Letter: Smart climate

Return To Article
Add a comment
    June 30, 2014 8:37 p.m.

    @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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 30, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    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?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2014 12:43 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    June 28, 2014 10:56 p.m.

    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?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    "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.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    June 28, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 28, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    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.

    June 28, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    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.

    June 28, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    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 such proposals.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 28, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    Droughts floods, wildfires happened before the industrial revolution, besides what will happen when tax money from what this writer criticizes runs out?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2014 12:19 a.m.

    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 markets alone.