Dave was a former neighbor seems to still be a reasonable and well meaning
individual. I, however, disagree about how his ideas were formulated. In the Meteorology classes, I took at the U, it was stated that temperatures
have risen since the start of the Industrial Revolution (coincidence?). Yet,
that was at the tail end of a 'Little Ice Age'. Deductive
reasoning tells me climate change is cyclical but to think man hasn't had
some 'influence' is foolhardy. My issue with Climate
change is how the political left uses it to frighten people like the right has
used terrorism. Personally, I am tired of the mumbo jumbo from both sides.
Jeebus will return before common sense reenters American politics & everyday
The good doctor should know that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and is harmless to
humans. That makes the basis of his letter invalid. Reducing CO2 and reducing
air pollution are distinct and separate problems that have different solutions
and economic effects.The doctor also makes the false assumption that
the earth is warming as CO2 levels increase. It isn't. It hasn't
warmed in 16 years.Then there's the insane idea that raising
energy prices by imposing a carbon tax will somehow lead to prosperity. First,
it will raise the price of everything, especially food, electricity, and fuel.
Second, there is no economic perpetual motion machine that can return 100% of
the imposed taxes back to consumers -- it'll disappear in the system, and
we'll all be stuck paying higher and higher taxes.Bad idea.
@Pops "So what's the panic?"Alarmists say that
it's in the "unprecedented" rate of change, but I believe they are
basing this on what the models say will happen, and not what is really
happening.@Maudine "What unproven assumptions? Where and how
does this editorial go wrong?"Right from paragraph one, and it
never gets any better. The writer offers no evidence whatsoever that recent
occurrences of drought and wildfire and pestilence are related to global
warming. It is only assumed. He completely ignores that these conditions are
recurrent throughout earth's history.Then there's the
economic magical thinking -- the idea that we can tax wealth out of the economy,
give the same wealth back again, and it will create more wealth.And
I'm forever amused when a writer conflates air quality issues with the
emission of CO2, a colorless, odorless gas.Sorry if you had a
differing opinion, but the whole article is a train wreck.
@VST - yes, you mostly nailed it. I say mostly because you didn't define
"advocates". Certainly there are climate scientists who promote AGW as
fact, but of course they're the same ones who refuse to debate, hide their
methods, and fiddle with the data. But they still can't tell us what the
climate sensitivity is to a doubling of CO2, which is what the real scientists
are working on.I don't completely agree with "rising
average temperatures on earth" in the sense that it is somehow extraordinary
or unexpected, or that there is any particular reason why we should be in a
panic about it. The rate of temperature increase through the 80s and 90s was the
same as in the 30s and 40s, so it's not as if such warming is anything new
even judging by very recent history. In the longer geological context, earth is
at quite a low temperature and recovering from the Little Ice Age. Earth has
usually been a lot warmer than it is now. So what's the panic?
Thirteen large and publically active environmental organizations have said their
goal is to eliminate capitalist societies. Now tell me they have truth in mind
about the climate.
First, this article starts out with "bad news" that actually consists of
"bad myths." The data shows fires last year (and so far this year) are
well below average. Second, atmospheric CO2 does not cause health
problems. We each exhale around 100 times the concentration of CO2 that is found
in the atmosphere. Are we killing ourselves by exhaling? By far the biggest
health risk from air pollution is from indoor fires for cooking, and that
problem has been solved in the developed world by burning fossil fuels to create
electricity (as well as fracking for natural gas).Third, having a
doctor write about economics is like having an economist perform an
appendectomy. The doctor thinks that raising prices and then "giving"
households the money back will generate jobs. Apart from the jobs
"created" for the bureaucrats/bankers who will redistribute this money
(which means households will get back less than they paid), such a proposal will
reduce jobs, not create them.
