have been manifest in the data. No signal means no problem.PS
The "97%" includes all scientists who have authored papers that
didn't explicitly oppose climate alarmism - hardly an accurate test for
We can't change the climate we let it control us
@JoeCapitalist2 – “Is the goal to make energy use go down or is it
to just get a bunch of money into the hands of a few progressives to fund their
agenda?”Your objection is a canard.As this article
points out, carbon can be priced such that it is budget neutral (taxes are
returned to the consumer) making the only effect a relative increase in the
price of carbon compared to alternatives.
@Nedric"If the total atmosphere were a mile long then ALL the
CO2 would about two inches. The man made part would less than 1/2 of one inch.
Seems like there is a lot more flapping of gums than facts on this
issue."A spot of botulism the size of the head of a pin would
kill you dead. A fatal dose of plutonium is just a millionth of a
gram.Entamoeba histolytica in your intestine might not kill you, but
the amoebiasis it causes will make you wish you were dead.What is
your point, exactly?
@Twin LightsIf you don't think we should be arguing about the
climate, stop arguing.If you don't think we should be driving
cars, stop driving your car.Be the message.
First climate change did not exist. Now we can do nothing about it so we just
throw up our hands and gas up the Hummer.Perhaps if we had not been
arguing about its existence for the past several decades we would be closer to a
viable solution.Further delay means more expensive and less
palatable solutions.Start now.
"The global warming advocates want to reduce energy consumption with a
carbon tax. Is the goal to make energy use go down or is it to just get a bunch
of money into the hands of a few progressives to fund their agenda?"I dont know. You should ask George HW Bush. He proposed it....
To "Frozen Fractals" yes, and that is why everybody should approach
Climate Change, Climate Disruption, or Global Warming, with skepticism. The
government is funding an industry that only gives them more power.Just like cigaretts were a great cash cow for the government, until they were
forced to be honest and tell the public that cigaretts are bad.We
now have corporate interests telling us that man is to blame for the climate.
Al Gore and others like him stand to make billions of dollars from the idea of
cap and trade. Plus, you have the governments that stand to make billions in
tax revenues based on this faulty science.
The global warming advocates want to reduce energy consumption with a carbon
tax. Is the goal to make energy use go down or is it to just get a bunch of
money into the hands of a few progressives to fund their agenda?I
think it is the latter. Let's test that theory...Instead of
imposing a carbon tax, how about we get all the environmentalists to pay people
like me not to pollute. Give me a $100 and I'll stay home instead of flying
my family far away for a vacation! Pay me money and I'll turn down my
thermostat in the winter.Money changes hands. Global greenhouse
gasses are reduced. Problem solved, right? Any environmentalist takers?
@Redshirt1701"1. Government rations to soldiers and prisoners included
cigaretts. You also had many politicians endorsing cigaretts."That sounds like a good example of why we shouldn't trust corporate
lobbies that push for things that happen to be convenient for themselves without
first applying a healthy degree of skepticism.@Badgerbadger"This is a tax that will hit and hurt the poor like no other."Depends on how you structure it. Cap and dividend is one option for it
which provides tax rebates and shifts cost to those who use the most energy
which would generally not be the poor (one could insert Al Gore here as an
amusing example). Those who use less energy would be getting back more in the
rebate than they pay in the tax and that's the incentive that comes with it
that drives a reduction in usage. It's basically the method Denmark uses.
Deniers: watch Frontline's Climate of Change. It's online.
To "Roland Kayser" where did you read that report. According to the NY
Times article "Germany Moves Forward on Renewable Energy Plan" Germany
only has about 25% of thier power coming from renewable sources. The NY Times
also points out that Germany has the highest energy costs in Europe.In other words, you can have green energy, but you are going to make energy
very expensive when you do. The article even points out that if energy prices
go up to fast that Germany could lose 800,000 jobs and make german made goods
cost too much for the world market.To "Open Minded Mormon"
you are wrong, and here is the proof:1. Government rations to
soldiers and prisoners included cigaretts. You also had many politicians
endorsing cigaretts.2. Actually it was Progressive/Liberals that
supported Eugenics. Margaret Stanger, Planned Parenthood founder said "Give
dysgenic groups [people with bad genes] in our population their choice of
segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."3. According to
"Statistics Related to Overweight and Obesity" by the CDC obesity rates
were only climbing slowly until 1976 (after then they started increased faster),
which is when those that were taught the government standards ere having kids.
