Advocates of cap-and-trade argue that it is preferable to a simple carbon tax because it fixes a national cap on carbon emissions and it “hides the ball” ”” it doesn’t use the word “tax” ”” even though it amounts to one. So it can get through Congress. That was true as long as no one thought cap-and-trade could ever pass, but now that it might under Mr. Obama, opponents are not playing hide the ball anymore.
In the past two weeks, you could hear a chorus of Republicans, coal-state Democrats, right-wing think tanks and enviro-skeptics all singing the same tune: “Cap-and-trade is a tax. Obama is going to raise your taxes and sacrifice U.S. jobs to combat this global-warming charade, which many scientists think is nonsense. Worse, cap-and-trade will be managed by Wall Street. If you liked credit-default swaps, you’re going to love carbon-offset swaps.”
Some of the refrains from this song have a very catchy appeal. They could easily kill this effort. So, if the Obama team cares about the “ends” of a stronger America and a more livable planet, as much as the “means,” I hope it will consider an alternative strategy, message and messenger.
“I am really encouraged by President Obama’s commitment to clean energy and combating climate change.”
Then you sir, are a fool!
At best, cap™will be a worthless tax on the economy and shift jobs and resources overseas. At worst it again takes our eyes off the strategic goal of energy independence for national security reasons. The whole man-made climate change charade is predicated on bad science and politics in science where government research funding is doled out to those who chant the correct global warming creed. Do we have global warming? Maybe. Is it man-made? Not a shred of evidence to substantiate nor confirm it.
This country needs to adopted a strategic objective for energy independence based on oil for transportation, coal for feedstock use, nuclear fission for electrical power generation, and alternative energy where it makes economic sense in specialized areas of the country.
Capt. Deacon Warren
i don’t agree with friedman often but on this he is spot on. after living in los angeles and houston capt. warren, this big dummy would beg to differ with you that breathing pollution is good for you and does no harm to the earth, i don’t care what the exxon funded scientific community says. thanks for posting.
I wasn’t going to comment, but I found Magnolia’s tactics blantantly dishonest.
Her claim to expertise: she has lived in Los Angeles and Houston and implies that she experienced air pollution in both places that makes her an expert in something … Global warming? Taxes? Energy independence? Oops, I think she is claiming expertise in knowing that breathing (some kind of air) pollution is not good for an individual. And is not good for the earth.
Problem: Capt. Deacon Warren never made those two arguments.
This is such a beautiful example of an argument lacking any shred of intellectual rigor.
Capt. Deacon Warren said “government research funding is doled out to those who chant the correct global warming creed.” Perhaps you have forgotten we just went through 8 years of an administration that not only denied the existence of global warming, but actively suppressed any information from government scientist and scientist receiving research grants from the Government when contrary to their position that global warming does not exist. The prior administration even went so far as to require a political review of research papers by government scientist before the paper could be released. How is this doling out money to those who chant the global warming creed? Unless the creed you are speaking of is “man made global warming does not exist.”
Finally, I am sick of this wingnut montra, we can’t even worry about global warming unless we can prove it is true. There are lots of things I can’t prove to be true, but suspect are true, and prudence dictates I guard against the reprocussions of those things.
Okay, let’s consider cigarette smoking. Not a bit of direct causal evidence it causes cancer. Plenty of statistical inference though, overwhelming amounts of statistical inference. Thus we now accept it as true.
Give us the same statistical inference on global warming. Give us any kind of correlation please. I’ll even take a highly parametric model with good correlation on the key variables. Just something more than Al Gore saying “it has to be true because I know in my heart it is”
Capt. Deacon Warren
So,MCPLAW, the overall cooling of the earth recently means what exactly?
And then there’s this from the Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/
Sometimes, you just can’t make this stuff up.
Why not start with a tax on imported oil; low at first and then increasing so that we knew that five years from now gas will be double what it is now. Evaluate the science on global warming after five years and if there is a consensus add the tax on coal. In the meantime the oil tax will reduce carbon production and make us safer.
Swapping a carbon tax for a decrease in payroll taxes sounds good, but the problem is that enegry costs ( not just gasoline) will increase; the costs associated with payroll taxes will not decrease; so there is a net increase in costs to society, and probably a decrease in productivity due to higher electrical costs.