Any proposal that increases the cost of energy will reduce the proportion of
white collar to blue collar jobs and will lower the standard of living of
everyone. Furthermore, it will have no measurable effect on the climate, as we
have established with a high degree of confidence that there is no correlation
between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. (And it certainly won't put
any water in the aquifers of the western US.)@mk - One should also
check out the rising cost of energy in Germany. The only real hockey stick graph
is that one!
Do a little search on surface stations on google or goto surface stations org
and check out the documented temperature reading station photos and see for
yourselves why the stations are reading higher temperatures. Spain is a prime
example of how green jobs have not worked and actually killed jobs. Do a search
on it and it kinda kills the whole green job creation. Global warming is
nothing more than a tool environmentalist/conservationist are using to push
their religion on everyone.
@ rvalens2I called the earth science departments of Northern Arizona
University, ASU, UofA, and even BYU's Barry Bickmore to challenge any earth
science faculty to an open debate about the facts behind climate change. Nobody
signed up. I have frequently been told, "The debate is over" or
"your a holocaust-denier flat-earther". Looks like everyone forgot to
tell good ol' mother earth to follow along with the scam. I think a study
needs to be done on how entire scietific societies, univerities, and governments
could be sold wholesale on a theory that could be disproven by any 3rd-grader
who can read a graph.
This hilarious editorial suggests that global warming is still an issue. I love
how the "hottest months" are breathlessly hypoed, then when faced with
the the fact that there has not been any appreciable warming for over 17 years
now, "it's not long enough" to show a trend.I have a
task for frozen fractals: Look up the FAR, SAR, TAR reports from the IPCC (if
you can find them, most of them have been shamelessly removed) and tell me that
the modellers have any clue what they're talking about. Most peope
don't argue that the earth has warmed in recent decades, but climate
sensitivity to man-made CO2 is probably less than 1/4 what any models have
projected. Catastrophic man-made global remains arguably the largest man-made
hoax of our lifetimes. Talk of carbon credits are holograms and mirrors.
So why, when I "Like" a comment does the number stay the same?
It is a stupid proposal, I'm not going to give it anymore time than that.
So many problems with it.
This is a pretty funny calculation of money from hot air. Adding fees never
produced anything, but hurting the economy. We need a powerful economy using
natural gas, oil, etc that we have an abundance of. With a strong economy we
can afford to do research on alternates which by the way are progressing.
Global warming has the problem of prevarication by warmists. The UN exaggerated
global warming in 113 out of 117 reports.
"The debate is over. Climate change is real." - Barack ObamaDebate? What debate? There hasn't ever been a prime time nationally
televised debate on this issue. If it's such a slam dunk for their side,
then why are they afraid to debate the issue? Al Gore runs away from those who
have challenged him to debate. Instead, he has set up a company to manage the
carbon taxes that will be levied, which will make him a billionaire in the
process, if it ever comes to pass.I for one believe it's just a
scam to rob us all of even more money. Don't fall for it.
"If you're scared by assertions that successful agriculture must adapt
to weather changes, long or short-term, that probably just means you
haven't been deeply involved in agriculture."We're
used to a certain climate regime. Now, thanks to AGW (or just GW if you
don't think man has anything to do with it), we are going to have to learn
a lot of new ways to do farming. It's a crap shoot. And the more global
warming the more the need to adapt. It's true that in the past
man has had to adapt to climate change, sometimes not effectively. Allowing AGW
to continue uncontrolled is a huge gamble.
Re: ". . .read the EPA report 'Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food
Supply.' This is scary stuff."Scary? Hmmmmm. I wonder of we
read the same article -- "Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2)
can be beneficial for some crops in some places. But to realize these benefits,
nutrient levels, soil moisture, water availability, and other conditions must
also be met."If you're scared by assertions that successful
agriculture must adapt to weather changes, long or short-term, that probably
just means you haven't been deeply involved in agriculture.That's been the heart of agriculture for millennia.
Also read the EPA report "Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food
Supply." This is scary stuff. Even the Deseret News is going
to have to stake out a position on climate change.