@Open Minded Mormon,I thought you said you were a "Libertarian"...
David H Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential
candidate in the 1980 presidential election.Maybe you're not as
"Libertarian" as you think. You sound VERY Democrat to me.====IMO the Koch brothers are not evil... like hard-core Democrats
pretend.I like their charitable giving and THEIR contributions to
society (jobs, arts, science, and producing things we need to live our daily
lives).I think the Koch family has contributed more to society than
most of those who vilify them ever will. Democrat rhetoric says
attack them... but if you look into it... anyone can see that they aren't
evil and have done MUCH good in America.
@MountanmanHayden, IDBy the way, two days ago record low
temperatures were recorded for this time of year in S.E. Idaho.6:59 a.m.
May 14, 2014[There, That settles it. Take THAT all you, you
...Scientists!]======== @Redshirt1701Deep Space 9,
UtCutting and pasting your comments over and over again may work for
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh listeners, but it doesn't work here.1. The Government never said smoking was good for you. EVER. That
was the BIG Tobacco Industry, and even Rush Limbaugh's echochamber TODAY 50
years later after the U.S. Surgeon General says STOP it.2. In the
early 1900's WHO promoted eugenics? The far-right. They wanted to control
"the Blacks", the "poor" the "sick" and "Stop people
being born to be a burden on the rest of us". The far-right-wing Nazis
adopted it, and ran away with the ball.3. In the late 1960's
they used science to tell us what a "balanced" diet is. Since then the
obesity rates have been going up.[as a result of Capitalism. Remember, us
lefties want to ban your super size junk foods].
I just saw a report that said that Germany is now getting 74% of their energy
from renewable sources. So no more saying "it can't be done".
Germany is doing it right now.
Ahhh, the smell of Lysenkoism at lunch time."The Disgraceful
Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory" in Forbes. There we
find that significant scientific research was put into proving and supporting
bad theories that went against the truth. The most interesting thing from the
article was this "Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and
destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official
recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to
critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists
resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism."That sure does
sound a lot like modern GW alarmists.If that doesn't convince
you enough, lets look at history to examples of when the government has used
science to lie to us for whatever political gain they needed:In the
1930's and 1940's they told us smoking was good.In the
early 1900's they promoted eugenics, and have continued to practice that to
this day.In the late 1960's they used science to tell us what a
"balanced" diet is. Since then the obesity rates have been going up.The point is, Government often uses scientists for political gain.
@NedricN2, O2, and Argon are not greenhouse gases so when we're
looking at the human contribution to greenhouse gases, we're only looking
at the human input to the amount of H2O (the largest contributor to greenhouse
gases though only indirectly affected by humans since a warmer Earth has more
water vapor), CO2 (which is roughly 30% human influenced since it's gone
from around 280 to 400 in the past 200 years), CH4, and others. Basically, we
just ignore the other 99% since those gases are not relevant to the question at
hand. Then there's the fact that not all greenhouse gases are created
equal. The amount of influence H2O has vs CO2, CH4 or others is related to what
part of the radiation band they absorb, how long their lifetime is in the
atmosphere, how saturated that absorption band is.
We spend nearly $300 billion to serve the interest on our national debt,
annually. If our politicians could focus on our immediate need,
namely, federal debt elimination, and accomplish it quickly then there would be
funds to pay for aggressive investment in energy technologies. But it is
difficult to argue for increasing the national debt to pay for renewable energy
research and technologies when we are already going broke.It is
difficult to spend significant funds on renewable energy research when a
majority of our annual budget goes towards entitlement/welfare programs and a
shrinking amount of the budget is designated for infrastructure, defense, and
basic services and functions.Government, once again, is the problem.
If we could simply learn to balance and govern well, so many problems would be
We need to take another look at our measures of "being well off." For
example some years ago the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith said we should
compute a "Gross National Dis-Product" as well as a Gross National
Product, the idea being that we should keep track of how our production is
hurting us as well as helping us. What should be included in Gross
National Dis-Product? Certainly global warming should be included because it is
affecting so many negatively, and many many more in the future. A
global carbon tax will hit the various Gross Nation Products of the nations
hard, no question about it. But such tax can minimize the Gross Nation
Dis-Products. Both sides must be included in our analyses.
