@Frozen Fractals:No, the real thing is that extreme weather events
have declined with increasing atmospheric CO2. That would be a negative
correlation at best.
The problem is that we still do not have proof that CO2 is the driver for global
warming. In addition to the questionable readings and the constant adjusting of
historical data by NASA, we don't have a model that is correct according to
the NOAA.So, what the liberals want us to do is to take their word
that we have a problem that the scientists can't really define or model,
and take action in an attempt to prevent something that may be natural. All so
that they can raise taxes to take from wealthy people, corporations, or nations,
and give it to the poor.Why can't the liberals be more honest
and just say that they want to make things more expensive so they can use the
tax code to bribe a new generation of voters?
In my previous comment I referred to NASA as a paradigm for energy research. In
that regard I think space exploration has a lot to teach us about our earth
environment. I am all for sending humans to Mars and colonization there. We
will learn a whole lot about what is necessary from the environment to sustain
human life.Many of us simply cannot imagine how human activities
could wreck the environment for our use. Maybe we need to go to a completely
inhospitable environment to learn these lessons.
Somehow all the "revenue neutral" proposals from the tax and spend crowd
always entails taking money from a whole bunch of people and giving it to a much
smaller set of people who seem to have some connections to another set of people
(government bureaucrats) who decide who pays and who gets. The getters are
always contributing to the deciders election campaign too. (I wonder why?)How about you voluntarily impose a carbon tax on yourself and send me
the money? You will have a high incentive to reduce your carbon footprint to
lower this self-imposed tax. I promise to use the money wisely to make the world
a better place. Deal?
@Pops"even the IPCC has explicitly stated that extreme weather events
CANNOT be attributed to either atmospheric CO2 or global warming."The thing about global warming/climate change is that it shifts the odds. So
let's say that you get 3 heat waves a year instead of 2 for a city. You
can't identify which of the 3 is a result of global warming. In other
words, let's say you have a 6-sixed dice that are labeled 2 3 4 5 6 6.
Someone rolls and gets a 12. Did that 12 come from the original 6's or the
global warming shifted odds 6s? That can't be determined with the
information I gave. It's in that sense that extreme weather events
can't be attributed to CO2/climate change.
This letter is based on the false premise that "the frequency, intensity and
resulting cost of extreme weather events" has increased. Therefore, the
rest of the letter is irrelevant. It seems common for misinformed
people to advocate bigger government rather than individual liberty.
It has been said that the radical environmentalist movement is the new home of
the last centuries' communism (Mao tse Tung, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Hugo
Chavez, et al)! The letter writer demonstrates that to be quite accurate.
I think marxist is close to the target with one minor quibble. We did exactly
that in the 80s and early 90s and succeeded, only to have defeat snatched from
the jaws of victory by environmentalists and politicians who apparently derive
their position and power from the circumstance of having an energy crisis.Argonne-West developed a revolutionary reactor called the Integral Fast
Reactor, or IFR. Some of the benefits: it exclusively used "spent" fuel
rods, converting them from high-level waste to low-level waste in the process;
the reactor core was inherently incapable of meltdown due to the thermal
expansion coefficient of the metallic fuel rods; it didn't require the
transport of any radioactive materials into or out of the plant for the life of
the plant, due to it being a fast reactor and having an internal reprocessing
facility; it never had isolated plutonium in any part of its fuel cycle; and it
didn't require a pressurized containment vessel. But it was canceled by
Bill Clinton on the advice of John Kerry and NRDC after its successful
prototyping, apparently because it would have alleviated our energy crisis.
Unfortunately, the letter writer's premise is categorically false. Not only
have extreme weather events declined with the so-called advent of AGW, but even
the IPCC has explicitly stated that extreme weather events CANNOT be attributed
to either atmospheric CO2 or global warming.A revenue neutral carbon
tax is nothing but a trojan horse by which taxes will be increased across the
board and government intrusion into our lives increased dramatically. We were
fooled by the promises made regarding income taxes and Social Security. Is there
any reason to believe that promises of revenue neutral taxes will be kept? Are
we really that naive? I hope not. We should absolutely and categorically reject
Droughts floods, wildfires happened before the industrial revolution, besides
what will happen when tax money from what this writer criticizes runs out?
I sympathize with the writer, but I disagree. Environmentalists have tried to
placate capitalists by dealing in market add-ons like carbon taxes and
cap-and-trade. I am convinced these measures muck up energy markets and make
them less efficient.As a society and country we need to be much more
direct. The goal is to get efficient energy output from renewable sources,
right? That process cannot be initially profitable for current energy producers
(for the most part, so it must be done by government through a NASA-style
organization. Heck, we might consider having NASA do it.NASA had to
do initial space exploration because the risks were too great for the private
sector. The first railroads were built through government subsidy because much
rail mileage was built ahead of demand. It's time for government to do the
same for energy through a NASA-paradigm. And we can leave the current energy