Re: "Are you getting weary of hearing the bad news related to global
warming?"No. Not at all. There's been precious little,
anyway.What I am getting weary of is tree-hugging, leftist
economists trying to me sell snake oil. Like the biggest lunacy of all -- we can
somehow tax our way to prosperity.It's just not possible. It
defies, not just the laws of economics, but the laws of physics, as well.Regardless of what leftist economists say, real people know there's
no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. We know there's no cold
fusion.And, we know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Anyone who believes that imposing yet another tax on everyone and giving it to a
bunch of bureaucrats (who will decide policy about how all that "new
money" will be distributed) will solve this problem is living in fairy-tale
land.This money, like a lot of other tax money, will be largely
wasted and distributed to a bunch of well-connected people (i.e.
"friends" of elected officials). As more and more of them become
addicted to this new found wealth, the carbon tax will grow and grow.Just like the income tax which was imposed on a small percentage of Americans
initially (the most wealthy), this tax will grow until we all have to fill out a
10 page "carbon return" at the end of the year to assess our carbon tax
and claim our carbon credits. We will have to keep track of every time we lit a
candle or mowed the lawn.
Everybody should read the National Climate Assessment, available on the NOAA
@chilly"The truth is that current temperatures are about the same as
the 1930s. "That's not true. Globally they aren't even
close (none of the 1930s are in the top 30 warmest years, 1934 is barely in the
top 50). If you look at a fraction of the world (contiguous US) in a
very anomalous pattern (Dust Bowl years) there's a few short spans similar.
However, the warmest year for the US was 2012 (+2.46F). 2nd was 1998 (+1.43F).
3rd was 2006 (+1.41F). 4th indeed is 1934 (+1.28F). Obviously 2012 shattered
the record. 1931 is in 10th place, that's 2 years from the
1930s that are in the top 10 for the contiguous US. 7 of the other 8 are from
1998 onward. The coolest year for the contiguous U.S. that starts with 20-- is
2008 which still beat out 5 of the years from the 1930s including 1936. Interestingly, while 1936 has the warmest month on record for the
contiguous US (that July) it also has the coldest February on record (10.17F
below the 1981-2010 mean). It was the 47th warmest year.
Frozen Fractals: "Actually their most recent adjustment warmed the earlier
years. NOAA currently says that July 1936 is the warmest month on
record..."Conveniently, they changed it back after virtually
every media outlet in the U.S. had run stories on "HOTTEST MONTH ON
RECORD". How many of these retracted the story or even mentioned the
re-adjustment? Certainly, alarmists like David Folland never got the word.The truth is that current temperatures are about the same as the 1930s.
This after a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. We've conducted,
accidently, the experiment of large scale planetary CO2 addition with little, if
any, temperature change. Natural forces clearly dominate earth's climate
and we have not yet figured out how it works.
My favorite comment is the one about how this plan is all a conspiracy
spearheaded by Al Gore. So true. The Goreluminati. Climate scientists are
actually clones of Al Gore who have been programmed to write science papers
culminating in the destruction of the American way of life. The only way we can
fight this is for all of us to start "rolling coal." I just modified my
Toyota Corolla to do just that.
Finding trustworthy (not politicized) information is difficult with the flood of
money from the libertarian/fossil fuel complex. There is overwhelming consensus
that: "Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward
trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming
than cooling. From 1880 to 2012, the globally averaged surface temperature rose
by 0.85° C (1.5°F). The rate of temperature increase has risen as
well. For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about
0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade-almost twice as
fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed over the previous
half-century. In the next 20 years, scientists project that global average
temperature will rise by around 0.2°C (about one-third of a degree
Fahrenheit) per decade."
Problem with Carbon Tax is that the biggest polluters will buy carbon credits
and be exempt. Also, this tax won't be going to the Government but this
cults leader Al Gore.