If this is a real issue how come 87% of the atmosphere is nitrogen, 21% oxygen
and the remaining 1% are all other gases COMBINED. Of that one percent the
total amount of carbon dioxide is 1/300. Of that 1/300 of one percent man makes
up maybe 20%. So, man made CO2 amounts to 1/6000 of one percent of the total
atmosphere. If the total atmosphere were a mile long then ALL the CO2 would
about two inches. The man made part would less than 1/2 of one inch. Seems like
there is a lot more flapping of gums than facts on this issue.
@Mountanman: "One would think that if we really have "global
warming" we would have no such record low temperatures anywhere on the earth
being a global problem. In other words, it should be getting warmer everywhere
on the planet but clearly that is not happening."According to
recently released data from NASA, April was about average, temp wise, for the
US. However, global averages make it the second warmest April on since 1980,
with Europe and Asia seeing record heat waves. Globally it was 1.3 degrees F
above the average. The last two days here in northeast Ohio were
unseasonably warm, offsetting your cool days. Today is is raining and some 20
degrees cooler. The question is not variations in my neighborhood, it is the
global averages over time.In other words, how many record setting
hot days are we seeing around the planet and how many record setting cold days?
They should be about even, statistically. However, the record shows that we are
having about twice as many record hot days as record cold days. That
is a problem.
Roland -" Impose a carbon tax, start it very low but have it
rise steeply, so that in twenty years it is rather high. Then let the free
market go to work."Why make it that painful?Why not
intensive GOVERNMENT focus on green energy development?We made it to
the moon AND developed the first bomb through intensive government focus, with
NO commercial need for either achievement at the time. Hence, private sector
involvement was motivated primarily by the MONEY coming from the federal
government.Sure that will cost taxpayer dollars, but it's a
much more direct approach than creating a desire for energy alternatives by
artificially raising the prices of fossil fuel with a carbon tax.Forget about a Carbon tax. That would place a monetary burden on the middle
class. Just tax the highest earners as they should be taxed.The tax
rate for the highest earners was 77% when we went to the moon AND had a budget
surplus. It was 94% when we developed the atom bomb. It's only 35% now, in
this era of huge deficits, when we can't seem to get anything done.Look at what works and what doesn't.
@Eli"Did you not get the memo? Record cold confirms global
warming"No it doesn't. That's why it's happening
less often.", just like severe snow storms(or the lack of
them),"Warmer temperatures lead to more moisture, a higher snow
accumulation can sometimes result from that if it stays cold enough. Of course,
if it gets too warm and you don't have snow at all that also is a
possibility." just like record numbers of hurricanes and
tornados(or the lack of them)"The IPCC says there's no link
between climate change and any projected change in tornadic frequency. The
number of hurricanes isn't supposed to change much either aside from an
increase in early and late season storms (since the water gets warm enough
earlier and stays warm enough later)."just like melting
icecaps"Well they are melting faster than projected."the 17 year pause."Getting the weakest solar cycle in a
century along with a lot of La Ninas the last few years, we should be cooling,
not pausing, if there's no anthropogenic influence." The
heat is accumulating deep in the ocean"It is.
Now I see it! Liberals want to destroy the economy in the name of climate change
to accomplish the following:1. Make it look like the Obama economy
is not Obama's fault.2. Tax capitalism out of existence, so
they can implement full socialism.
@Mountanman"Why does that matter? One would think that if we really
have "global warming" we would have no such record low temperatures
anywhere on the earth being a global problem."Nope, what you
would expect with global warming is more record highs than record lows. The odds
shift. It doesn't make cold anomalies impossible. Let's say we have a
city with a 100 year dataset. We'd assume that each year has 3-4 record
highs and 3-4 record lows. With global warming we might expect an average new
year added to the end of a 100 year dataset to have something like 5-6 record
highs and 1-2 record lows for that location. Since I've moved to Salt Lake
City it's been around 30:4 record highs:lows. " In other
words, it should be getting warmer everywhere on the planet"Weather patterns still exist. You're still going to have ridges and
troughs. On average it's warmer but global warming doesn't eliminate
cold fronts from occurring.
