What’s the Best Way to Handle Future Climate Change?

Carbon markets, carbon taxes, technological push, or economic growth?

(Page 2 of 3)

Internationally, one of the big advantages of a carbon tax is that it avoids the baseline quandary that bedevils carbon markets. For example, signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are supposed to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below what they emitted in 1990. Why? That goal has no relationship to any specific environmental policy objective. In fact, achieving the cuts specified by the Kyoto Protocol goals would reduce projected average global temperatures by only a minuscule 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050.

As the thorny international negotiations about what to do after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 show, it is very difficult to set new global emissions baselines. Also, where should baselines be established for rapidly growing economies like China, India, and Brazil whose energy use and emissions are expected to more than double by 2030? Under the Kyoto Protocol, the natural baseline is what emissions would be without any restraints. However, calculating or predicting what a country’s emissions will be 20 to 30 years in the future is impossible to do with accuracy.

Under a pollution tax scheme, argues Yale economist William Nordhaus, “The natural baseline is a zero-carbon-tax level of emissions, which is a straightforward calculation for old and new countries. Countries’ efforts are then judged relative to that baseline.”

Another advantage is that the tax could be phased in as the average incomes of poor countries reach a certain threshold. For example, carbon taxes might start to kick in when national income reaches $7,000 per capita, which is slightly higher than China’s current level. More generally, having a defined tax rate makes it easy for firms in developed and developing economies alike to predict the future impact of climate policy on their bottom line—something that is considerably harder to do when the government is handing out permits every year.

A tax avoids the messy and contentious process of allocating allowances to countries internationally and among companies domestically. For example, nations could negotiate a much more transparent treaty than the Kyoto Protocol and establish a system of globally harmonized domestic carbon taxes. Harmonized taxes offer relative price stability and taxes on carbon emissions can be raised gradually and predictably over time so that governments, industries and consumers all see what the price of carbon-based fuels will be over future decades and make investment and purchase decisions accordingly.

Nordhaus argues that carbon markets are “much more susceptible to corruption” than are tax schemes. “An emissions-trading system creates valuable tradable assets in the form of tradable emissions permits and allocates these to different countries,” writes Nordhaus. “Limiting emissions creates a scarcity where none previously existed and in essence prints money for those in control of the permits.”

A carbon tax offers less opportunity for corruption because it does not create artificial scarcities and monopolies. Of course, governments can engage in chicanery by dispensing tax breaks and subsidies to favored companies and industries. But Nordhaus analogizes carbon allowances to quotas in international trade and carbon taxes to tariffs: overall, it’s been a lot easier to manage tariffs than quotas.

However, as John Locke Foundation economist Roy Cordato has explained: "A higher tax today means lower production and output of goods and services tomorrow, making future generations materially worse off. In setting a carbon tax you must show that future generations would value the problems solved by reduced global warming more than they would value the goods and services that were foregone." Cardato argues that it's not possible to know the preferences of future generations, but providing them with more wealth and better technologies will give them more options to express whatever preferences they have.

Techno-Solutions?

Climate change is a technological problem. After all, the goal of all carbon rationing schemes—limiting permits or imposing taxes—is to encourage the development of low-carbon and no-carbon energy technologies as substitutes for fossil fuel energy technologies. So why not aim directly at fostering the development of advanced energy technologies? In a fascinating recent report, two McGill University economists, Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green, look at the benefits and costs that an energy technology research and development push might yield.

In the report done at the behest of the Danish think, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Galiana and Green argue that climate change negotiations are engaged in what they call "brute force" mitigation strategies (e.g., carbon markets and/or taxes), and that those strategies have already proven to be losing propositions. "Attempts to directly control global carbon emissions will not work, and certainly not in the absence of ready-to-deploy, scalable, and transferable carbon emission-free energy technologies," assert the authors. "The technology requirements cannot be wished, priced, assumed, or targeted away."

Why won't brute force mitigation strategies like carbon markets and taxes work? Galiana and Green point out that current proposed emission targets imply vastly faster rates of reduction than have been the case in past decades. Consider a global emission reduction target of 80 percent by 2100. That would require carbon emissions to fall by 1.8 percent per year. But say economic growth averages 2.2 percent between now and 2100: That implies a 4 percent average annual decline in the amount of carbon-based fuels used to produce goods and services.

To date, Galiana and Green note, the annual global average rate of decarbonization, the amount of carbon that is emitted per unit of goods and services produced, has been 1.3 percent. To illustrate the economic consequences of trying to boost the rate of decarbonization through brute force mitigation, they generously assume that the decarbonization rate could rise to 3.6 percent annually. But this would still entail a cut in global economic growth from 2.2 percent annually to 1.8 percent. Such a reduction in economic growth would cost an undiscounted $86 trillion in 2100 alone and add up to an undiscounted $2,280 trillion over the next 90 years. And without new low-carbon energy technologies, the authors argue that the assumption of 3.6 percent rate of annual decarbonization is just a fantasy. So the likely economic damages will be even larger. "Climate change is a technology problem," Galiana and Green conclude, "and the size of the problem is huge."

Their solution is spending $100 billion per year on energy research and development financed through a $5 per ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions that would be funneled into Clean Energy Trust Funds. The tax would be scheduled to double every ten years as a way to give a forward price signal to encourage the deployment of the new low-carbon energy technologies that they hope will emerge from the labs. They calculate that every dollar spent on new low carbon energy R&D would avoid $11 in climate damages.

"It is much easier to spend on R&D than assure the monies are well spent," Galiana and Green admit. They also acknowledge that much current government R&D funding is politically directed and largely wasted. Robert Fri, a former deputy administrator of both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Research and Development Administration, told Chemical & Engineering News: "The government is very good at starting energy projects that it believes will solve energy problems, but it is not very good at generating the intended results."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

  • Dorquemada||

    Soon that AGW warrior and disciple of the true prophet Algore, blessings be upon him, will arrive.

    The mighty Chad will smite you unbelievers with his pomposity, mindless dogma and specious argumentation.

    Many DENIERS will be weeping when his work is finished today.

  • LifeStrategies||

    Yes indeed. And the increasingly capable science of economics can be used to indicate the way forward.

    Yet this all presumes that anthropogenic global warming is actually the problem, rather than realizing that climate change has been happening forever ...

    But luddites refuse to see that everything changes continually, and our climate is no exception. Why do they ignore the overwhelming evidence of hundreds, thousands and millions of years?

  • Old Mexican||

    Many economists think that a better option for rationing carbon would be a gradually rising tax on fuels that emit carbon dioxide.

    You mean those economists that agree that AGW is a problem that needs to be "corrected"? Question-begging economists, you say, Ron?

  • Chad||

    Actually, economists DO largely agree that is is a problem that needs to be addressed with C&T, a carbon tax, or something similar.

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/s.....mate_N.htm

    What was your point again?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    It's always about raising/creating new taxes with you fucking liberals.

  • ||

    Actually, Chad, what that survey says is that economists who have published articles at all related to climate change prefer a carbon tax or cap-and-trade over command-and-control when asked the question...

    Between market based mechanisms, such as a carbon tax or cap‐and‐trade system, and command‐and‐control regulations such as performance standards,which is preferable as a tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

    This is pretty much the equivalent of asking whether it is preferable to be beheaded with a guillotine or a rusty saw. The result does not mean that those surveyed are pro-beheading.

  • ||

    Economics....now there's a science for you!

  • ||

    Oh the same 'mainstream' Disney eonomists who said there was no bubble? That the stimulus would keep unuemployment below 8%? That the recession is over? Who keep being 'surprised' by what the economy actually does?

    Those guys?

    And oh yeah what happened to your whole 'non climatologists should shut the hell up about climate' thing?

  • Old Mexican||

    In this case, the government sets an overall emissions limit and emitters have to buy allowances from the government every year.

    ... because only a government knows the optimal level of emissions, even if the source of those emmisions happened to be something else besides humans.

    You catch my drift, Ron? HOW are scientists to measure or know which emissions come from humans and which do not? Are CO2 molecules color-coded?

  • ||

    Quoth Roddy Piper:

    "Put the fucking glasses ON!"

  • Neu Mejican||

    Essential, yes, although it is not color but isotope ratios that does the trick.

  • Old Mexican||

    Essential, yes, although it is not color but isotope ratios that does the trick.

    And since air testing is soooo inexpensive . . .

    Add a few more billions into the mix for THAT as well.

    Shit.

  • ||

    A mass spectrometer will cost from $100,00 to $800,000 depending on the type. They can be as small as a beer can.

  • ||

    yep. race coded too!

  • It's...Da Bishop||

    "In this case, the government sets an overall emissions limit and emitters have to buy allowances indulgences from the government every year."

    FIFY

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican,

    I realize you are just beating your chest to look threatening, but you don't REALLY think it is hard to implement a carbon tax do you?

    These guys give a pretty simple explanation.
    http://www.carbontax.org/
    http://www.carbontax.org/issue.....bon-taxes/

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    I realize you are just beating your chest to look threatening, but you don't REALLY think it is hard to implement a carbon tax do you?

    Neu, I believe you're missing the point.

    First, who the hell said the carbon tax will make ANY difference when it comes to the [mythical] AGW "problem"?

    Second, who said that taxing productive people is justified on ethical, moral or even practical grounds?

    I don't care if a tax system is "easy" to implement. I can get a gun right now and implement a "robbing" system quite easily as well. The ease of it hardly justifies it.

  • Neu Mejican||

    If that was your point, then why were you pretending the problem with a carbon tax was distinguishing between human and natural c02 and complaining about the additional costs that this non-existent problem would cause?

    Really.
    If you have a problem with all and any tax, then you would not be in favor of a carbon tax.

    And for the record...when talking about the pros and cons of various tax plans, it is pretty pointless to include "it's a tax" as an important critique of any one plan since that can be said of them all.

    I have no problem with a position that says...this not a problem, so there is not need to develop a solution (because then the discussion is about why or why not it is a problem worth addressing). But once you enter into a discussion about the pros and cons of a particular plan, that tact becomes empty rhetoric and does nothing to move the discussion forward.

  • juris imprudent||

    problem with a carbon tax was distinguishing between human and natural c02

    Just curious, but who gets the tax bill for the natural CO2?

  • ||

    I think that whenever a volcano erupts, the country in which it is situated should be required to pay taxes to the UN on the amount of toxic emissions released. That should effectively bankrupt any country on earth.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Awesome, the carbontax.org is suggesting that burning trees to heat your house is a good thing.

    if you’ve been frugal with energy, living in a snug house with solar hot water and wood heat

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    More awesomeness, the use of the phrase “border tax adjustments” to solve trade deficits.

    Finally, taxing energy will create parity with our traditional competitors — the EU and Japan — while encouraging like-minded actions in the emerging powerhouses of India and China. In the interim, “border tax adjustments” can equalize prices of imports from non-carbon-taxing nations.

  • Old Mexican||

    Thus carbon taxes would encourage conservation and low-carbon energy innovation.

    I am pretty sure that, if armed thugs came to everybody's house and hobbled everyone inside, there would be massive innovation in prostetics...

  • Old Mexican||

    Prosthetics.

  • ||

    +1. And a special bonus for the bad spelling.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Me, I am anti-stetics, gotta keep those stetics outta my water man, they sap your vital essence.

  • Old Mexican||

    Thanks!!

  • Old Mexican||

    Their [Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green's] solution is spending $100 billion per year on energy research and development financed through a $5 per ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions that would be funneled into Clean Energy Trust Funds.

    Which sounds groovy, as public research is always oriented to results.... what's so funny??

  • ¢||

    "Dude, they should, like, make air illegal, then legalize it, and tax it."
    "Duuuuuuuuuuuuude."
    "Dude, dude. Dude."

  • Death Panelist||

    Best way to handle climate change? Look up the word "weather" in the dictionary, and wait for Spring to cycle around again.

  • Old Mexican||

    What’s the Best Way to Handle Future Climate Change?

    What's the best way to handle it? Ask the Global Warming Fairy - send her a letter tied to a balloon. It should reach East Anglia...

  • ||

    LET'S ALL LAUGH AT "TECHNOLOGICAL PUSH!"

    HURR DURR HURRRRR DUUURRRR!

    BECAUSE FORCE ISN'T OK WHEN IT'S FOR OUR OWN GOOD!

    RACIST SPEWING! HURR DURRR DURR

  • ||

    Not bad, sage. Maybe NutraSweet should try. I'm too busy.

  • The Gobbler||

    COP15?

    I hate cops.

  • Old Mexican||

    One way to correct the most egregious flaws in current cap-and-trade schemes (including the one proposed in recent Congressional legislation in the U.S.) would be to adopt cap-and-auction instead.

    And there are twats that insist it is Big Business (or Big Oil or something) that spearheads the effort agaist "Climate Change Solutions". It is clear that all these ridiculous effortws will only serve the interests of Big Business precisely because they will hobble their competition.

    The Cap and Tax scheme will simply increase the cost of entry for many innovative (and competing) enterprises, leaving us with a smal bunch of bloated businesses offering us expensive shit. But hey, that is how the Europeans live right now, it must be swell...

  • kinnath||

    So Ron, can you follow John's link from the earlier thread and comment.

    It appears that the modern "hockey stick" is trival compared to the long-term (e.g., 10,000 year) record. Our current average temp is still less than the medieval warming period and the current rate of change is consistent with past rapid temperature cycles.