Though "warmed the earlier years" isn't quite right, the net effect
bumped up the summers in earlier years and lowered the winters in earlier years
(the annual numbers don't really change much). The adjustments largely stem
from the matter of how to best deal with the matter of changing numbers of
stations and interpolating the space in between stations. From the NOAA national
temperature index page you can see that adjustment in ClimDiv compared to the
older USHCN method.
@chillyIt was ranked 3rd warmest for NASA and 4th warmest for RSS and UAH.
The differences are hundredths of a degree between the 1st and 5th warmest years
so it's fairly normal for them to be a few spots different in rankings
since there are some differences in methodology for handling things like the
more sparsely sampled Arctic. I would note that of the 5 datasets (NOAA, NASA,
CRU, RSS, UAH) the one with the fastest warming trend in the satellite era is
RSS and the one with the slowest warming trend in the satellite era is UAH. All
those "less accurate" datasets are in between the satellite ones,
suggesting that they seem to be doing a decent job of it. "The
hottest temperatures for the US were in the decade of the 1930's. The
adjustments have "cooled" the 30s to make present temperatures appear as
record warmth."Actually their most recent adjustment warmed the
earlier years. NOAA currently says that July 1936 is the warmest month on record
for the U.S. 2012 is the warmest year for the U.S. (look up "NOAA National
"May and June were the hottest months ever recorded."More
accurate satellite data (RSS/UAH) show that these months aren't even
hottest of the last decade.Moreover, NOAA has been systematically
making adjustments to the thermometer temperature records. The hottest
temperatures for the US were in the decade of the 1930's. The adjustments
have "cooled" the 30s to make present temperatures appear as record
warmth. Google: "NOAA temperature adjustments" to see for yourselves.
@ Nate: What unproven assumptions? Where and how does this editorial go wrong?
Denmark basically does this and the first two comments miss the key part of how
this works. The tax that gets passed on to consumers does not hit all consumers
equally. Those who use more energy pay more in those taxes and those who use
less will pay less. However, when it gets returned as a tax credit everyone gets
the same amount back so those who use less energy get more back then they put
in. That's the incentive to use less.
The devastation is already upon us in the West. We are draining our ancient
aquifers. Every single drop of the Colorado River watershed is pumped out. We
have created a greenhouse over our heads, and still our Republican leaders grin
blissfully and push for even more development. The carbon tax is the right thing
to do, but it is too little too late in the face of self-destructive ignorance.
@Dave FollandWhen you begin with unproven presumptions, your
conclusion is virtually guaranteed to be wrong. This article does, and is.
The author misses some very important facts! Carbon taxes will be passed on to
consumers which will harm poor people the most by increasing costs of food and
energy (and everything else) while doing NOTHING for the environment!
Productivity produces prosperity! A carbon tax will guarantee a destruction of
productivity and increase poverty! If low productivity produced prosperity,
every 3rd world country in the world would be prosperous, but they are not and
the reason they are not is that they are not productive! A carbon tax will do
nothing but destroy productivity, period!
I sympathize but there are some problems with this proposal. If the carbon tax
is levied at the mine head or well head, that will raise the price of carbon
fuels. But then if the tax is returned to customers they will use those
revenues to continue buying such fuels, right? Moreover, the carbon tariff will
raise prices at a time when the middle class is suffering.Moreover
in the current political climate this proposal can go nowhere.Also,
it attempts to game the market to do the right thing. The market cannot handle
climate change. There needs to be declared a humankind emergency to coordinate
internationally the advancement of solar energy recovery. I know, I know, this
can't go anywhere either in the current political climate, nationally and
globally. But a few more big events like a couple of "typhoons of the
century," big Sandy-sized hurricanes in New England, or the drying up
reservoirs like Lake Mead or Lake Powell will convince people that something is
really going on - then we will get action.This involves losing
precious time, but it's the only way things are going to change.