Capt. Deacon Warren:
The following is from EurekaAlert, a Website for science news. The results seem to provide sufficient information for concern. Given I have no ability to independently verify global warming or a lack thereof, I must look to someone for guidance. That leaves you and Mr. Branford or the world’s leading scientists. Decisions, decisions.
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
“The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists’ is very interesting,” he said. “Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon.”
He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists
We get this argument a lot from those, like Friedman, who appear to despise liberty:
“We need a price on carbon because it will stimulate massive innovation in the next great global industry — E.T. — energy technology.â€
In other words, if he and other totalitarians impose a crushing-enough load on the American economy, then Americans will simply produce the heroic innovations necessary to have dynamic markets and wealth creation in spite of that load.
Nonsense. If that were true, the Soviet Union would still be here, and it would sport the largest economy in the world.
Maybe, in isolated cases, if you place 300 pounds of bricks on a runner’s back, he’ll manage to win a race versus those running unburdened. 99% of the time, though, he’ll stumble along a few inches at a time, and, eventually, give up. I don’t think that’s change Americans can believe in.
Clearly, the answer is [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FSM_Pirates.png]more pirates[/url].
I think this gives me a little more insight into 815’s motives over the last few years. Who knew the Denis Canon was a greening initiative?
[blockquote]So,MCPLAW, the overall cooling of the earth recently means what exactly? [/blockquote]
CLIMATE CHANGE!!
Why do you think the mantra changed from “GLOBAL WARMING!!!” ?
[blockquote]Finally, I am sick of this wingnut montra, we can’t even worry about global warming unless we can prove it is true. There are lots of things I can’t prove to be true, but suspect are true, and prudence dictates I guard against the reprocussions of those things. [/blockquote]
All the more reason to take extreme measures to protect our precious bodily fluids, I say. Now I’m off to have my daily rainwater and grain alcohol cocktail.
MCPLAW, the mechanisms that drive changes in the global climate are not very well understood and (contrary to what appears in the newspaper) and there is still a lively (and growing) debate among scientists about the fundamentals including the baseline data. Even the modelling that is used for forecasting is under scrutiny.
If this is really not a scientific question, fine … say so. The question then becomes different.
The fact is that if the reasons driving any changes in climate are not sufficently understood, one can’t reasonable create an effective course of action.
Why do I care about this? I have a PhD in physics as well as in mathematics although my current employment is administrative rather than working as an active researcher. My siblings are all scientists or mathematicians as are other close relatives and friends. Obviously, global warming and related topics have been constant sources of conversation. I know enough about the subject of global warming to have more questions than answers.
I
By the way, scientific theories are never decided by polling.
Observer,
I am not sure what you are asking me. Of course this is a scientific question. In fact it is three. Is global warming occurring? Does human activity impact global warming? and What, if anything, should we do about it? The first two of these of these are purely scientific questions and the third is a part scientific, part political question.
Three, possibly four of the people posting here contend there is no evidence of global warming. I contend that given the number of prominent scientist who believe global warming is real, this could not possibly be true.
Further, since I am not a scientist, until a significant number of qualified scientists say otherwise, I must accept the judgement of the vast majority of qualified scientist and believe global warming is real and humans are contributing to it. You, on the other hand, are a scientist and are free to believe your fellow scientists are being dishonest for some undisclosed reason. However, the other people here are just regurgitating right wing political dogma, spouted by people who would be on the other side if global warming benefited Republicans.
I also believe there is general consensus in the scientific community that if global warming is real it is a threat to coastal cities and agriculture.
I do not know what to do about about any of this; but I feel we are foolish to ignore these issues and allow politics to prevent us from planning for the worst. Someone has to decide what needs to be done, and uneducated people do not have the tools.
A. I think the global climate is, at present, in a general warming trend. Of course, it was on a nice cooling trend back in the 1970s when we were being stampeded toward a “consensus” on global cooling.
B. I think that scientists don’t have the slightest idea of whether human activity is contributing to the trend, hence the necessary morphing of “global warming” into “climate change.” Since the climate is always changing, this becomes an unfalsifiable claim.