    Why should we do anything at this point?

  • ||

    Because the science is settled that we should have a global government that controls every aspect of your life. And it is really settled when you type it in all caps.

  • kinnath||

    Chill John.

    Ron doesn't deserve the snark.

  • ||

    I wasn't snarking on Ron. I was snarking on the posters on here.

  • kinnath||

    ok, I need to adjust my snark goggles

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    And why is that?

    He's bought into the myth.

  • Old Mexican||

    Interestingly, there may a current technology that could go a long way toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions, fast breeder reactors. Since they do not burn fossil fuels, they produce no carbon dioxide.

    Ron, Ron, Ron . . . Don't you get it? The Watermellons are NOT interested in THOSE solutions (the ones that make sense) because they are interested in people becoming POORER, not RICHER.

    Haven't you heard? We should not be offered ice water in restaurants. We should only take 3 minute showers. We should live in energy-efficient huts. We should all live like yogis...

  • Neu Mejican||

    I think these are the way to go myself if you are gonna include nuclear in the mix.

    http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

  • Old Mexican||

    Neu, the watermellons DON'T want nuclear. YOU may find it acceptable, because you are being practical. Watermellons want also to curb populations - that's their goal.

  • Neu Mejican||

    But I keep getting accused of BEING a watermelon. I mean, if I express support for a coordinated response to the threat of AGW, even a revenue neutral carbon tax with investment in new energy technologies is really just the beginning of a slipper-slope to Stalism...isn't it? That's what I keep reading on these AGW threads.

    Now I am confused.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But I keep getting accused of BEING a watermelon. I mean, if I express support for a coordinated response to the threat of AGW, even a revenue neutral carbon tax with investment in new energy technologies is really just the beginning of a slipper-slope to Stalism...isn't it? That's what I keep reading on these AGW threads.

    Now I am confused.


    Why should not people choose for themselves what energy sources to use?

  • Neu Mejican||

    They should. A carbon tax is a user fee that helps them make a choice that works for them.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    A carbon tax is a user fee that helps them make a choice that works for them.


    And does this fee accurately reflect the costs of the use of the carbon?

  • Neu Mejican||

    ideally.

  • ||

    Wow your logic fails Neu.

  • ||

    Care to provide any more oxymorons?

  • Yogi||

    Picinic baskets?

  • Old Mexican||

    There will be no fast-breeder reactors installed in the US. Period. Pelosi will not hear of it.

    Oh, and maybe Obama - but we all know [wink, wink!} that it is Pelosi who's running this show...

  • kinnath||

    Never ever post "fast-breeder" and "pelosi" in close proximity.

  • ||

    Not to worry. Over-breeding is not a problem in Pelosi's district.

  • kinnath||

    So you don't have to sift through the earlier posts:

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

  • Snarky||

    To: Old Mexican
    Re: Dude, settle down.

    I mean, c'mon. You're starting to scare people.

  • Old Mexican||

    Ha! You haven't seen me waking up in the morning - THAT's scary!

  • Morris||

    Neo isn't too fussy about credentials.

  • cmace||

    The Carbon Tax doesn't have much potential for generating "campaign contributions" for Congress.

  • The Gobbler||

    FTW!

  • Old Mexican||

    Ideally, carbon tax revenues would be used to cut individual domestic income taxes, thus offsetting some of the pain of higher energy prices.

    Ideally, I should be married to a blond bombshell. Ideally, government should be only as big as indicated by the Constitution. Ideally, people should not be paying taxes AT ALL.

    Ideally, we should all have ponies and be able to fly at will. Ideally . . .

  • ||

    Carbon markets, carbon taxes, technological push, or economic growth?

    do nothing

  • Old Mexican||

    do nothing

    YES!!

    (Just to clear things up, Ron says "economic growth" SO THAT LOW CARBON TECHNOLOGIES can be funded in the future. I prefer simply economic growth and just SHIT on the AGW myth.)

  • Old Mexican||

    The main point is that European carbon dioxide trading is not working as intended because it has not noticeably encouraged utilities to invest much in alternative low-carbon energy technologies.

    It is also possible, just possible, that such low carbon technologies are financial black holes... let alone being simply unprofitable.

    I mean, good intentions will never ever trump the Laws of Economics...

  • ||

    Ideally, carbon tax revenues would be used to cut individual domestic income taxes, thus offsetting some of the pain of higher energy prices.

    AH HA HA HA ha ha ha ha . . . .

    whew. I think I need to lie down.

  • ||

    Ron says "economic growth" SO THAT LOW CARBON TECHNOLOGIES can be funded in the future.

    Personally, I vote for "do nothing" (which is the same as "economic growth" in this case). When and if low carbon technologies are efficient/productive, they will get all the funding they need.

  • Old Mexican||

    One of the things the gun-vermin-t can do is get of the way when it comes to ZERO carbon technologies, like nuclear.

    But again, the enviros are not interested in zero carbon technologies that will prmote growth - what they REALLY want is to curb population expansion, basically to control people - you know, like cattle.

  • ||

    When and if low carbon technologies are efficient/productive, they will get all the funding they need.

    Alas, if this only were true. One of the most efficient low carbon technologies is nuclear power. Unfortunately, nuclear power has been stifled by those that style themselves to be "environmentalists.” (Me, I call them modern day Luddites)

  • Old Mexican||

    GoNavy,

    A long time ago, the justification to be against nuclear was a NIMBY attitude towards the technology, but since it has proven itself reliable and safe (and cheap!), the enviros are against it because it would destroy their one shot to population control - enviros do not want growth with zero emissions (they could not care LESS about emissions), they want populations to be CURBED.

    Nuclear energy would simply destroy one of their arguments against population growth - they can't have that!

  • ||

    If you claim to be a AGW believer and don't support nuclear power, you are an idiot.

  • ||

    If you are claim to be a AGW believer and don't support nuclear power, you are an idiot

  • ||

    Fair enough.

  • ||

    What we need are more solar power plants that:

    A) cost 7 x more than conventional electrical generation;
    B) will pay for itself decades after the panels stop working and
    C) decades after better technology replaces it.

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/05.....g-power-at

  • ||

    And don't forget also create nasty pollution problems when they are produced and desposed of.

  • ||

    If government didn't subsidize solar research we'd already have viable solar. They needn't produce a viable product at a price lower than the competition, they just need to fill out grant applications and make sure they have the political connections to get them approved.

  • ||

    +1

  • Rich||

    How much would you have demanded that your much poorer ancestors give up in order to prevent the climate change we are now experiencing?

    Uh, one-third of their copulation activity?

    Hey, just thought of a new tax ...

  • ||

    Interesting concept. A carbon emission tax during coitus (and after).

    How would this be measured, with O2 masks during sex, similar to stress test?

    Besides bragging rights (Dude, you know how much tax I paid last year in carbon tax sex????), how would one ensure compliance?

    And would nocturnal emissions be taxed as well?

  • Zeb||

    Thingy?

  • ||

    What astounds me is how lefties can put this (or any) issue in the hands of politicians, and then expect that the decisions will be made on the basis of science.

  • eb||

    its their faith based initiatives

  • Tony||

    Not every politician is G.W. Bush.

  • ||

    But Bush was in power for eight years, remember? Do you remember the damage he did? You think that couldn't happen again?

    Besides, imagine if you will one of your nice reliable Democratic lefties...in a district where half of the voters work at a coal-fired power plant. How likely is it he will drop the hammer on the plant and then stroll casually through his district telling the now unemployed workers "don't worry, you'll have nice green jobs...someday..." Fuck no. He'll protect the plant and campaign for re-election on the basis that he protected their jobs.

  • Tony||

    Duh. When have I ever said I have faith in politicians to do what's necessary?

    I don't have time to even discuss politicians when I'm busy getting over the first minor hurdle of explaining why reality is reality.

  • ||

    Good, perhaps you explain why you can borrow your way out of problems causes by too much borrowing?

    Perhaps you can explain why all the AGW models don't work?

    And could you then explain, based on those models, which don't work, why it makes sense to push business to China and India where they will pollute more per unit produced?

  • ||

    Thus carbon taxes would encourage conservation and low-carbon energy innovation.

    I see, so you are arguing to tax behaviors and markets for cheap and useful energy sources and subsidize inefficient and expensive ones all in the name of forcing "green energy" fundamentalism. Brilliant, statist.

    Since the tax is levied on how much carbon a fuel contains, it would make fuels like coal less attractive compared with low-carbon fuels like natural gas or even renewable energy like solar and wind power.

    See above comment. Artificial market manipulation for a quasi-religion is generally not a good idea.

    Ideally, carbon tax revenues would be used to cut individual domestic income taxes, thus offsetting some of the pain of higher energy prices.

    This is ananthema to the edicts of Pope Albert, "Green" Billionaire. It is not in the interest of statists to lower taxes on anything, especially incomes. Besides, how will they maintain the subsidies on those inefficient and wasteful unproven alternatives without that extra tax revenue?

  • ||

    Let's take the AGW beleivers at their word and agree that CO2 is causing external harm. That means that we are all living with a free externality. We are all not currently bearing the full price of our energy use. There is no way to bear the full costs without lowering our standard of living. There is no way around that no matter how much "green jobs, renewable energy" smoke they blow up our asses.

    If we are talking about concrete reductions to standards of living, there better be concrete reductions in known harms to global warming. Of course the AGW beleivers can in now way show any of that. We are just supposed to give up our standard of living and pray and feel good about ourselves.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    Either lower the standard of living, or more nefariously, cease the number of living, both current and future population.

    You realize John the acolytes of this AGW tripe will never lessen THEIR standard of living, especially Gore and his ilk.

  • ||

    cease=decrease. But I wouldn't put the original statement past 'em.

  • Neu Mejican||

    John,

    Well, you seem to be assuming that your current energy usage is optimally efficient and that none of that energy is wasted in ways that do not contribute to your standard of living. This premise is not true. Current technologies implemented systematically can get you the same work on about half the energy. Know what that means...you can INCREASE your standard of living by lowering your carbon footprint. Several large corporations are already on board with this approach...most notably Walmart, but there are lots of others.

  • ||

    "Current technologies implemented systematically can get you the same work on about half the energy. Know what that means...you can INCREASE your standard of living by lowering your carbon footprint. Several large corporations are already on board with this approach...most notably Walmart, but there are lots of others."

    The world is always looking for cheap energy. If there is some wonder form of energy out there, then it will take off and there will be no need for any government action.

    Further, just because I increase my energy efficiency doesn't mean that I have a better standard of living. For example, if it costs more to weatherize my house than I will save in the cost to heat and cool it, weatherizing it will make me poorer even if it does make me more efficient because of the fixed costs associated with doing it.

    You surely don't believe that there are these wonder forms of energy out there that only need a multi trillion dollar world government carbon tax theft program to get going.

  • Neu Mejican||

    John,
    Your sunk costs are an important factor and current technologies allow them to be negligible. Indeed, if done correctly, systems for energy efficient building and manufactoring design can be done for the same or lower cost compared to traditional ways of doing things.

    That's one of the reasons Walmart and other companies are taking this approach. Really.

  • Neu Mejican||

    To the carbon tax. Currently, wasting energy is a pretty cheap activity. A carbon tax would place an economic incentive on people to pay closer attention to the wasted energy as a source of savings.

  • ||

    It's really creepy when you think about what this is all about.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Not being held financially responsible for damage you cause to other people's property means the market is distorted in your favor. We need policies that will correct for this distortion.

    You can always try to show where the liability lies when it comes to your property and prove your case.

    However, advocating for a impoverishing juggernaut to take care of a few [alledged] polluters is like nuking the US to take care of an ant infestation in your house.

  • Warty||

    HURRR DURRRR HURRRR!
    FUCK TECHNOLOGY WE'LL JUST BUY OIL FROM THE SANDNIGGER TERRORISTS! HURRR DURRR HURRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRR

    You're right sage, this is fun.

  • ||

    I'm gonna serve you with a YFCLO warning, Warty. Do it again, and you won't get to rape Epi this week.

  • ||

    The true voice of the Libertarian.
    Such a shame, really.

  • ||

    I really wish Ron had responded to my past (posted years ago) suggestions on what to do. He sure is slow.

    Anyway. He is forgetting option:
    D. Cease to subsidize fossil fuel consumption.

    This is still quite rampant world wide.

    And the real answer is
    E. All of the above with care.

    There are optimum levels of each and they can be mutually reinforcing, with minimal expense. I'd modify the Cap and Trade to a Cap and Auction.

    As for nuclear? Watch out for water needs.

    As for the worst case scenario? Ron needs to update his understanding of this; his choice of economist is missing many factors...and climatologists at IPCC were especially conservative in their scenarios. Humans can't survive an Anoxic Event.

    Additionally, wealth distribution by 2100 will be increasingly less human centric. Ie now Corporations as legal entities take up some of that wealth; in the future, sophont cybernetics, transhumans, and other as yet unrealized entities (aliens, uplifts?) stand to take a greater share, possibly pushing 'humans' to poverty.

  • ||

    Threadjack. But did anyone else see this on Drudge?

    UPDATE: Year After Reprimand, Obama 'Safe School Czar' Run Seminar Handed Out 'Fisting Kit'...

    http://biggovernment.com/2009/.....onference/

  • TickleStick||

    That's CHANGE (TM) that I can agree with.