GaryOVirginia Beach, VAOh good . . . Another article quoting a
Koch-brothers’-funded “Think Tank.” FYI, the
American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute
are just a few of the phony “Think Tanks” funded by the Koch
brothers. Their credibility is deservedly zero . . . much like that of the Koch
Brothers’ funded Tea Party, and the Koch Brothers employees in Congress
who pretend to work for America.========== And never
mind this -- The Koch brothers FATHER -- Fred Koch -- was one of the
founding members of the John Birch Society.They took over their
daddy's Oil Industries AND his Political Philosophies.[of course,
they had to rebrand and re-package the tanished "John Birch Society"
The fact that we try to find cures for everything is commendable and admirable.
Man tries to avoid the inevitable, which is death. Why do we think we can avoid
it? Why do we fear it? We spend far too much energy and effort trying to avoid
it that we fail to live in the here and now. Is it because we think we have led
unproductive, selfish lives? If so, then change. Pretty simple. However, as we
all know we are our own worst enemies. In all that we do, to a certain extent,
we are self saboteurs. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
@Badgerbadger – “Taxes don't stimulate, they oppress.”I guess you’re not familiar with the Department of Transportation,
Department of Defense, NASA, our University system, and really our entire
education system… all highly stimulating (not to mention spurring of
innovations) public endeavors funded through taxes.@2 bits –
“Let's not try to cram our Climate Chaos religion down other's
throats...”I agree… religion has no place here.Ironic though the correlation between religious belief and science denial (at
least science not perfectly in sync with a religious worldview –
evolution, climate change, etc.).Since people naturally tend to
believe that how they think (i.e., knowledge acquired through
“religious” ways) is how everyone thinks, it makes me think that
much of the denier retorts are simply a form of mass projection combined with
scientific ignorance.Dr. David Brin’s article Climate Skeptics
vs. Climate Deniers is informative in this regard.
If there will be climate change(s) and if there is not much of substance that we
can do to stop or mitigate it then it appears to me that we spend time and
effort in adjusting to the changes.Some times I get the impression
that we seem hell-bent to keep the status-quo at all costs when some thought
could be given to how to adjust to new climate norms.Energy
efficient housing for less use of carbon based fuels? Less lawns and heavy
water consuming flora? More efficient life styles adopted by the citizens and
not forced upon them by a corrupt political process may be some ideas.Third world countries are going to continue to develop and enter their own
industrial age. Planners and control freaks may think that everyone, but them,
should live in idyllic semi-primitive villages and mid-19th century life styles,
but the Third world wants their day in the sun too.Adapt, overcome,
adjust instead of fighting to control the uncontrollable - nature. And even
more humorous, IMO, fighting nature with a tax! How bourgeois can that be?
"To the lefties,As the article says, nothing will
“improve” if you cannot get the Chinese to go along. How do you
propose we do that? Are you willing to “enforce” it on them? How do
you propose that?"Absolutely love the logic. Unless I can get
everyone else on the highway to drive safe, why should I? It seems the
"righties" have and excuse not to do anything for everything. Now its
the other guy will not go the right thing, so why should we bother doing the
right thing.I would love to see that logic used in church. Why have the war on drugs if we can't make everyone stop using
drugs.... why bother...What people do in Salt Lake Valley impacts
the quality directly of the people living in Salt Lake Valley.... that should be
Re: "WHO had central air conditioning in the 1980's"...Oh great... now central air being more available and more affordable than it
was in the 80s is even proof of Climate Chaos.... Who had air
conditioning in their CARS before 1950?.... Even MORE proof of Climate
Chaos!!!====Let's just do what we can to live a
good clean life. Let's not try to cram our Climate Chaos religion down
other's throats... and just get along.
"The most obvious idea is a carbon tax to help finance government and
stimulate energy-saving technologies and new forms of non-carbon energy."
Stimulate????? Taxes don't stimulate, they oppress.