Jeffersonian,
I am sure you do believe as you say. However the survey of scientist I cited above occurred in the fall of 2008 and did ask whether “Global Warming” not “climate change” was occurring and did ask if human activity was a contributing factor. The overwhelming response was yes to both questions. In fact almost 50% of the scientists working for the Petroleum industry agreed; and their employers have a large financial interest in disproving global warming.
Since I do not know what your scientific credentials are, I do not know how much weight to give your opinion in the matter.
I’m an electrical engineer by trade. Adjust your opinion accordingly.
I’m thrilled at the “survey,” but am more impressed by data. And data are sorely lacking here. BTW, if we’re to discount those scientists in the pay of Big Oil, can we also discount those in the pay of Big Government?
Of course, the elephant in the room is the idea that handing more money (i.e., taxes) to the government will actually do anything to deal with (pick the term du jour) “global warming,” “climate change”, if it even is anything other than normal earth warming/cooling cycling. We’ve seen how “efficient” the government is in other areas – let’s give them more money to waste!
And I’m old enough to remember the covers of Newsweek and Time in the ’70s with the cries of “Global Cooling” by scientists week after week – by the 21st century, we were all supposed to be living in igloos and eating ice – so color me skeptical about the whole thing (“grant money” ring a bell?)
Claude Allegre, France’s most revered scientist has reversed his belief that climate change is man made. Michael Crichton believes that crises are “created “, such as Rachal Carson and Silent Spring a “crises” about DDT that didn’t really exist.. The banning of DDT doomed millions in Africa to death by disease but it did increase the power of the ecological movement and gave it credibility. I think that climate change is a created crises to enhance power, increase prestige and wealth. I know that the earth is not as warm as when Greenland was green, I know the earth is not as cold as the last ice age. I know that thermometers have been poorly placed that have caused an artifically increase in percieved temperatuures. I know that the temparture of Mars has increased the same amount as earths. I know some scientists are predicting global cooling due to a period of decreased solar activity. I know that these heating and cooling cycles corrolate with solar activity. I know that people are trying to ban “fossil ” fuels and trade Carbon credits much as one would trade wind! I know people are making hugh amounts of money of off carbon credits such as Al Gore. Governmental agencies are expanding their power and jurisdiction by the false crises of “global warming”! Taxes are being raised and government revenue will expand due to the crises of Global warming and climate change because only government can solve this new “crises”. I also know that I am not a scientist. I do know that many well credential scientists such as Allgera are skeptical.
MCPLAW, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the “science” of global warming is valid based on the Doran survey. In this survey, climatologists as a group (compared to other scientific disciplines) “believe” that current mean global temperatures have risen compared to those of pre-1800 levels and a significant cause of this rise in temperature is the result of human activity. (By the way, thank you for drawing my attention to this survey. I took a copy of it to a party last night. Most of the guest have degrees in physics, chemistry or mathematics. The survey was a huge hit; people laughed until they cried. Wonderful parodies were delivered on the spot. It was one of the best parties ever. On the other hand, it was sobering to see the depths to what passes for research has fallen in American academia.)
Of all the flaws in this survey, the easiest to understand is the status of climatology as a discipline of science. Until the last few years, courses on climatology were found in the geography (or earth sciences) department. That is also where meteorology resides. Geography departments offered few climatology courses and the content of those courses was not well-defined as science. Most of the “climatology” training consisted of meteorology courses which tend to the technical rather than the theoretical. It is important to note that degrees from geography departments are more often BAs and MAs rather than BSs or MSs. That is a good indication of the level of scientific training to be found in a geography department.
I know of no accredited department of climatology in any American university of note. You will not find degrees issued for climatology in American universities. There is no accepted course of study for anyone claiming to be a “climatologist.”
Until recently. Seeing the need, a few universities are establishing climatology as a subdiscipline of the physics. It makes perfect sense, but it is just getting started. The progams are so new that I am not sure that any students have graduated from these programs. More to the point, well-known “climatologists” have little or no background in physics or mathematics or even chemistry.
At present, the term “climatologist” has no meaning as a descriptor of scientific expertise.