  • ||

    Yeah, what's not safe about that? If the fist is in your...er, orifice, then it won't be punching you in the face, now will it?

  • Ska||

    Cervix basher.

  • The Gobbler||

    The EU Referendum blog has a fascinating story on how Cap'n Trade--or, as it's called in Europe, the "emission trading scheme"--works. It seems that the Corus Group, a London-based steel maker that is a subsidiary of India's Tata Group, is shutting down one of its plants--a plant the company bought just two years ago "as part of its strategy to give it better access to European (including UK markets) [sic]."

    Closing the plant, the site explains, will give the company an ETS jackpot:

    With redundancy and decommissions costs, very little of that can actually come from the process of closing down the Redcar plant. But, with a capacity of 3,000,000 tons of steel, closure of the plant will deliver further "savings" over 6 million tons of carbon dioxide, worth an additional £80 million per annum at current rates but around £200 million at expected market levels.This, even for a company the size of Tara steel, is a considerable windfall, over and above the money it will already make from the EU scheme. But, with a little manipulation, the company can still double its money. By "offshoring" production to India and bringing emissions down – from over twice the EU level--to the level currently produced by the Redcar plant, it stands to make another £200 million per annum from the UN's Clean Development Mechanism.Thus we see Indian plants being paid up to £30 a ton for each ton of carbon dixoide "saved" by building new plant, while the company which owns them also gets gets paid £30 for each ton of carbon dioxide not produced in its Redcar plant. That gives it an estimated £400 million a year from the closure of the Redcar plant up to 2012--potentially up to £1.2 billion. And that is over and above benefitting from cheaper production costs on the sub-continent.


    So the company gets a windfall for moving jobs from Britain to India, and the new plant will produce no less carbon than before. Brilliant, isn't it? We can't wait till America has such a policy.

  • ||

    So they move their plant to get cheaper labor and get out from under the regulations of the EU. And they get a shit load of carbon credits that they can sell for millions. That is brilliant.

    What kills me is how people like Bailey, who should know better, can't see what a scam cap and trade is.

  • The Gobbler||

    "What kills me is how people like Bailey, who should know better, can't see what a scam cap and trade is."

    I don't get it either.

  • MNG||

    Bailey doesn't want to look like a fool when he mixes with Unbelievers like most of the world. Not everyone can nest in a little right wing fantasy world 24/7, nor would most people want to...

  • MNG||

    Oh, sorry, I thought you meant he should see through AGW. Cap and trade in its current form is bad.

  • ||

    With due respect - please reread the article and I think you will find that I do see through cap and trade.

  • MNG||

    The Cap and Trade that I've seen from the House is a disaster imo.

    I'd like to see some low or non-coercive ways to reduce emissions (like education campaigns or tex credits for better technology r&d) first. A lot of people are willingly lowering their "carbon footprint."

  • MNG||

    On the related point, did anyone quell their rage long enough to actually find out how much of the evidence for AGW comes from the CRU Crew? The other day the best answer I saw was from alheus who said they represented 46% of the IPCC authors, though he provided no link or substantiation for this claim.

    One would think this little piece of information should come before the "OMG this proves AGW is false!"

  • The Gobbler||

    If I have a pot, and 9 people put good things into it (e.g., chicken stock, carrots, noodles, etc.) and then a tenth person shits in it, don't tell me that it's still a pot of soup.

  • MNG||

    Wow, what analysis that is!

    But to stick with this level of thinking a more apt analogy would be: "I got sick once eating Mexican food, therefore I conclude all Mexican food makes me sick!"

  • The Gobbler||

    "Wow, what analysis that is!"

    Epic. Fail.

  • The Gobbler||

    "But to stick with this level of thinking a more apt analogy would be: "I got sick once eating Mexican food, therefore I conclude all Mexican food makes me sick!""

    You would think a guy with a PhD in Political Science would have taken a logic class.

  • ||

    Really, dude. Analogy fail.

  • MNG||

    SugarFree My Gobbling Logic Master
    Please point out why the analogy is not apt.

  • The Gobbler||

    Because AGW science is all just one pot of shit stew and I, for one, am not going to eat it. In fact, when I get home tonight I am turning the thermostat to 81 F.

  • The Gobbler||

    By the way, I am not SugarFree. Do you also hear voices in your head? What are the voices telling you to do?

  • ||

    Scientific research is not a series of unconnected restaurants or even separate ingredients in one pot. It is a spiderweb: complex, interconnected and made up partly by old, digested spiderwebs.

    I don't think that the CRU scandal invalidates all climate science or other "proofs" of global warming, but to say that the CRU conclusions and data aren't woven, even a little, into all other climate research is disingenuous. That's just how a field of science works.

    If anything, the most glaring problem with the Hockey Stick and other breeds of AGW alarmism is the fact that they almost all dismiss the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age as flukes while insisting current warming (if there really is any) is a disastrous certainty that is definitely being caused by the dread demon carbon.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    They seem to be the main source for reconstructing past climate. CRU gave us the now discredited "Hockey Stick".

    The entire case for AGW lies in the claim that the earth is warming now faster than at any time in the past. If it is not, then there is no way to know if the current warming is just a natural cycle versus man made.

    The case that the earth is warming at an un-natural and accelerating rate comes almost entirely from CRU because they were the ones who were working on what amounts to a temperature history of the earth. Two things to remember about that.

    1. The e-mails admit that their methods of modeling past temperature cannot be replicated in years where the temps are known and produce the known temperatures. (That is the e-mail where they talk about how the measuring systems must be flawed).

    2. They admitted to each other that they were manipulating their own data to hide past declines in temperatures to make it look like the recent warming is unprecidented.

    If you throw out CRU, you lose most of our knowledge of past temperatures and the case for AGW looks pretty thin.

  • MNG||

    "The entire case for AGW lies in the claim that the earth is warming now faster than at any time in the past."

    OK, so how much of the evidence for that claim lies in the work of the CRU Crew alone? I mean, if tons of non-CRU evidence points to the same conclusion it would be quite irrational to say that the CRU's failings mean the non-CRU related evidence is wrong.

  • ||

    To make the claim, you have to show how fast the earth warmed in the past. CRU was the center of that kind of work. If you can find other work out there that confirms CRU's results, link to it.

  • MNG||

    Even if they were the center that does not mean there was not tons of non-CRU evidence.

    Let's get this point out of the way John: is non-CRU related evidence now false because of the CRU Crew's actions?

  • ||

    See below post.

  • The Gobbler||

    "Even if they were the center that does not mean there was not tons of non-CRU evidence."

    Have some soup, MNG:

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....nt_1482828

  • MNG||

    Look Gobbler, it's OK if you can't prove a premise upon which your strongly felt conclusions rest. At least your feelings were strong even if your argument wasn't. That's something...

  • ||

    So about half the IPCC evidence allegedly comes from scientists who are corrupt and discredited, and the other half comes from people whose work is now suspect because of these people, and whose work hasn't been checked to see if they have done something similarly unethical?

    Way to prove "OMG, AGW is clearly true!!!11!", MNG.

  • MNG||

    Prole
    Do you have any evidence for this claim: "So about half the IPCC evidence allegedly comes from scientists who are corrupt and discredited"?

    And do you have any logic for this goofy statement?
    "and the other half comes from people whose work is now suspect because of these people"?

  • ||

    In truth, if you throw CRU out, you’ve eviscerated the findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the most recent and most definite opus from the UN. This is the report, received with universal acclaim in 2007, which scarily stated: “The warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

    The argument over global warming requires evidence that the globe is warming in dangerous ways. This evidence the IPCC presents forcefully in its third chapter on surface and atmospheric warming, which rests overwhelmingly on the official global temperature record of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, called the HADCRUT3 temperature dataset.

    And who produced the HADCRUT3 dataset for the World Meteorological Organization? The Hadley Centre of the UK government’s meteorological office (the HAD of HADCRUT3) and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (the CRU).

    With HADCRUT3 in hand, the IPCC’s warming chapter confidently pronounced that “The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years,” that “2005 was one of the two warmest years on record,” and that “Changes in extremes of temperature are also consistent with warming of the climate.” With HADCRUT3, the co-authors of the IPCC warming chapter could show the temperatures going up, up, up.

    Who were the IPCC co-authors who decided to use the HADCRUT3 temperature data? None other than two of the most questionable characters in the Climategate cast: the head of CRU, Phil Jones himself, and his cross-Atlantic correspondent, Kevin Trenberth, a lead author with the IPCC. Trenberth in 2004 also had a starring role in another noteworthy IPCC episode, held in the swirl of an active U.S. hurricane season. Not one to pass up an opportunity to sway the public to the urgency of global warming, Trenberth called a press conference to link global warming with hurricanes even though the IPCC’s own hurricane expert, Christopher Landsea, pleaded with Trenberth not to — the link of hurricanes and global warming had no basis in science.

    If any chapter in the IPCC opus is more important than the warming chapter it is chapter nine, which concludes that man is the culprit “based on analyses of widespread temperature increases throughout the climate system and changes in other climate variables.” The source for the temperature data? HADCRUT3.

    The centrality of HADCRUT3 data is no coincidence. The two British organizations, Hadley and CRU, have worked hand-in-glove since the Hadley Centre was created in 1989 by Margaret Thatcher. One year earlier, in a major address that established the UK’s early promotion of the global warming issue, Thatcher — a foe of the coal mining union and a fan of nuclear power — had pledged to tackle the greenhouse effect by replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power. She then promoted climate change science with funding and diplomacy, placing her people in senior positions at the nascent IPCC and elsewhere at the United Nations.

    Hadley and CRU became major players in every IPCC report, in the World Meteorological Organization, in the IPCC’s iconic hockey-stick graph and in the UK government’s Stern Review that predicted economic calamity. In the minds of many, the Hadley-CRU datasets are the most authoritative source of global temperatures, both because their temperature records date back to 1850 and because they produced the first-ever synthesis of land and marine temperature data — the first truly global temperature record.

    Except now we’re told that CRU disposed of the raw data some 20 years ago after it was manufactured into “homogenized” and “value added data.” The manufacturer 20 years ago? Another Climategate star, Tom Wigley, who was then the head of CRU.

    Read more: http://network.nationalpost.co.....z0Z8Y0nZi4
    The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
    http://network.nationalpost.co.....-data.aspx

  • Tony||

    Why do you trust columnist and author Lawrence Solomon on this topic and not climate scientists?

  • ||

    LOL. STFU Tony, the adults are talking. Seriously, you are just being silly now.

  • Tony||

    Adults quote entire passages without giving credit to the author?

    John your problem evidently is that you select sources to read that confirm what you already want to believe. Spend a few hours at RealClimate or the EPA Web site. It would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

  • ||

    Tony, I have yet to see you quote climatologists, such as Dr. Roy Spencer, or even eminent meteorologists who disagree with AGW. Not warming trends, per se. Just AGW.

    Post your dissenters; it would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

    Wait. You. Don't. Cite. Or. Link.

  • Tony||

    www.epa.gov
    www.realclimate.org

    Happy?

    The intellectually honest thing to do if you are a non-expert is to understand the sum of expert opinion on the matter and trust what the overwhelming majority of experts believe, not only what an underwhelming minority believe.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    The intellectually honest thing to do if you are a non-expert is to understand the sum of expert opinion on the matter and trust what the overwhelming majority of experts believe, not only what an underwhelming minority believe.

    Damn, where are the damn hippies when you need them. I'm thinking we need to bring back "question authority".

  • Tony||

    That sentiment should and does exclude scientific authority for laypeople. They're more likely to be right than you, which isn't necessarily the case for other forms of authority.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Your funny, in a "sure sir I'll be first in line for kool-aid" kinda way but funny still the same.

    On a side note, there is no caveat attached to the "question authority" sentiment.

  • Tony||

    Perhaps, but questioning isn't the same thing as rejecting.

  • MNG||

    This is some progress I guess, but essentially this is a reporter saying this is the case. That's hardly convincing evidence. Surely a natural skeptic like you John can see that this is paltry evidence.

    I mean, does anyone have the IPCC report or some authoritative statement of who the authors were? And then some evidence of who exactly was on the CRU crew?

  • ||

    If I had sited a blog, I would agree with you. But, it is a reputable publication. I doubt he is just making the whole thing up. Further. Mann and company were the international stars of the field. It is not like claiming that the IPCC relied on their data is some outragous and unbelievable claim.

    I gave you a reputable source that said the IPCC report relied on the CRU. If you don't think that is true, go find some proof that it didn't. The ball is in your court now. You wanted evidence, you got it. If you don't believe my evidence, produce some of your own.

  • MNG||

    John
    You doubt this reporter is making this up or wrong?

    What kind of skeptic or scientist are you?

    You're just making Tony's argument look better with that...

  • ||

    Read the links below. Go read the chapter sited above for yourself. The lead author is Phil Jones and it relies on the CRU data just like the article says.

  • ||

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

    Here is the IPCC report in question. Look for yourself.

  • MNG||

    OK, now we are making progress. Let me read this, back when done.

    Really, if it's true that the IPCC was substantially done by the CRU then I will gladly admit the IPCC is questionable at best.

  • Neu Mejican||

    The problem is this. The emails show that these guys attempted to exclude certain things from the report, but failed in those attempts because the IPCC process was robust enough to work despite having members on both sides of the issue with a political agenda. Trenberth has called for the UN to post the records from the IPCC that document each and every request/comment made during the process and how each was handled in the creation of the final report.