They suppress will to work and the economy overall. This is why they must be
minimal and prudent.EVERY business that ships any product, or has a
building to heat, or uses a computer or equipment, will have to lay off people
to pay for the energy.EVERY household, the poor included, will pay
more for every morsel of food. The elderly and the children of the poor will
live, and many will die, in cold houses in the winter.This is a tax
that will hit and hurt the poor like no other.This tax proposal
shows what liberals are all about.
“No sane government will sacrifice its economy today — by
dramatically curtailing fossil fuel use — for the uncertain benefits of
less global warming sometime in the foggy future.”This
captures the entire problem in a nutshell. We are amazingly short sighted
creatures and are wired to weight immediate problems far more than future
problems.The only way to tackle this problem is through
technological innovation that will produce economic benefits in excess of
current (fossil fuel) benefits.
Roland,The idea that a carbon tax is a free-market solution is a fallacy.
A carbon tax is an artificial influence on the free market. Artificial is NOT
free market.To the lefties,As the article says, nothing will
“improve” if you cannot get the Chinese to go along. How do you
propose we do that? Are you willing to “enforce” it on them? How
do you propose that?Maverick,You do? Care to tell us what it
is?Eli,You’ve got it – broken the liberal code.
Global warming is proved by everything. Record cold, record snow, record prison
recidivism, gang warfare, hunger, outcome of NBA series. If there is any way
they can think to bend it, everything proves global warming.
We have solutions...We have no will.
Oh good . . . Another article quoting a Koch-brothers’-funded
“Think Tank.” FYI, the American Enterprise Institute,
the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute are just a few of the phony
“Think Tanks” funded by the Koch brothers. Their credibility is
deservedly zero . . . much like that of the Koch Brothers’ funded Tea
Party, and the Koch Brothers employees in Congress who pretend to work for
America.“We have no solution.” If Republicans were
honest, that would be the motto and the entire platform of the Republican Party.
Global Warming is here, but its ill effects can still be
mitigated. Green energy sources are the best bet.“So far,
it's not commercially viable.”Yes, and that’s why
the private sector is absolutely WORTHLESS acting on its own. That’s why
we need the intervention of GOVERNMENT. We need government and private sector
cooperation in conducting research, and developing and building green
infrastructure.We need a sense of urgency and an international
Manhattan Project, where the best minds in the world focus on the goal of green
energy.We certainly don’t need the “Conservative”
refrain: “We have no solution.”
@DesNews... the term "Global Warming" passe now. The NEW term is
"Climate Chaos" (since it could go up... or down... you never know...
it's a complex system, and besides... it sounds like a super-hero or
something cool).Google "Stop Climate Chaos" Wikipedia... and
get with the program!"Global Warming" is out... "Climate
Chaos" is in...====Saw this in another paper
yesterday..."Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French
foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington to discuss
a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the
foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint
appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500
days remained to avoid "climate chaos"...Did you get that
people... we have only (lets see.. do the math...) 499 DAYS LEFT... to avoid
Climate Chaos!!!===Sounds so much like the plot from a
Hollywood movie... it's almost funny. ===I'm
going to keep doing all I can. But I'll check back in 499 days to see if
Fabius (and his scientists) are better than Al Gore's at predictions...
Mountanman,Did you not get the memo? Record cold confirms global warming,
just like severe snow storms(or the lack of them), just like record numbers of
hurricanes and tornados(or the lack of them), just like melting icecaps(or their
refreezing).And don't even think about bringing up the 17 year
pause. The heat is accumulating deep in the ocean, ready to rise up any time now
any wipe out humanity, much like Sharknado.
I used to say "pray for your children"; now I guess I'm going to
have to say "pray for yourself".It's going to get hot
around here (for you Christians, you can say that "god is burning us for our
sins if it makes you feel any better).
Yes Mountainman..... the whole science of micro climates is bunk science too.
On the same note, we have already had 3 plus 90 degree days here in North
Carolina. In case you are wondering, these are not normal for this time of
year. For the record, I do believe there is global warming, and no,
I don't think it is totally man mad, or even mostly man made. But that
doesn't mean we should ignore the contribution man has on the event.Take Utah's inversion as an example. Man has next to nothing with
the events that cause an inversion. But man has a direct impact on the health
risk due to inversion by what we add to it. Man doesn't cause inversions,
but man does make inversions hazardous. Likewise we probably aren't
causing global warming... but we surely don't need to add to its impact.It isn't an either or discussion...