  • MNG||

    Hey John, I'm reading this now, but at first glance I want to say something where we might be missing each other. I see there are several chapters here. Chapter 3 is on the surface temps. But as I've long noted there are chapters on changes in ice and snow, etc. This is largely what I've meant by "ain't there non-CRU related evidence suggesting AGW?" Do you get what I'm saying?

  • ||

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm.....apter3.pdf

    The lead author for the chapter 3 on surface temperatures is none other than Phil Jones.

  • Neu Mejican||

    John,
    You should read this interview with Hans von Storch

    Related to this, the e-mails and datasets hacked in England mentioned at the beginning may be of interest. Are the allegations made to the climate scientists concerning the published material valid?

    There is one thing we can already say: there was no real fabrication. The numbers were not twisted and there was no data massage....

    How should we interpret the word 'trick' that was mentioned in one of the mails?

    That word does not mean there was fabrication.

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.c.....ch-by.html

  • MNG||

    NM
    Both sides should anty up here. If IPCC was largely based on CRU researchers and data it's plainly questionable imo. Do you have any evidence on this point?

  • Neu Mejican||

    The best evidence is the IPCC report itself. It is heavy with citations.

    Also, see my comment upthread.

    The HADcrut3 is one of dozens of data sources used in the report. John over states its importance imho. Another factor is that nothing from the emails hacked from CRU actually calls into question the findings from CRU. Even Hans von Storch, who is very critical of these guys and calls for them to step aside from the IPCC is very clear that he sees no evidence that the scientific findings are altered by any of this.

  • MNG||

    I plan to read this tonight to try and evaluate how much of the evidence rests on CRU stuff.

  • Chad||

    None, because NASA-GISS and NOAA get almost exactly the same results (as does the RSS satellite data...UAH is only modestly different).

    CRU uses much of the same data as NASA and NOAA. It does not provide them the data. The data is collected in most cases by various national weather organizations....you know, the guys who send the weather data to your local TV station.

    Throw out CRU and you are left with NASA and NOAA, processing largely the same data, coming to almost exactly the same conclusion.

    Of course, if we must throw out all CRU data because they are "biased", we must in return throw out everything said by any denier for all time, right?

  • ||

    You're the one who stipulated to that by posting the statement about 46% of the IPCC evidence. I was just responding to the inanity of your claiming that since half the evidence wasn't yet proven to be tainted, no prob with AGW. Dunno if that 46% figure is accurate, high, or low.

    Or were you trying to make some other point, but phrased it in such a way that you inadvertently conceded your opponent's contention?

    re: this: And do you have any logic for this goofy statement?
    "and the other half comes from people whose work is now suspect because of these people"?

    So, if you reach into a basket of oranges at random, and take four oranges out, and two of them are rotting and green-fuzzed, do you sigh with relief and say, "Whew! I'm glad I pulled all the rotten oranges out of that basket!"

    Or do you empty out the basket and scrutinize all the oranges you haven't yet examined for signs that those oranges might also be rotten and need to be tossed out too?

  • MNG||

    But prole, your analogy is again inapt. First of all the claim was never that "46% of the IPCC evidence" was from the CRU, it was that 46% of the IPCC AUTHORS were CRU (I mean, surely a detail oriented scientist like yourself finds such a distinction important?).

    Secondly, noone has provided any reason to believe that figure has a basis in reality.

    There's other problems with the analogy, but let's start with the beginning ;)

  • ||

    MNG I understand your religion. I'm even willing to consider your god may exist. Just as I'm willing to consider Jahweh or Odin. But just as I say to them, produce the corpus. Let's acknowledge the good of climategate that might actually force real reproducible science to be done and have a real debate.

    If you are right, and it's remotely possible, then we can discuss mechanisms to enclose the externality.

    The problem for you is we are due for an ice age and you better hope this interglacial still has a little oomph left before it starts. You're running out of time for this particular excuse for global taxation. Yes I know what you're really about.

  • MNG||

    Also, wasn't some type of "cap and trade" supposed to, in theory at least (as I said what the Congress has wrought under that name is a horrible bill), be a "libertarian" or "market friendly" pollution idea modeled on the Coase Theorem (that takes me way back to grad school days so I might be misremembering)? I mean, the whole idea was to create markets in pollution emissions, right?

  • ||

    It is not a "libertarian" or "market friendly" solution to funnel taxes from the private sector to the public sector to prevent the "externality" of alleged pollution caused by a non-pollutant, namely CO2.

  • MNG||

    prole
    Look, this is going to shock you, but a lot of people who have proven knowledge of science greater than you have proven in your life think you are wrong.

    The burden is kind of you guys...Most people are going to weigh the opinion of all the Academies of Science over the Cranky Libertarian Blog Brigade. It's only rational dude.

  • The Gobbler||

    I'm done with this circular fuck.

  • MNG||

    Please oh Logic Master, don't pussy out so quickly, point out what is circular.

  • The Gobbler||

    Okay, but then I'm done. All you keep saying is that it's the responsibilty of others to prove you are mistaken:

    On the related point, did anyone quell their rage long enough to actually find out how much of the evidence for AGW comes from the CRU Crew?

    You are like a skipping record going around and aro skip a skipping record going around and aro skip a skipping record going around and aro skip a skipping record going around and aro skip

    I don't take homework assignments.

    So really, I'm done with you.

  • MNG||

    There's no skipping.

    I'm arguing against those that claim that the CRU fracas casts doubt on AGW. That's only true to the extent AGW rests on CRU evidence. So I ask for it. Nothing circular to that.

    You're not very smart or educated are you? It's OK you know, there are other ways to be a productive member of society.

  • ||

    I would be interested in seeing how many climate research institutions would allow an external, independent audit to be done concerning their data, methods, and practices.

  • MNG||

    Let me set an example of backing up my empirical claims:
    Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....of_Science

    Yes, its wikipedia. The sources are in the references

  • ||

    Where did they get the data used to reach their conclusions?

  • ||

    And is it "value-added" data?

    Because regular old raw data just isn't good enough for me anymore -- not enough zing.

  • MNG||

    I don't know.

    Do you?

    I'm betting you don't.

    And that's pretty crucial if you want to assume that these expert societies got it wrong I should think. Don't you think that? What kind of careful skeptic are you?

  • Marc||

    Come on. Cameroon only signed because they saw Senegal doing it.

    The national science academy of Zimbabwe? Seriously?

  • MNG||

    Hey, I'm not impressed by a lot of them either. But there are some pretty heavy hitters on the list too. That needs some 'splaining I should think.

  • ||

    Argument to authority, followed by an argument that those proposing radical change do not bear the burden of proof, followed by an ad hominem attack.

    There probably is a pithier term for the middle fallacious argument somewhere here in the "List of Fallacious arguments":

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.....#selective

  • ||

    And that's just MNG's 4:58 post.

  • MNG||

    prole
    Look, you have an elementary knowledge of logic. It's ok, most people don't even have that.

    Do you want to go to the wikipedia argument for authority site before I school you? It might make you feel better to discover your own mistakes rather than have someone point them out in public. I'll give you five minutes and check back.

  • MNG||

    Ok, you have your chance.

    All the "argument from authority fallacy" means is that something is not proven conclusively by the mere pointing to an expert's authority. However, recognizing that experts are more likely to be correct in their relevant fields is a well accepted part of informal logic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....he_fallacy

    Now, think about how shallow your knowledge of logic is before you start throwing out your cute fallacies again...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Look, this is going to shock you, but a lot of people who have proven knowledge of science greater than you have proven in your life think you are wrong.

    And those experts that have proven to have more expertise on immaculate conception think I am wrong about the subject sorely by virtue of their expertise.

    Good argument there, MNG. A+.

  • MNG||

    I'm confused as to why you keep using this stupid analogy.

    Do you think the expertise of one who studies, say, astronomy for 20 years is equivalent to one who studies, say, astrology, for the same amount of time?

    So the experts I'm talking about are geologists, statiticians, astronomers, etc. Yes, I defer to their superior years of study and experience. That doesn't mean I have to defer to someone's superior years of study and experience of, say, unicorns...

  • Old Mexican||

    MNG,

    What I am pointing out is the basic absurdity you peddle here that by virtue of somebody's expertise (even in something YOU trust) is enough for his or their word to be the Very Truth.

    Saying that scientists should be trusted because they are scientists who practice science is nothing more than circular thinking.

  • ||

    Look, this is going to shock you, but a lot of people who have proven knowledge..

    FFS can you post at all without using appeal to authority?

    Your 'authorities' have been proved to lie and defraud. You're 'authorities' models don't work. You're 'authorities' refuse to let their work be vetted. You're 'authorities' refuse to debate other scientists.

    The problem with hanging your hat on appeal to authority is that climategate just eviscerated your authority.

  • WyoDave||

    Not when carbon credits are allotted as proposed in the Markey-Waxman bill (i.e., allocated based on politics).

  • MNG||

    I agree totally with this statement. The current bill is the usual unworkable, pork infested crap that comes from making a bill via a 400+ person committee.
    Honestly, I'd like to try less coercive measures even if Cap and Trade makes sense in theory; but this bill doesn't even make sense in theory to me...

  • WyoDave||

    The sweet unintended consequence of this bill is that, if it becomes law, would likely dramatically reduce domestic oil refining. Canadian crude would be put on tankers, shipped to new super refineries in India with the refined products being put back on tankers to be shipped to the U.S. Talk about increasing the carbon footprint and the potential for environmental catastrophe.

  • ||

    ExxonMobil has donated over $250,000 to Reason.

    So to use the language of the rugged individualist libertarian freedomites here:

    HURRR DUUUURRRR !!!

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE.

    I GET MORE MONEY WHEN I SUCK BIG OIL'S GLOBALLY WARM DICK!!!

    I LIKE TO LIE FOR MONEY!!!!!!

    REASON IS AN INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION!!!!

    SLURRPY DUURPPY!!!

    DERP DERP DURRR!!!
    HURR!!

  • ||

    What?! Where's my cut, bitches!?

  • ||

    Well, I'm convinced!

  • ||

    ExxonMobil has donated over $250,000 to Reason.

    Wow, they're spending 40 times that much on low sulphur diesel projects by next year.

    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corp.....ments.aspx

    I'm sorry. You were saying? Something about "HUR DUR DUR?"

  • bazzoom||

    donated, or paid for advertising (not familiar with the print medium, genuinely curious, as it changes the "significance")

  • Neu Mejican||

    MNG,

    Indeed, the cap and trade scheme is being marketed as a market-based solution that is more likely to get Republican voites. Most of the environmentalist have been pushing a carbon tax for the last 20 years or so, but it contains the word "tax" so they seem to think it is a non-starter politically.

  • ||

    On its face, I think that a straight tax on carbon would be fairer and less of a bloody political football than cap and trade.

    Both represent a drag on economic growth that will probably be more damaging than the results of global warming (or those things attributed to global warming), but a tax you can avoid is better than a quasi-VAT on all manufactured goods.

  • MNG||

    I'd like to avoid a straight carbon tax if possible. It would be a brake on productivity, and productivity increases human welfare. Any proponent of such a brake would have to show it accomplishes benefits that outweight the harms it will cause.

  • ||

    Do you want an invisible thing that pounds you in the ass or a visible thing that pounds you in the ass?

    Mr. Faust, phone call for Mr. Faust....

  • ||

    In order for "Cap and Trade" to work, you have to price carbon high enough to make lesser energy sources competetive. Whether it be a tax or cap and trade, the end result is either an ineffective program that doesn't reduce carbon or an effective program that drastically reduces people's standard of living and creates a tremendous amount of increased poverty and harm.

  • ||

    "most environmentalists pushing carbon tax for 20 years".

    (citation needed)

  • ||

    Reason, a wholly owned mouthpiece of ExxonMobil, would like to remind you that there's no such thing as man-made global warming and burning fossil fuels is good for the environment.

    Stay vigilant, citizen.

  • ||

    So you're convinced that Reason is biased because ExxonMobil contributed $250,000?

    Yet, you don't see how billions and billions of dollars given to scientists by national governments could possibly convince climate scientists to be less than completely honest about the data they've been gather?

  • The Gobbler||

    he's just an 8-pack of crayons.

  • Tony||

    What would the motive be for governments to promote junk science in this area?

    Something more specific than "rahh tyranny socialism rahh!", please.

  • ||

    I'm not saying there's a global conspiracy.

    I'm saying that if the scientists couldn't produce data that conclusively showed that AGW was true, then the governments, corporations, etc wouldn't see any point in continuing to sink money into the same kind of research.

    Thus, the scientists had a very strong motive to fudge data.

    I don't see why someone like crayon is so willing to say that Reason obviously can't be trusted because they received $250,000 from an energy company, yet he doesn't see a strong case for probable bias when billions of dollars are involved in climate research.

    Not to mention, AGW creates a crisis. Governments love a crisis.

    For all of Obama's criticism of Bush about not taking science seriously (much of it deserved), I don't see him speaking out against the proof that CRU scientists were fudging their data.

  • Tony||

    Well, Reason quite demonstrably can't be trusted on this subject, since it obsesses over the scribblings of an intelligent design believing professor in Alabama or wherever the fuck and refuses to place said scribblings in the context of all of the available science on the matter.

    (I have a lot to say about Reason and CATO and their being mouthpieces for industry interests, but your eyes will probably just glaze over if I start ranting about that.)

    Anyway, global warming research has been going on for decades. If it was all a lie it would require a conspiracy of absurd proportions, and no rational person has any reason to believe in something so patently ridiculous while totally dismissing all of the actual evidence that exists.

    So all we have are people who WANT to believe it's a hoax and coming up with conspiracy theories to justify that desire, and none of them are even remotely plausible, let alone evidenced.

  • ||

    Global warming research has been going for decades, but it's only recently that's become a popular movement with a specific agenda. Again, I'm not saying there's a massive conspiracy. I'm saying that pressures are in place to promote dishonesty - which has occurred. It's the opposite of the idea of check and balances. The situation has just escalated out of proportion.

    You can't deny that AGW has become highly politicized. I don't see drastic political consequences involved with the outcome of the Large Hadron Collider experiments.

    What exactly does intelligent design have to do with AGW?

    The climate scientists haven't proven that it's not a hoax by A) not releasing their data, code, models, etc for other scientists to examine; and then B) by having their emails stolen showing exactly why they haven't released any of those things in the first place.

  • Chad||

    How could anyone working on climate issues, watching the data get worse every day, NOT develop an "agenda"?

    Scientists show absurd levels of restraint on this matter, carefully saying only what they can precisely defend. This doesn't work so well when the other "side" spouts lies and hyperbole at will, even after it has been utterly debunked.

    On one side you have well over 95% of the researchers, numbering in the thousands. On the other "side", you have a couple dozen at most, all of whom are strongly conservative. In any politicized situation, you will have a few hardcore people on each side whose mind cannot be changed by facts. When you get to the point where it is 30:1 in favor of one point of view, you can be pretty certain that the 1 is just this residual element on that side.

    Is there an opposing "1" on the other side? Sure. But that leaves the 29 in the middle...all of whom agree that AGW is a serious problem.

  • ||

    Tony
    You have descended to calling people "corporate shills" now? How intellectually tiresome. Sigh.

  • MNG||

    Ron
    How many hundreds of posts have I read on the threads this past week claiming scientists who think AGW is happening are bought by government and private grant money, and yet you never intervened? WTF?

  • ||

    I don't see why so many people take issue with this.

    It's logical to not bite the hand that feeds you.

    Therefore, it's also logical to take these experimental results with a grain of salt.

    I'm not saying that just because a scientist takes his money from a grant, he's fudging his data. I'm just saying the right pressures are in place to give the scientist a motive to do so.

  • Tony||

    Look, here's another reason this line of pure speculation is ridiculous. It hasn't been governments pressuring scientists to come up with evidence of a catastrophe.

    It's been scientists desperately pleading with governments to take action on what they have discovered to be happening.

    And seriously what kind of sociopath would invent a horrifying doomsday scenario to secure grant money? And we're supposed to believe the entire scientific community is infested with such amoral creatures?

  • ||

    uh, yeah.

  • Warty||

    Is this a sly joke, Ron? Putting "Tony" and "intellectual" in the same sentence, I mean.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re; Tony,

    What would the motive be for governments to promote junk science in this area?

    a) Money
    b) Money
    c) Money

    Oh, and d) Power.

  • Tony||

    Not good enough. There's been plenty of money on the anti- side as well. In fact, the biggest political problem climate scientists have is the fact that bogus anti- science has been getting affirmative action from industry interests and confusing the issue with the public.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Not good enough. There's been plenty of money on the anti- side as well.

    Oh, goody - the "Everybody does it" defense.

    The scientists were supposed to be above politics and money - they sure shown they were not, otherwise they would not have been so crass about their peccadillos.

  • Tony||

    Cite one example of a scientist accepting money to pretend that climate change is real when he really believes it isn't. One.

  • ||

    I doubt that any scientist would come forward and admit that directly, since he'd probably be put in jail.

    Those CRU emails certainly show that scientists were manipulating data to "prove" that it was occuring.

    You ask for evidence, but when people point you toward the emails (that the CRU scientists themselves haven't said are not true) it's still not good enough.

  • Tony||

    Those CRU emails certainly show that scientists were manipulating data to "prove" that it was occuring.

    No, they do not.

  • ||

    Data sets were outright deleted. Freedom of Information Acts were circumvented. The peer review process was mocked. ETC. ETC.

    If evidence of AGW was as overwhelming as you argue, why do the scientists doing the research have such a problem with being completely open with their data?

    If the data is true, it's true, right? This is objective science we're talking about. Why not post everything you've done on a website in opensource style and let anyone look at what you've done. Completely transparent.

  • Marc||

    Let's see, all I have to do is figure out what every climatologist really believes.

    Um...

  • MNG||

    Well, more important to me is that this is just not how grants work. I seriously doubt the grants are granted on the grantees conclusion being X before the research which the grant is to fund occurs. I've never seen a grant like that...

  • ||

    If a scientist submits a proposal that says "This experiment will conclusively prove whether AGW is really occuring", the gov. gives the guy the money and 2 years later, he still hasn't conclusively proven anything...do you really think the gov. will keep giving the guy money?

    Also, if you're right, and grants don't really work like that, wouldn't that also apply to the oil companies supporting anti-AGW research?

  • Old Mexican||

    I posit the same to you. SHOW me ONE instance of a scientist that through his research has shown AGW is bogus, that you can prove he's paid by BIG OIL and that he admits the science he did was wrong and that he was paid handsomly for it.

    It is EASIER to expect a scientist working under the government DOLE to supply ANYTHING that will keep the tap open, rather than a scientist receivig R&D money from a private corporation NOT showing anything of value.

  • Tony||

    Fuck man, it's not government prodding scientists to give them what they want. Governments are moving as slowly and hamfistedly as always. Scientists are begging governments to do what's necessary.

    I mean really if this was about government power wouldn't they pick something a little more, I dunno, politically palatable than global climate disaster??

  • ||

    You mean like "everyone gets money from ExxonMobil, so Reason's OK and not at all corrupt?"

  • ||

    Well, they're about to push a plan that would swallow half the world's economic output. But I can't think of anything.

  • ||

    An opportunity to do what they've wanted to do all along: raise taxes and tell companies how to run their businesses?

    Seriously, you don't see that this area of science has become politicized?

  • Tony||

    Uh, they could do that without an outlandish conspiracy involving the world's scientific community and esoteric atmospheric phenomena, don't you think?

    This is really quite silly, you know.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Hey, anything to destroy capitalism and America...

  • ||

    What would the motive be for governments to promote junk science in this area?

    Taxes. What politician doesn't ever not seek an excuse to tax? No conspiracy needed. Just garden variety political sleazeballs.

    Lol wtf Tony. I would insult you but I still think you may be purposely setting up easy targets for us to knock down.. if so I salute you. You have a thicker skin than I.

  • ||

    Yeah. Who ever heard of or cared about a climate scientist until the AGW scare? If they came out tommorow and said the whole thing wasn't true, who would care about them afterwards? As it is, they get billions in grants and are advising world leaders. Yeah, no motivation to find AGW there.

  • Tony||

    So climate scientists have Svengalified all world leaders into believing their hoax because they want attention.

    It's a theory. Any evidence whatsoever anywhere for this? Those emails you masturbate over notably lack any reference to the global conspiracy of attention-whore scientists, after all, so I assume you have something else to back up your outlandish nonsense?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So climate scientists have Svengalified all world leaders into believing their hoax because they want attention.

    You seem not to get how "world leaders" [doublespeak for bureaucrats and politicians] will subscribe to any notion that will allow them to justify plunder.

    Like "We're in a crisis", "This unprecedented crisis", "We must act to avert this crisis", and so on. Politicians live of crisis.

  • ||

    More like P.T. Barnum than Svengali.

  • Dorquemada||

    Or Rasputin

  • ||

    We have 100s of e-mails where the biggest proponents of this hoax are fudging data, and supressing dissent. So, yes I would call that evidence. They all believed it, got rich off of it, and did anything they could to supress any evidence that contradicted the theory.

    You can call that a lot of things, but you can't call it science.

  • ||

    You'll notice that I said above I didn't think there was a global conspiracy. I think there's rampant dishonesty.

    Governments are sinking billions into the research because it's popular. Most government officials are elected. Take the U.S. for example, whenever a politician runs for office, one of the worst things that can happen is that they get a reputation for not caring about the environment.

    The minute they vote against a bill giving money for climate research, that's the reputation they get.

    So, voters care about the environment, don't want to be responsible for destroying the earth, and want their officials to do something about it. Politicians give money to climate scientists to show they care, and use the issue to marginalize any challenger against granted that money. Climate scientists are backed into a corner because if they can't produce the evidence that there is a crisis, they don't get a paycheck.

    It becomes a vicious circle that escalates into what we have today.

    Those emails don't show a global conspiracy, but they do show dishonest data manipulation, manipulation of the peer review process, and deleting data sets that don't support a predetermined outcome.

  • Tony||

    That's all very nice, care to provide a single shred of evidence for your claims?

    Thing is, I actually believe there has been a vast conspiracy here. One that is actually well documented. Oil and coal companies spent decades funding junk science and advertising the sole purpose of which was to cast doubt on climate change. Their motive is of course obvious.

    The best analogy is tobacco companies and their attempts to suppress or confuse cigarette smoking's link to lung cancer.

    They were forced to admit reality because it became absurd to continue trying to deny it. Guess what? The same thing has happened in the oil and coal industries. They no longer deny the reality of climate change, even though they have a huge financial stake in doing so. They just can't do it anymore with a straight face because the evidence is so overwhelming.

    Which brings us to the question of why normal citizens with no dog in the fight continue to peddle long-discredited denialism when even the fucking polluting industries themselves no longer do so (at least not as much).

  • Old Mexican||

    Tony,

    Oil and coal companies spent decades funding junk science [sic] and advertising the sole purpose of which was to cast doubt on climate change. Their motive is of course obvious.

    it is just as obvious the motives of the East Anglia scientists to peddle CONFIRMED junk science.

  • Tony||

    What fucking motive? All I see is a bunch of weak speculation and it's mind-numbingly obvious that you WANT to believe it's a hoax and that no amount of data will convince you otherwise. You're not coming at this objectively. If you were, you'd have no option but to believe in global warming.

  • Old Mexican||

    What fucking motive?

    You don't think that having your name etched on a civilization-changing policy is motive enough?

    Having the ear of the politicians? Being able to dictate wat research is funded and which will not (i.e. screw your competitors) is not motive enough?

    Having as much power as Trofim Lysenko not motive enough?

    There are plenty of plausible motives.

  • Dorquemada||

    Jetting of to celebrity filled extravaganzas in exciting exotic locales every 6 months.

    Hookers - don't foget the Hookers

  • Chad||

    Citation, please.

    Exactly what paper has been refuted by what evidence?

  • ||

    Do I really need to cite evidence of things like "politicians who have a reputation for not caring about the environment are unpopular", "the majority of climate scientists' money comes from governments and corporations", and "the vast majority of the public don't want to destroy the earth?"

    If you're living in the same world that I am, those things should be pretty obvious and straight forward. This is a comment board, I'm not writing a PHD thesis.

    Energy companies have an extremely strong incentive to be green. It's the same incentive that politicians have. Green companies are more popular, and that's important since they want to actually make a profit. They no longer deny climate change for the same reasons that governments don't - it's not a popular thing to do.

    GM said they were building the next generation of electric cars, so Congress bailed them out. GM then dropped the electric car program because it wasn't feasible. Unlike the cigarette industry, energy companies can adjust to a different market.

    You keep talking about overwhelming evidence after the one of the largest climate research institutions in the world was just busted for manipulating data. I wonder if every other climate research institution would be willing to undergo an external audit?

    Normal citizens do have a dog in the fight. I don't want to be taxed to death because of a global crisis that no one can prove actually exists. Normal citizens, unlike governments and corporations, don't have to worry about being popular.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You keep talking about overwhelming evidence after the one of the largest climate research institutions in the world was just busted for manipulating data. I wonder if every other climate research institution would be willing to undergo an external audit?


    The e-mails in question contained admissions that their models overestimated the amount of warming that would occur this decade.

    If they were wrong about that, they might be wrong on the actual effects of a generally warmer climate.

    hell, people claim that global warming would threaten California's water supplies, and yet during the warmest year of this decade, the amount of precipitation that fell in California was...

  • Chad||

    If you ever read one of their papers concerning the models, you would know that they never claimed to be able to predict short-term fluctuations.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Why did they want to hide the decline.

    By the way, ten years is ten percent of a century, and they expect to predict the amount of warming that would occur in a century .

  • Chad||

    I diagree. Companies have little incentive to be green. The don't even have that much incentive to appear green. Sure, they may sway a few customers by appearing to be so, but for a company who is really filthy, any such profits gained are dwarfed by the potential costs of avoiding (or cleaning up) the messes they make.

  • ||

    Which brings us to the question of why normal citizens with no dog in the fight

    We do have a dog in the fight.

    We have the only dog in the fight.

    We will bear the burden of this tax justified by a fantasy. We will lose the jobs. We will pay more to heat our homes. We will pay more to get to work. We will pay more for everything and anything which is produced using energy.. which is everything.

  • ||

    gathering*

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    The burden is kind of you guys...Most people are going to weigh the opinion of all the Academies of Science over the Cranky Libertarian Blog Brigade. It's only rational dude.