"One would think that if we really have "global warming" we would
have no such record low temperatures anywhere on the earth being a global
problem"In a related issue, I spent some time on the beach last
weekend. I clearly saw the ocean levels drop by a foot or two in just a couple
of hours.One would think that no such sea level drop would occur if
the oceans were rising.
THE best and most truthful article on "global warming" ever written,
period! By the way, two days ago record low temperatures were recorded for this
time of year in S.E. Idaho. Why does that matter? One would think that if we
really have "global warming" we would have no such record low
temperatures anywhere on the earth being a global problem. In other words, it
should be getting warmer everywhere on the planet but clearly that is not
The truth is, the GOP doesn't. Democrats do.
Deniers -- Consider, they said, a contrasting study headed by a Harvard
researcher. It found that heat-related deaths in 105 U.S. cities had declined
since the late 1980s.====== This is a classic "cause
and effect" disassociation people, with zero correlation -- WHO had central air conditioning in the 1980's?It's like
arguing that automobile deaths are down, therefore there are less
accidents, while dis-associating and willfully ignoring the fact that new
and better safety laws and devices i.e., Seat Belts, air bags, and anti-lock
brakes -- are the factor for the lower number.BTW -- If we
can't counter the effects, The only thing we have is to minimize the
I wonder if Samuelson read "Despite our belief that cancer and disease poses
catastrophic threats to many of the world's 7 billion inhabitants, we
acknowledge that we now lack the technologies to stop it...." I mean, how
many people out there battle and spend countless sums of money in futility
against terminal disease knowing that ultimately they will loose the battle as
we don't have an assured way of beating many terminal cancers?To walk from the battle of disease and cancer would bring a howl of
condemnation. The throwing up of the hands in defeat would not be accepted.So why are we so willing to declare defeat here? How long did people
toil to find cures to ailments that seemed incurable - only to have those
diseases ultimately tamed. We at this time don't know how to cure global
warming - but we know the benefit is of reducing pollution, and over
consumption. Just as we are extolled to have a balanced diet, we too can
sensibly use energy and ensure out environment we live is healthy. We will all
ultimately die, but we continue battle on to ensure to ensure quality of life.
Politics is the difference.
Having a discussion concerning, what, if anything can be done about climate
change going forward is not unreasonable. Questioning $$ spent vs greenhouse
gas reductions expected (ie, cost benefit analysis) makes perfect sense.But to argue against its existence, based on a small subset of
scientists, the rantings of radio entertainers or on ones political party
affiliation, makes no sense at all.Funny how deniers question the
impartiality of 97% of climate scientists while having complete faith in the
motives of the 3% with which they agree.
Yes, indeed these are nettlesome issues. First, it turns out that the
"population bomb" is in fact very real. Climate change deniers often
cite in these blogs the allegedly false notion of a population bomb as
"proof" that the climate change theory is also wrong. But in fact
it's the growing population which requires the economy to get larger and
larger, and emit more and more CO2. So maybe we ought to look at slowing
population growth as a worthy goal, but that is going to be as controversial as
SSM.Another even more difficult issue is the idea that capitalism
itself requires economic growth. The system is not stable unless we have a lead
foot on the economic accelerator. We need economic growth both for a growing
population, but also because capitalism itself needs it to survive. There is
abundant evidence that capitalism simply doesn't know what to do with a
steady state economy. Study economic theory at any university. The theory
assumes growth. Period. That's what Keynes said.So what are
we going to do? There's not enough room to discuss.
I agree with this op-ed. The free market is a absolutely great at devising
solutions to problems when it gets the proper price signals. Impose a carbon
tax, start it very low but have it rise steeply, so that in twenty years it is
rather high. Then let the free market go to work.The cost of solar
energy has fallen so fast that it is now totally competitive with coal in sunny
climates such as Arizona's. It will continue to decrease as long as we know
that carbon based energy will get more expensive in the future. MIT has been
doing marvelous work on storing solar energy. Give them some tax incentives to
continue their work.We also need to impose the carbon tax on imports
so that we do not disadvantage our domestic manufacturers. This is a problem
that can be solved, provided we act now. I am quite worried, however, that we
will do nothing, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will hate us for