    "He who alledges must prove." The problem with AGW is that in ordr to prvoe a man-made origin for the supposed rising temperatures, one would have to know the historical record of temperature variances pre-industrial age. Any rapid increase in temperatures compared to this benchmark would have to be explained in terms of rising CO2 emissions as these would be the only variable obvious enough.

    The CRU was supposed to collate and supply that historical information because there is NO other way to show warming without this benchmark. Now it has been shown through the e-mails and the program that they colluded to hide, distort and ignore any data that showed deviations from the EXPECTED results of the benchmark.

    Since many research hubs DEPENDED on this information, they pretty much confirmed the observations of the CRU, except that nobody has even bothered to create a parallel benchmark (i.e. a historical record for temperatures) to confirm if the conclusions were correct. Everybody just assumed the data given by the CRU was correct, so everybody gets the same results.

    So NO conspiracy was needed - all you needed was a group of trusting scientists that could not have conceived their esteemed colleagues at East Anglia were charlatans. Now they confront the fact that their research may be wrong, and we're talking about YEARS of research - it is diffifcult to accept that the science they did for pretty much of their lives was incorrect. It is no wonder then that they would chose to close ranks, hoping the matter can resolve itself. But it won't.

  • MNG||

    "He who alledges must prove."

    Well, yes, but I see you guys as alleging. You are alleging that the scientific consensus rests on shaky ground. You can prove that to me by demonstrating how much of that consensus rests on the CRU's work and data.

  • Old Mexican||

    MNG,

    IF the CRU data was not that important, then why the closing-of-the-ranks? Why hasn't other research hubs said "Hey, guys, forget about those assholes, OUR data is good?"

    Instead, you see a circling of the wagons around the CRU - it is clear tere is something about THEIR research that carries that amount of weight.

    From the IPCC report, I gathered that the CRU models rests on their historical record that they created, which they used to collate the current readings. If that record was wrong or even INVENTED, then their research is bogus. And, Zeus forbid, if that benchmark was used by other researchers, THEIR data is going to be wrong, and *poof* there goes the evidence. That would make MANY scientist circle THEIR wagons... if their funding depended on this.

  • Chad||

    Have you actually read anything written by a non-crackpot scientist concerning this affair? It is doubtful.

    We generally are peeved at some of the antics at HADCRU, but there is precisely zero concern about the science.

  • ||

    The CRU correspondents pantsed by the Climategate revelations are culpable of much more than "antics," and if they are not themselves describable as "crackpots," they are criminal frauds, which is far worse.

    One of the most interesting confirmations supported by the Climategate information dump is that the "Hockey Team" members have been quite aware of instrumental temperature declines since 1998 in spite of observations that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been rising.

    Hitherto, I had merely thought them incompetent. Now I appreciate the fact that they're liars. If their climatological models are valid, and if increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations necessarily cause global warming, then the temperature declines of the past nine years are not possible.

    That these declines have occurred (and can't be hand-waved away) gives reason to abandon the CRU correspondents' models and the theories upon which those models are supposedly based, and look for other causes - non-anthropogenic causes - of global climate change.

    What does this mean?

    Well, for one, it means that there is no need to reduce humanity's "carbon footprint," and therefore efforts to do so are not only worthless but malicious.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Hmmmm. They were aware of the divergence in the tree-ring data and hid it by publishing numerous papers on the issue?

    Really ... there's nothing in the emails that was not in the journals.

    Even Hans Von Storch, who calls for these guys to step down from the IPCC is very clear that this scandal includes no evidence of data fabrication or improper manipulation. The fascinating thing to me is the instant myth that has developed that these emails contain evidence of scientific fraud. They just don't. They damage the reputations of some prominent scientists, who behaved badly.

  • ||

    Well, yes, but I see you guys as alleging.

    MNG you're not Tony and I know you know how real science works.

    Produce a model that is predictive and we'll talk. Until then you've got nothing to even assert except a political agenda.

    The burden is on the proposed theory.

  • Chad||

    There is no "proof" in science. How many times do we have to teach you third-grade level science before it sticks?

  • ||

    Sure there is proof in science, at least for all practical purposes. Our abilities to shoot spacecraft to the outer planets and beyond with accuracy, and to track them via telemetry and other means during the journey, provide "practical proof" every day that our science in the areas of cosmology, gravitation, motion, and other fundamental sectors of physics, is sound and robust. On the other hand, our science in the area of global warming doesn't yet seem as sound as Ptolemaic cosmological theory with the numerous epicycle adjustments it eventually received. People could actually rely on the elaborately patched geocentric view of the universe for some things, but who can actually rely on climate science in its current state? Where are the useful predictions, much less the extremely accurate ones that we routinely expect from "rocket science"?

    When rocket scientists tell us that the asteroid Apophis might hit the earth, we have strong information about a possible threat to the planet. When they say, no, it is going to miss us after all, we can have confidence in that adjustment. When climate scientists foretell disaster, on the other hand, especially on the basis of computer "models" of climate dynamics, we have no real basis for believing them beyond, perhaps, the raw information that temperatures overall seem to have gone up or down during a given interval.

    It is folly for political, public policy to be based on a discipline that is so immature and incapable of either making reliable predictions or suggesting effective remedies for alleged problems.

    For ordinary people, the fact that science makes reliable predictions and can direct us to effective responses to our problems, is all the "proof" they need, and is indeed the minimum "proof" that they find credible. As long as that standard is met, frankly, the rigorousness of the theoretical foundation or intellectual process doesn't really matter to Joe Q. Public. But climate science hasn't even cleared that bar. Until it does, it needs to stay in the laboratory. The likelihood, not to mention the cost, of mistaken predictions or wrongly prescribed remedies is simply too high. We are talking about environmental and economic mistakes potentially being made on a global basis, now. When the underlying science is so squishy, I would rather take my chances of having to adapt to whatever may be coming.

  • Neu Mejican||

    JAM,

    I liked this comment. Lots of good in it. I don't think you are quite accurate about the state of climate science, however, that is certainly a debatable point.

    One of the issues I have with many of the predictions in this field is that the economic models are the weakest part of this area, yet many of the people who question the AGW hypothesis jump on those economic models and point to the certain doom that the proposed responses will create and the moderate damage that doing nothing will force us to deal with. But these models are trying to predict Black Swans. To extend Taleb's analogy from his book to this issue, climate science has provided us with a pretty good prediction that there will be "war" (bad event), but the economic modelers are trying to predict how bad that war will be. Thing is, there is no way to predict the scale of that war.

    So you have predictions from Taleb's 3rd quadrant (climate) being called unscientific, while predictions from the 4th quadrant (economic impacts of climate) are swallowed whole.

    To quote Taleb:

    This absence of "typical" event in Extremistan is what makes prediction markets ludicrous, as they make events look binary. "A war" is meaningless: you need to estimate its damage—and no damage is typical. Many predicted that the First War would occur—but nobody predicted its magnitude. Of the reasons economics does not work is that the literature is almost completely blind to the point.
  • Neu Mejican||

    The policy implications of this analogy, to me, seem pretty clear. We work to prevent wars without knowing how bad those wars are going to be. Likewise, it makes sense to avoid the damage that AGW is likely to cause despite the fact that we can't predict the extent of the damage.

    The "do nothing we'll adapt" crowd are hoping that we are facing Granada, but we might be facing the equivalent of World War I.

  • Dorquemada||

    Chad-"There is no "proof" in science.-"

    Not in your religious science -er AGW

  • ||

    There is no "proof" in science. How many times do we have to teach you third-grade level science before it sticks?

    This is because you think political science is science.

  • MNG||

    John
    Thanks for posting to the ACTUAL IPCC REPORT (Sweet Jesus why did it take so long to get someone to do that?)

    In case anyone is interested Chapter 3 does have Phil Jones as one of two leading authors. That's certainly bad for the IPCC report imo.

    Here is the cite for Ch. 3
    Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci,
    B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
    Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S.,
    D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
    Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

  • ||

    MNG,

    CRU was a big deal. And a lot of work was based on it. It is going to take years to sort out how much of the CRU work is bogus and how much of the other work was based on the bogus CRU work.

    I have consistently said that this scandal does not disrpove AGW. Although I personally don't believe in AGW, I understand the CRU fraud doesn't prove my case. But what it does do is necessitate a pause. All the work ought to be re-evaluated and the science reconsidered. That shouldn't take more than a couple of years. There are trillions of dollars riding on this. It is certainly worth taking our time. If the believers are so sure, why object to stopping and making sure we got it right? My suspicion is that the believers know that if we really look at the science, we will find out that man may be having an effect on the climate but that that effect is pretty small and doesn't justify huge action. The believers are terrified of that conclusion. If that is the conclusion, then they don't get to get rich or at the very least they find out they have been wasting their time for the last 15 years.

    But, the right thing to do ought to be to stop and let independent people sort out the science in an open informative process.

  • ||

    Think of the CRU correspondences as linking the stewardship of the three principal world meteorological databases upon which all global climatological work is predicated.

    Now think of a combination of reputable, upright-appearing individuals who, between them, operate all of the best pre-schools in the Western world, setting the standard for early childcare and the education of youngsters below the age of six.

    Now realize that all of these pedagogues have been, for more than twenty years, running the largest, most hideous sadistic child prostitution ring in history, complete with "snuff film" exercises resulting in the torture, rape, and murder of the children in their care.

    Do you now grasp the nature of Prof. Jones', Dr. Mann's, Dr. Trenberth's, and their colleagues' "antics"?

    While maintaining the seeming of dispassionate and impartial scientific rigor, these persons were in actuality hacking, clawing, and covering-up like a covey of cats overdosed on Ex-Lax.

    I'd suggest tar and feathers, but I still have hopes for something involving a vat of boiling oil and a slow hoist.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Wow. That's the most hyperbolic claim I have heard yet. Kudos.

  • ||

    Shit, James, almost all of the world's leaders, including our America-hating president, are gathering to make rules that intentionally give America's earned wealth to the third world, and you don't see any conspiracy?

  • ||

    I find it hard to believe that a group of people sat in a back room somewhere and said "ok, this is what we're going to do..."

    There's certainly a movement with a huge political agenda. I guess anything with a "political agenda" could be a kind of conspiracy.

  • Tony||

    But it has to be at least nefarious enough to convince the world's leading experts on the subject to throw away all of their credibility for some of that mountain of grant money, or whatever the fuck.

    You can't get around the fact that if you're correct then the vast majority of experts on this subject have to be involved in a conspiracy to deceive the public, and that every single check on their research that occurs in the scientific process has been compromised.

    You just can't believe something that improbable.

  • Old Mexican||

    Tony,

    Scientists ARE fallible - you know that, don't you?

    I learned that the hard way - I really wanted to believe Cold Fusion was a reality, and got suckered.

    Since then I always take any EXTRAORDINARY claim from them with a grain of salt . . .

  • ||

    OM, fortunately my fusion researching Dad called bullshit on cold fusion immediately. Unfortunately he eventually called bullshit on deuterium fusing as well. Not sure how he behaved when he was in it hot and heavy, though. So to speak.

  • Tony||

    Of course scientists are fallible. So are crackpots. The difference is scientists know they're fallible and work to correct for it, rigorously.

  • ||

    If you major in climate science in college, and you want to be able to feed yourself...which side of the issue are you going to support?

    People go where the money is.

  • Chad||

    The few scientists who are skeptical get lavish funding from conservative groups and big business, you twit.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Citation, please.

    Er, citationS.

    And make 'em credible. MediaMatters doesn't count.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Big business provide goods and services.

    Environmentalists are parasites like the Anopheles mosquito.

  • Old Mexican||

    And, rememeber Facilitated Communication? Peer reviewed and all - the skeptics were being labeled by moms as "cruel" and "evil." Same shit.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Yes, it is true, peer review is a very low bar. That said, Facilitated Communication is hardly a good analogy to use as it was the publication in peer reviewed studies that led quickly to it being shown to be hogwash.

    Why has that not happened as robustly to the AGW claims?

  • Chad||

    Anyone claiming peer review is a "low bar" has never published anything.

    I would estimate every paper I have published has represented between three and eight thousand man-hours of labor, by uniformly intelligent people, and has been scrutinized in various forms by literally hundreds of people before ever being sent to the reviewers, who then ask for a few hundred more hours of work to keep sure every i is dotted and t is crossed.

  • g4m3th3ory||

    Which only proves you don't know any editors.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I publish on a pretty regular basis.

    It is a low bar in the sense that getting through peer review does not mean your study is important, correct, or well done.

  • ||

    You can't get around the fact that if you're correct then the vast majority of experts

    Number one, that's not true.

    Number two even if it were, every real scientific advance was made by a tiny minority proving the 'vast majority' wrong. And the 'vast majority' are usually wrong because it's politically expedient or profitable or even safer to be wrong. See Galileo.

    You're not making a good case.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Well, given that Obama Himself described his brief stint in the private sector as being "behind enemy lines"...

  • ||

    MNG:

    The CRU historical dataset is

    (a) based on raw data that has been destroyed, and

    (b) was massaged in ways that are no longer documented.

    Either of this disallows it from the basis of any serious scientific project.

    So at this point, I would say that anyone doing climate science work needs to make an affirmative representation that the CRU dataset was not involved in any way. Doesn't that seem reasonable to you?

  • MNG||

    RC
    I don't disagree with that. I think I've said twenty times on this thread alone: to the extent AGW rests on research using the CRU data or comes from CRU research it is now questionable at best.

    My question is: how much of the evidence for AGW falls into that category.

  • Chad||

    No, the data was NOT destroyed. The organizations that they borrowed our purchased it from still have it.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

    Whoops. I wonder how many conservative news outlets spouted this lie without even minimal fact checking?

    Errr, well.

  • g4m3th3ory||

    Media Matters? A joke?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    No, he's not joking. People like Chad actually read - and believe - what gets posted on MediaMatters.

    They were either dropped on their heads as infants... or just recently.

  • ||

    No one claimed they destroyed all the data. It's like Bush producing the torture memos that weren't incriminating and then claiming that means he produced all the memos. Don't be a tool.

  • ||

    Thanks for posting to the ACTUAL IPCC REPORT (Sweet Jesus why did it take so long to get someone to do that?)

    Jumping Mohammed, MNG, what's so hard about finding it for yourself?

  • Neu Mejican||

    That was my first thought.
    It is one of the most easily found objects on the web.

  • ||

    A modest proposal

    Since alternative energy is needed to save us from evil fossil fuels, I suggest rounding up the entire gang of eco's and enviro's, their enablers, mouthpieces, henchmen and hangers on.
    Ship them for life to alternative energy camps, where they can joyfully save the world by generating groovy green electricity. Via treadmills.

    It'll be first time most of them did any useful work...

  • Old Mexican||

    Neu,

    I don't think you're a watermellon. There, satisfied?

    I just think you're a dyed-in-the-wool Statist, that's all, just not as wacky as Chad or Tony -- shrug --

  • MNG||

    Here's why libertarians struggle to crack the 2% vote ceiling.

    NM is pretty far from a Stalinist. He's been pretty friendly to libertarian ideas here before.

    But hey, everyone must affirm every point in the Creed or they =Stalinists, right?

  • Old Mexican||

    Hey, I didn't say he was a Stalinist, just a Statist. And, not one as wacky as Tony or Chad...

    ... or you.

  • Neu Mejican||

    To help everyone calibrate their political compass. Everytime I take one of those political compass quizzes, I end up dead center on the left-right axis with a moderate bias towards anti-authoritarian on the up-down axis.

  • Old Mexican||

    So you're a mini-Statist...

  • ||

    I guess none of the quiz questions ask anything about universal pre-K.

  • Old Mexican||

    Or taxing the productive to give it to the UNproductive...

  • Neu Mejican||

    I do not support universal pre-K.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I have no conceptual problem with taxes being used to fund government. I do think that the use of user fees is more appropriate for many government functions, but for programs that are not amenable to that funding structure, taxes may be needed.

  • ||

    That's actually a reasonable view point.

    I don't mind the idea of paying taxes. The government needs some money to do it's job...if they could find a way to be self supporting, that'd be great.

    I have a huge problem having money taken from me and then used for idiotic things. It's waste. The government shouldn't have an unlimited line of credit with the American people.

  • Old Mexican||

    Jeez, Neu, then what the hell are you arguing about?

  • MNG||

    I think he's arguing about what I'm arguing about: that AGW is likely for real.

    I'm not a scientist. I've stated why I think it is for real: because more experts think it is than think it is not.

    I'm sure there are all kinds of incentives on both sides to cheat, and incentives to not cheat. And personal ideologies and politics etc. But I think that the agreement is so broad based-coming from so many different fields, nations, etc., that I conclude these people are more likely right than not.

    I really hardly think that is irrational.

    More important, while I never pretended to be a libertarian, I don't see any reason why a good libertarian can't, as a scientific matter, conclude that AGW is probably for real. I mean, the fact that some people are aggresive means we might have to fund government police and defense and some nuts think it demands social workers galore and such, but who thinks libertarians should deny that people are aggresive because it could be used to justify big government?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I think he's arguing about what I'm arguing about: that AGW is likely for real.

    That's not what YOU are arguing - you assert that AGW is a fact by virtue of the expertise of the so-called "climate" scientists and the purported evidence they have shown (which is now in question).

    More important, while I never pretended to be a libertarian, I don't see any reason why a good libertarian can't, as a scientific matter, conclude that AGW is probably for real.

    That is not what's being discussed - even in the event AGW is real, what makes YOU think the proposed "solutions" (which amount to world-wide impoverishment of the productive populations) would do ANYTHING to stop any assumed effect?

  • ||

    Wow, I can't believe I agree with you MNG. I think that yes, scientists who think that AGW is true and their followers have the potential to be biased. But so do scientists who think that AGW is false and the deniers. The libertarian deniers do not want the science to be true because they think it would mean that there is a problem that libertarianism can't solve. This is not a reason to reject the opinion of the majority of climate scientists, nor does it mean that there is a problem with libertarianism.

  • ||

    I'm not a scientist. I've stated why I think it is for real: because more experts think it is than think it is not.

    MNG, you do realize this standard would have put you on the wrong side of science at almost every turn?

    You do understand that is one reason why ad verecundiam is antithetical to good science?

    Although you may have a point. If you don't even understand science perhaps you should not argue a scientific position.

    Also, if you're so certain of you're authorities why will not one have a public debate with climatologists? Do you think it wouldn't get ratings? What are they afraid of?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican,
    Well, I think that a user fee on carbon is a good approach to address a real externalization of our current energy use. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that AGW is a scam designed to destroy the world's economy.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Well, I think that a user fee on carbon is a good approach to address a real externalization of our current energy use. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that AGW is a scam designed to destroy the world's economy.


    Okay.

    Round, to the nearest degree, how much a carbon tax will lower global temperatures.

  • ||

    Glad to hear it. You have defended studies that indicated nominal improvement, but I shouldn't take that to mean you support it. Sorry.

  • Neu Mejican||

    James Ard,

    Education is a local issue. I have no problem with communities deciding to provide subsidized access to pre-k programs (think head-start), but Universal Pre-k implies mandatory pre-K and that is clearly intrusive to families for no good reason.

  • ||

    Ron is too married to his carbon tax to be objective. Any and all "solutions" to AGW need to be set aside until we get to the bottom of the data. If there is non-CRU generated data that can explain the midievel warming period then let's have it. I'm still waiting, NASA.

  • Chad||

    There is no bottom in science. You are asking for us to wait forever.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    There is no bottom in science. You are asking for us to wait forever.


    Why should we not wait forever?

  • ||

    "There is no bottom in science."

    Well Chad, since the position is open maybe you should apply.

  • ||

    There is no bottom in science. You are asking for us to wait forever.

    Right it's really too bad that science can never get to the bottom we might get out of these mud huts and have us some steam engines, lasers, microchips, refrigerators, diesel engines, compasses, dynamos, vaccines, airplanes, food preservation, rocketships, antibiotics, agriculture, satellites, radios, microwaves, plastics, pasteurization..

    Oh wait.. wwe have those things! Sweet!

    So I guess we do get to 'bottoms'.

    What were you saying again?

  • Old Mexican||

    I'm still waiting, NASA.

    Don't wait for this one standing up . . . I always though NASA would be the first to be shown that their research was bogus. I did not expect a research institute like CRU to fall first . . . But it is just a matter of time before a brave Feynman-like person exposes NASA.

  • ||

    James
    Not married to carbon tax - just pointing out that it's likely to be less bad than the version of cap and trade that will emerge from UN or Capitol Hill negotiations.

  • ||

    Why even engage the issue when we don't have any idea what's going on yet?

  • ||

    Agreed.

    I don't think anything in science has ever been this politically charged. At least since Galileo.

    No one has a clue what's really going on yet.

  • Old Mexican||

    Yeah, like being murdered vs. being raped - ONE of them is bound to be LESS BAD.

    Oh, ye gods...

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    The carbon tax would be regressive. It would hurt the poor, a supposed concern of the leftisti.

  • bazzoom||

    the preferred term is "sinstrati"

  • bazzoom||

    sinistrati... grrr

  • Guy||

    Who's Ronald Bailey?

  • Old Mexican||

    Who the heck knows? Some guy that used to be skeptical of AGW, saw some satellite photos and suddenly had an epiphany or something . . .

  • MNG||

    Let me guess OM, he did it for the grant money...

  • Old Mexican||

    No, he's not a "climate" scientist...

  • ||

    Wait, the UN and Capitol Hill have no chance of subjecting us to anything like cap and trade. Because of the overwhelming political hazards of such follies, only the EPA can enforce anything relating to carbon rationing. Get with the program, Ron.

  • Chad||

    Ron: I find it downright silly that you think our great grandchildren are going to be unfathomably richer than we are today. Growth rates slow as economies improve, by quite substantial amounts.

    Most recent economic growth in rich countries has been some combination of looting from poor nations, borrowing like mad, and improved manufacturing technology. However, the first two can't last, and the latter is well into its phase of diminishing returns, as well as fighting against commodity-price headwinds. "Stuff" is not likely to get a lot cheaper in the future, and "services" never really did in the first place. It is not clear to me that our children will be ANY richer than we are, let alone many times as rich.

    Very little of what we build today will last until centuries end. Let's not pretend that we are "growing our economy" for the people of that time.

  • JoshIbHB||

    Congrats, you're finally admitting that you're a communist.

  • ||

    I find it downright silly that you think our great grandchildren are going to be unfathomably richer than we are today.

    They certainly won't be if you get your way.

    You don't understand how wealth is created. If your ilk had their way from the day Plato wrote his screed on collectivism, we'd never have progressed past the wheel.

    You could not in your entire life build the car you drive. You have not the least clue how that abundance came to exist in your driveway.

  • The Man||

    So the question is: If global warming is a problem, what are the smartest policies to address it?

    So, if A then B maybe A so therefore what's the best B?

    Is global warming occurring? Is it a problem? Is there an ideal "global" mean temperature? Can we define a mean temperature in this context? Is the climate system stationary (in the statistical sense)? Is the climate system linear (in the dynamical sense)? Can we predict the consequences of any actions we take with respect to climate? Will we be better off if we do "something" rather than nothing?

    I will stipulate that the instrumental record suggests (but does not confirm) a late 20th century warming trend. But other than that no one has answers to any of the other questions posed above. Stipulating a positive answer to the first question, we still require answers for the rest and absent those we cannot answer the last question.

    So the question is: If you can't answer the last question why jump to an economic analysis of how to deal with the first one?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I will stipulate that the instrumental record suggests (but does not confirm) a late 20th century warming trend. But other than that no one has answers to any of the other questions posed above. Stipulating a positive answer to the first question, we still require answers for the rest and absent those we cannot answer the last question.


    We can not even predict the effects of the warming.

    For example, one predicted effect of global warming is severe droughts in California. And yet, 2005 was the warmest year of this decade, and...

  • Chad||

    Ahhh, anecdotes...the true cure for fact.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Ahhh, anecdotes...the true cure for fact.


    It is a fact that California got drier as it got cooler.

  • ||

    Hahahahaha Chad calling a rhetorical foul;)

    Chad thanks, you gave me a big grin to start the weekend well:)

    Be careful man, that's one arrow of fallacy you'll find hard to use from now on. Keep calling these fouls and you'll have nothing else to say.

  • Chad||

    Can't you guys see the cooling trend? Can't you guys see the wild bias in the HADCRU data?

    http://climateprogress.org/200.....on-record/

    Oh, they are ALL lying.

  • ||

    Here's real data. From real satellites. From real researchers. Who publish real raw data.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp.....Nov_09.jpg

    There's your 'trend'

  • ||

    I am a deontological libertarian. The following may surprise you.

    1. Please do not reject all climate science just because of Climategate. We should trust scientists to be as unbiased as possible. No one becomes a scientist in order to campaign for one side of one issue. If a scientist has an opinion, you can trust that that opinion is strongly supported by real data. That being said, I think that many libertarians reject the opinions of climate scientists because they simply don't want those opinions to be true. I have not heard a single convincing argument by non-scientists as to how the major scientific consensus is wrong about climate change. Please do not reject the science for the sole reason that you don't want the science to be true. If you are not an expert on the subject, this is probably why you are against climatologists.

    2. Libertarians should support some kind of restriction or fee on any kind of pollution. We can't dump trash onto other peoples' properties, so why do most libertarians support polluters who release waste into the air? The pollution has to go somewhere, and wherever it goes, it will be on someone else's property, or affect the property of others environmentally. Regardless of what the effects of CO2 and other pollutants are, a strictly principled libertarian should support some kind of fee on any kind of pollution by anyone.

    Please think about your principles before replying, I look forward to intelligent criticism.

  • The Man||

    Please think about your preconceptions before replying, I'm still waiting for knowledgeable debate.

  • ||

    Still waiting...

  • The Man||

    Still waiting...

  • Tony||

    Not a libertarian, but thank you. A successful economic philosophy should be able to handle any contingency, including something like climate change. I don't think that libertarians tend to be deniers because they can't compute a libertarian solution to climate change, but rather that they've confused themselves with something else, like anarchists, or rightwing dittoheads (corporate-republican apologists), who don't have philosophically consistent answers for climate change. (The former because, well, any sort of the authoritative order necessary is anathema; the latter because they're in favor of the status quo.)

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Better any of the above, than to be a cocksucker for socialism cloaked under the guise of concern for the environment.

    That's your cue, Tony. It's right there in your script.

  • JoshIbHB||

    Or maybe we think AGW is bullshit and anyway a warmer world will be a better place to live.

  • MNG||

    Well said. I guess I can see why libertarians would be wary of the possible uses of AGW, but denying AGW is certainly not necessary for a libertarian.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I "deny" that mankind - short of global nuke war - CAN change the climate.

    The moment Gore proclaimed the internal-combustion engine to be a greater threat than nuclear war, is when he showed his true colors. Otherwise, he wouldn't be USING said engines when he travels. Fucking hypocrite.

  • ||

    1. Please do not reject all climate science just because of Climategate

    Climategate just undermines all the appeal to authority they use. I don't reject climate science. I'm very interested in climate science. We're not talking about climate science. We're talking about the AGW hypothesis, which has gaping flaws.

    Again, hopefully this will force a real debate and the publication of real data.

  • Senor Duck||

    The always reliable wattsupwiththat
    has an article by Willis Eschenbach on data messaging that occurred in the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report using the NOAA/GHCN raw data for Australia. after looking at the incongruities of the Australian data set, he analysis how the data was molested for one station Darwin Zero.

    Here is the raw data in blue with the value added data on top:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.w....._zero7.png

    YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

    Here for the entire story of how that fib was concocted.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....more-13818

  • Chad||

    Three un-calibrated thermometers in Australia mean what, exactly?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    What’s the Best Way to Handle Future Climate Change?

    Well:

    1. Continue doing what we're doing. Today's cars are far more efficient than they were since the first anti-pollution devices were mandated. There are new guidelines coming - implement them, fine. But bear in mind, there is no way Pimply-Faced Burger Joint Employee is going to be able to make payments on a new Prius, so there need to be enough USED ones at the car lots. Not everyone can plunk down fifteen large for a Smart car, either.

    2. Let alternative-energy research continue, unmolested and free of coercion or threats of economic sanctions.

    3. Use what we have, corollary to #1. There's still a lot of oil (ahem, under a tiny corner of the wasteland known as ANWR, for instance), and natural gas, and other "evil" carbon-based energy sources.

    Use it. That's why it's there.

    4. Prevent the EPA from having nigh-unlimited power. Anyone who doesn't know the phrase "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", needs to take their green-shaded blinders the fuck off, now, and NOT let this happen.

    5. Same goes for any other agency/arm of government - here or abroad (hello, United Nations... now get the fuck out of our business).

    6. Stop using propaganda to scare the shit out of children about the "dangers" of supposed manmade global warming. While you're at it, stop scaring the shit out of kids, period.

    7. And would someone please find a way to put Gore in some sort of non-life threatening coma for, say, a year? That would be a huge help.

    And remember: new taxes and higher energy prices will just hurt the poor you liberals are always pretending to be concerned about. Those taxes and fees are regressive.

    The sky, despite what the Tonys and Chads and countless other hand-wringing bleaters say, is NOT falling. Getting hysterical is not a solution, it's a hindrance.

  • ||

    I agree with most of the above, except that we SHOULD be taxing or making people pay for pollution. It makes sense that people should have to pay to clean up their mess when the mess travels off of their property and affects the property of others.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    We're already taxed enough. I don't know about you, but I can't afford five bucks a gallon for gas.

  • ||

    I'm not saying we should also keep all the other taxes...

    People still have to pay to clean up the messes they created, and the people with the biggest messes are businesses with factories and power plants. I doubt individuals would have to pay alot.

  • GrilledCS||

    "People still have to pay to clean up the messes they created, and the people with the biggest messes are businesses with factories and power plants. I doubt individuals would have to pay alot."

    So, are you under the impression these businesses won't pass these costs on to consumers?

    Interesting.

    Are you familiar at all with the word "ethanol"?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    That's what I was getting at - the costs WILL be passed along, and not to sound like a populist... that sucks for us po' folks.

    My elecric and gas heating bills are right at two hundred bucks, combined (level-pay on both, same amount spread out over 12 months, any overages rebated if I use less). I can't afford for those to go up by ANY amount. My budget simply won't handle it.

    And I'm not alone. A lot of folks have it hard enough making it in the Obamaconomy. Jacking up energy rates will not only cost more in utilities, it will drive up prices on everything else.

    Enough is enough.

  • Chad||

    Again, if you are so damned po':

    1: Figure out why you are so damned po' and fix it.

    2: Figure out why use double the energy I do, and fix it.

    Then you can easily handle paying the 10-20% more that your energy actually costs.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Chad, if I made more money, YOUR side of the aisle would want more taxes from me.

    It's always about taking more with you goddamned liberals.

    Fuck off.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I don't use "double the energy". Where you got THAT figure, I can't guess.

    Did it not occur to you that energy rates where YOU live might be different from where I live?

    Aw, fuck it. You just want me to pay more because I'm not like you, philosophically-speaking.

    That, and the twisted notion that mankind is causing global warming, I should add.

  • Chad||

    There isn't anywhere in the US that pays double what I do. I have to pay well above the norm, actually. If you are spending ~$200 and I am spending ~$100, you are probably using about double.

  • ||

    Then don't use that much gas and electricity.
    Live within your means and stop spending money you haven't got.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    What the hell do you think I'm doing? I have to live within my means... I don't have a choice.

    And it'll be that much more difficult if/when liberals get their precious fucking tax increases.

  • ||

    Aaaaawwww, and that makes you so unique.

    Forced to live within your means, unlike the rest of us.

    We're just wasting your tax money away and buying crack with your welfare dollars.

    Truly, you are the only one paying taxes, and for that we salute you.

    You, the rugged, independent individualist, freedomite reincarnation of Ayn Rand's penis.

    DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURP!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Fuck off again, statist.

    What's YOUR welfare footprint, compared to mine? I take $0 in "entitlements", because I am not entitled to them.

    By the way, your pathetic derision of the concept of freedom shows your true colors. Ever voted for anyone besides a Democrat? Doubtful.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I use what I have to use. Not that it's any of your goddamned business.

    I don't spend money I don't have. I carry no credit-card debt, and I don't live off the taxes of others.

    Why you chose me as a target, I can't fathom. Guilty conscience, perhaps?

  • Tony||

    You can't possibly be okay with industries having total freedom to pollute other people's property. Not taxing for it is tantamount to a subsidy to pollute.

    You guys don't have principles, you just hate taxes.

  • ||

    You can't possibly be okay with industries having total freedom to pollute other people's property. Not taxing for it is tantamount to a subsidy to pollute.

    You guys don't have principles, you just hate taxes.

    If you damage my property you should pay me, not some third party.

    You could make a case if the amount paid by the polluter directly reduced the amount paid by the rest of the taxpayers. But that's not what happens, it's just more into a bottomless hole. And it promotes excuses to categorize things as pollutants so there's more to tax.. and here we are.

  • ||

    Obviously they will. And with that increased cost there will be a decrease in demand. So either way, the pollution will get payed for by businesses and by the consumers. There really isn't any other fair way.

  • ||

    Since when is "but then I'll have to pay for what I buy" a libertarian argument? Sounds more like a liberal argument to me...

  • ||

    We want to pay for what we buy. We don't want to pay for what you buy and we don't want you to pay for what we buy.

    This is just redistribution.

  • Chad||

    If you would quit wasting your time here and instead fix whatever issue it is that keeps you poor, you could.

    You also could figure out, like me, how to live without using much gas in the first place.

    Oh, and any reasonable guess as to the price of a CO2 permit if C&T were implemented would translate into a 10% gasoline price increase, not a 100%.

  • ||

    "Oh, and any reasonable guess as to the price of a CO2 permit if C&T were implemented would translate into a 10% gasoline price increase, not a 100%."

    How many times have we heard this same "logic" when a new tax or program is proposed? What have the actual results beem?

    Here's just one example: Back in 1966, they told us "We can afford Medicare, it will only cost $3 billion, and will only grow to say $12 billon by 1990." (Actual cost in 1990: $107 billion)

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Notice Chad's elitist attitude:

    Aw, it won't cost that much.

    Go make more money... so we can take more in taxes and energy costs.

    Notice, also, that he got it wrong on my energy usage - he assumed I use twice as much as I "need". What a greedy dumbass.

  • ||

    But, but, but, but innovation will solve everything!!!
    Isn't that the mantra of the freedumb-loving?
    Well, go innovate some more money, you lazy fuck.

    The poor are poor because they're lazy and stupid, right?

    Now go git, libertardian.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Fuck off, statist tool.

  • ||

    The poor are poor because they're lazy and stupid, right?

    No, the poor are poor because you progressives need them that way.

    The mantra of the progressive "The more you make, the more we take! So why even bother? Trust us and we'll give you some scraps from the table of the progressive elite"

  • Chad||

    You are making the wrong comparison. The correct one is the SO2 cap-and-trade system, which cost...duh duh duh...much less than predicted.

  • Tony||

    "We're already taxed enough"

    That's your answer? So Libertarian Guy you are sanctioning the pollution of other people's property with impunity?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Piss off, candyass.

    You are SUCH a pussy, Tony. I'll bet you believe second-hand smoke can actually kill people.

  • Tony||

    No, I don't, though I try to be courteous and not smoke around others without asking first.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I am courteous as well, but your pollution of the commons argument sounds so much like the second-hand smoke "danger" argument, I can't tell the difference.

  • ||

    Why are you posting here instead of working?

    Being poor is your own fault.
    Nobody will help you, monkey boy.
    Don't you love the cold winds of freedumb?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I work, asshole. I'm also looking for part-time work, but Obama keeps shoving pineapples up the economy's ass and nobody's hiring.

    And I don't want any "help". I just want elected assholes to stay the fuck out of our lives and paychecks.

    Surely, you would agree... or maybe not, based on your posts.

  • Tony||

    It's just a matter of what the evidence says. Evidence for secondhand smoke killing people? Thin. Evidence for the greenhouse effect? Pretty solid.

  • ||

    Evidence for secondhand smoke killing people? Thin. Evidence for the greenhouse effect? Pretty solid.

    Resorting to proof by repeated assertion?

    Actually as opposed to AGW models, the case for secondhand smoke is pretty solid, statistically significant and can be shown by the data.

    Concern is justified, it's just that that the risks are rather small, and I find the costs of a legislative/coercive solution to be unjustified. Though I do enjoy the benefits of them as a nonsmoker.

  • ||

    @ The Libertarian Guy
    So you wouldn't mind if I drove over to where you live and blew smoke in your face? I can't believe I am hearing these arguments from a fellow libertarian. Whatever happened to basic rights? Why is it all about the effects of second hand smoke or the effects of pollution? These things have nothing to do with the justification of those acts!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Sure, c'mon over. Cig smoke doesn't bother me.

  • ||

    So then should you or I be able to do that to anyone?

  • ||

    Nope but you should be able to do it on your property.

  • buzzoo||

    "pollution"

    except that pollution is generally considered to be chemicals with an almost instantly verifiable negative effect on a localized environment, or a quantitatively measurable effect on a phenomenon, i.e. CFCs and ozone (basic chemistry) or heavy metals in human bodies, or hormones and hormone-like chemicals disrupting reproductive cycles in various species...

    this is nothing like declaring a basic product of all respiration, combustion, and large numbers of inorganic chemical processes to be a pollutant.

  • ||

    What's the best way, Mr. Bailey?

    Let's draw upon M. Legendre.

    "Laissez-nous faire!"

  • ||

    It's all made perfectly clear and in an unprecedented way here.

  • i||

    By googling "integral fast reactor" anyone can see how climate change has been solved... decades ago.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Chad's "10%" figure is hopelessly optimistic. Far too lowball. His side wants a lot more than ten cents on the dollar - energy or tax increases, it doesn't matter to them... the greedy liberal fucks just want more money to "fix" problems they either helped create, or are over-inflating to scare the populace with doom'n'gloom environmental scenarios.

    There's also the matter of "solving" poverty via the War on Poverty (tm), which has been a monumental failure for decades. They probably want to do a surge or something, send more IRS troops out into the field of battle.

    Oh, and... it's for the children. *sniff*

  • ||

    Still forced to live within your means?
    Aaaaaaaaaawwwwwwww.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    It's getting harder every time some liberal fuck wants to raise energy prices and taxes.

    At least I'm not a welfare leech. For that, you should be thanking me, not tossing snotty derision in my path.

  • ||

    Complain about taxes that people don't deserve, not ones that are actually part of the price of pollution.

  • Chad||

    Really? Where I live, I pay a 1.6c/kwh premium for green electricity. That's a 15% premium...using today's technology. It will only shrink from here.

  • ||

    You're getting the low hanging fruit. I would expect it will only get more expensive as more people choose to -- or are forced to -- pay for green electricity.

  • ||

    What’s the Best Way to Handle Future Climate Change?

    Dress accordingly. People who refuse to adapt to normal climatic variations have ceded their place in the gene pool.

  • ||

    Ron, neither you nor I nor anyone else can "handle" the climate. The climate, Ron, is way beyond your control. You will, however, be much better able to adapt to whatever climate the future holds if you are not impoverished by the imposition of various hair-brained schemes claiming to alter the climate.

  • Nils||

    Ron, what has given you reason to think that anything needs to be done about rising temperatures? (honest question)
    The way I see it, it'll be centuries before it's any real problem, and that's only if the trend continues, which we can't predict, because we don't know what's causing the trend.

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • VC||

    GDFGDFGD

  • VC||

    Bedding is all about in the first place When youre out Bedding Curtains You can wear a cloth on.

  • VC||

    vbnvbn

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement