Warmists: Republicans Have Forgotten The Power Of The Free Market Since They Won’t Implement A Carbon Tax

I always get a kick out of Democrats attempting to explain the “free market”, particularly as it applies to ‘climate change’. Their version of the free market is always interesting. Here’s the Editorial Board of the Frederick News-Post, a Maryland paper, who killed lots of trees to publish their paper and use vast amounts of fossil fuels to distribute them

Since when did the Republican Party forget the power of the free market?

Climate-change deniers can close their eyes and turn the page — we’re going to talk today about how and why we need to harness the power of the free market to avert global catastrophe. Let’s start with the basics:

Fact 1: Climate change is real and urgent. Enough already.

Fact 2: Emitting climate-changing gas is a classic economic externality, much like polluting a river. One company or person benefits from spewing cheap carbon, while everyone bears the cost.

Fact 3: Prices change behavior. Just look at what happened to sales of SUVs when gas prices topped $4 a gallon, and look at sales today.

Given these core facts, the Republican rejection of a market-based response to climate change is mystifying.

It’s rejected because climate change caused mostly/solely by Mankind is a fiction. Why would anyone implement anything to solve a non-problem, unless it is for power and/or money? So, what does the Editorial Board propose?

Back in the day when Republicans stood for free markets, they understood that the least onerous way to deal with market externalities such as pollution is to put a fair price on the activity that causes them. That gives polluters a choice — keep polluting and pay those who suffer from their actions, or change their practices. The other alternative is strict regulation and enforcement. Given that choice, many Republicans in 1990 supported successful, market-based solutions to deal with acid rain.

So why not embrace a market-based mechanism such as a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade regime to deal with climate change? It’s hardly radical — even Exxon Mobil has backed the idea.

Except, when it is Government setting the policy via legislation and regulation, then setting the price for the “commodity”, it is no longer a free market exchange, where the price would be established by the parties engaged in commerce. The market Warmists are explaining is a Socialist market, whereby the government is heavily invested in control.

Warmists keep trotting out this trope that a carbon tax and/or cap and trade are somehow part of the free market, yet, how free is it when the government is forcing individuals and private entities to participate?

Perhaps we should put a carbon tax on news organizations, starting at $45 per metric ton, to offset the carbon footprint of operating and distributing the news. All that energy, all that fossil fuel. Newspapers would be fine with this, right? It’s just all part of their “free market”, right? Especially when the government requires compliance and payment.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

31 Responses to “Warmists: Republicans Have Forgotten The Power Of The Free Market Since They Won’t Implement A Carbon Tax”

  1. Jeffery says:

    It’s rejected because climate change caused mostly/solely by Mankind is a fiction.

    No. No, it’s not. We execute citizens based on less evidence than that supporting the Theory of AGW. The world has entire cultures built on the fiction that gods, demons, angels and miracles exist.

    Deniers lie about their motivation, just as you do here. Denialism has nothing to do with science but is all ideology. You might as well be denying that the Earth is spherical or that biological evolution is fiction. Your political beliefs, not science, drive your tactics. You should “man up” and admit it.

    Back when the GOP was rational (fewer than 10 years ago!) they proposed a carbon cap and trade program to help control global warming. Both cons and libs recognized the seriousness of global warming, and the libs wanted a carbon tax and the cons a carbon cap and trade system. Ah, the good old days!

    Since the Teabag Revolution (Coup?) the Republican Party is controlled by people who think Sarah Palin makes sense.

    Except, when it is Government setting the policy via legislation and regulation, then setting the price for the “commodity”, it is no longer a free market exchange, where the price would be established by the parties engaged in commerce.

    There’s no easy way to say this, but you’re just wrong. One can’t ignore the embedded cost of negative externalities in market transactions.

    Consider this example.

    A large multisite manufacturer utilizes processes for making its very desirable products but the processes generate large volumes of chemical, gas and solid wastes that have acute and chronic effects of widely varying severities on the environment, wildlife and even human health. The least expensive “free-market” approach for the company is to continue to discharge the gases into the air, the liquids into the river (it’s why they always build on waterways) and to send the solids to landfills. The pollutants represent “negative externalities” of the “free-market” interactions between the corporation and its customers. In other words, society is absorbing an actual cost that is not represented in the interaction. One way to deal with this is for government to regulate any discharges, forcing the company to pay for proper and safe disposal – adding to the price of their products paid by their customers. Do you think this approach would work for CO2 which has both concentrated (e.g., coal plants) and decentralized (transportation) sources of discharge? Would a ban on CO2 generation from fossil fuels work?

    Another way to capture the societal cost would be to tax carbon, which has the added benefit of enabling a gradual transition to non-carbon sources. There are societal costs in the “free-market” transactions involving fossil-fuels that are not captured in the prices paid. This is a textbook definition of market inefficiency.

    We realize that it’s difficult to think about these things, and that it’s just easier to stick your head in the sand and deny there’s a problem. But you’re wrong, global warming is real, and getting worse.

  2. alanstorm says:

    “We execute citizens based on less evidence than that supporting the Theory of AGW. The world has entire cultures built on the fiction that gods, demons, angels and miracles exist.”

    And you draw exactly the wrong conclusion from this.

    “eniers lie about their motivation, just as you do here. Denialism has nothing to do with science but is all ideology. You might as well be denying that the Earth is spherical or that biological evolution is fiction. Your political beliefs, not science, drive your tactics. You should “man up” and admit it.”

    A rare example of almost pure projection.

    “Since the Teabag Revolution (Coup?) the Republican Party is controlled by people who think Sarah Palin makes sense. ”

    That would have FAR more impact if (A) it was true. It’s not; the Rs are still controlled by the establishment side, i.e. RINOs – and (B) the D’s weren’t controlled by people who think Obama, Bernie and Hillary make sense. (Hint: all three are idiots, just different types.)

    Love your strawman argument, BTW – “This horrible situation could be treated thus, therefore this not-horrible situation should be treated the same way!” Classic begging the question – you don’t establish an equivalence between the two, you just hope the readers don’t notice that you haven’t. I note that liberals like using this tactic on their base, the LIVs.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    One way to deal with this is for government to regulate any discharges,…


    So, will the EPA similarly be held accountable? Not likely.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/cevallos-animas-river-liability/

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    A large multisite manufacturer utilizes processes for making its very desirable products but the processes generate large volumes of chemical, gas and solid wastes that have acute and chronic effects of widely varying severities on the environment, wildlife and even human health.


    When the government willingly risked $570 million of taxpayer money to fund Solyndra, there was good reason to be upset. But it reaches a whole new level when the federal government continues to award contracts intended to clean up the very mess it created. It’s ironic that the government is spending even more taxpayer dollars in an attempt to recoup the money it never should have spent.

    http://dailysignal.com/2013/01/10/taxpayers-sink-deeper-in-solyndra-saga-part-one/

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    Do you think this approach would work for CO2 which has both concentrated (e.g., coal plants) and decentralized (transportation) sources of discharge? Would a ban on CO2 generation from fossil fuels work?

    “Carbon dioxide is generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas. It is an essential part of the fundamental biological processes of all living things. It does not cause cancer, affect development or suppress the immune system in humans. Carbon dioxide is a physiologically active gas that is integral to both respiration and acid-base balance in all life.”

  6. Jeffery says:

    Despite Alan’s mis-identification of debate tactics, and dp’s… well, just mis- everything, the facts remain that confound science Deniers:

    The Earth is warming rapidly.
    CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is the cause.
    It will most likely cause additional and serious harm to human civilization.
    Humans can slow and stop the process.

    Science is no longer debating this. Only Deniers are denying, and the reason has nothing to do with science.

    dp,

    You can’t be that dense.

    Water, potassium ion, ionic iron, glucose, oxygen and CO2 are all necessary for most biosystems. Yet, another 100 feet of water is a problem. Merely doubling the concentration of life-sustaining oxygen will destroy life on Earth as we know it. Glucose? Ever heard of diabetes? Until 90 years ago it was death sentence. Too little potassium and you die. Too much potassium and you die. The same with sodium, chloride and calcium.

    Since humans started the large scale burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), we’ve added more CO2 to the atmosphere than can naturally be removed. The concentration increased from 280ppm to 400ppm over the past century and will continue to increase. 400ppm is the highest concentration in the past 1 million years or so. While 400ppm CO2 (and likely much higher – studies have shown behavioral effects at as low as 600ppm) is unlikely to have little direct effect on human physiology, the warming that it is causing will have significant deleterious effects on human civilization.

    Carbon dioxide is generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas.

    So? Context is critical.

    Did you know that carbon dioxide is an approved lab animal anesthetic and is used to euthanize animals?

    Would you be OK resting in a room with a mere 10% of “safe and non-toxic” CO2 (with normal O2 as well)? Hint: Check your insurance policy, but you’ll only have a few minutes.

    Why do you suppose SCUBA systems have CO2 “scrubbers” to prevent CO2 buildup?

    A fraction of “inert” CO2, once dissolved in water, forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) which immediately dissociates into H+ and HCO3-, reducing the pH of the solution. “Inert” CO2, added to the atmosphere by the gigaton, is reducing the pH of the oceans.

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    No direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity. The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to further investigate or discuss any scientific data.

    Thanks again, little guy, for the confirmation.

  8. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Your observations and comments are without proper foundation. DP most definitely made a mistake in assuming that CO2 is not toxic to humans. But in doing so and following your comments it brings up a point, if CO2 is increasing then why aren’t humans being directly affected? If there has been a 40% increase in CO2, then our well being would be markedly changed. A good example, go to the pyramids in Cairo, you can only stay in the Great Chamber for a few minutes before you begin having distress. That is because of the marginally increased CO2 levels in the chamber as there is a lack of adequate gas exchange. The same should be happening now, but it is not. Now, taking the fact that the peer review system is broken in science reporting (at multiple levels) we now know that most everything we are exposed to is a lie. Then the solution, it is always a tax or change in the economy or other major shift in our wealth and ability to live a decent life. No mention is even made of filters or other systems to limit gas dispersion. Why? You can make filters to capture CO2, but it is not even considered. Then, even with the failure of peer review, we get information that the drastic measures that you call for will not really change much.

    The people on the forum have begged you to deliver real scientific input using the scientific method, but your have not done a thing except for references to opinion pieces. As I have said before, your anecdotal observations and pitiful logic prove nothing and your continuation to insistence on the use of this is pitiful. As to your references to the GOP, you don’t seem to get that we only have one party in the US with two branches that act as if they differ with each other. They don’t. They are both progressive political hacks that do not represent the American people and are only in power for their self interest.

  9. Jeffery says:

    sucking puppies is also a brain numb dolt.

    dave,

    I try to ignore you, but while you claim to be a physician you seem to understand little about human physiology.

    On cue, as if straight from Denier Dolt Central, comes this:

    if CO2 is increasing then why aren’t humans being directly affected?

    IF?!? If CO2 is increasing? Why do we bother to discuss these issues if you don’t even accept the simplest facts? Of course CO2 has increased. This is what is meant by Science Denialism. “CO2 is not increasing NOR is it warming!”. My god. The second fail in your question is your not understanding the concentrations of CO2 that cause demonstrable effects on humans. My god. I might expect this from a freshman physio student, but you claim to be physician! Get an education. Google something.

    In parallel, the O2 concentration is going down. Relax. We’re not going to suffocate soon. Recall that as we burn carbon sources molecular oxygen is consumed, e.g., C3H8 + 5O2 –> 3CO2 + 4H2O

    If there has been a 40% increase in CO2, then our well being would be markedly changed.

    But not from direct effects on human physiology, as far as we know.

    Laboratory experiments have shown that even 600ppm CO2 had no demonstrable effects on mental performance. Breathing 1% CO2 causes drowsiness. Breathing 8% CO2 leads to unconsciousness. Using your arithmetic you can easily calculate that 400ppm is 0.04% or 1/25th the concentration that causes drowsiness.

    You can make filters to capture CO2, but it is not even considered.

    You are wrong again. If you engineer a feasible carbon capture and sequestration system you will become a billionaire. In fact, there is a great deal of R and D on carbon capture technologies.

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    That little gruber guy is a genius.

    Scientists can’t even agree if there is a “green house effect” on the earth’s climate yet the little one goes into his little Pavlovian dog apeshit rants whenever someone points out the scientific debate isn’t settled.

    He is kind of amusing though.

  11. Jeffery says:

    suckingpuppies typed:

    Scientists can’t even agree if there is a “green house effect”

    Huh? That’s dumb even by your standards. In one strand Denier Commenters deny that CO2 is increasing and that the greenhouse effect exists. My god. You guys are going “all in” for ignorance. What’s next, denying that carbon dioxide is real?

    We need some ground rules:

    CO2 is increasing. Anyone Denying this simple fact deserves sustained ridicule.

    The greenhouse effect is real. Without it the Earth would be a giant snowball. Anyone Denying this simple fact needs to return to 5th grade science class.

    The Earth is warming. Even William agrees with this on and off depending on his meds.

    suckingpuppies further typed:

    whenever someone points out the scientific debate isn’t settled

    In the scientific community the erstwhile debate over whether CO2 from fossil fuels is causing warming is long settled.

    The one-sided “debate” waged by Deniers is political, social and economic, not scientific.

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    Look it up, little fido, under falsification of the greenhouse theory then get back to me.

    You really are amusing when you comment on things you don’t quite understand.

  13. jl says:

    A tax to “save” the planet. If it was global cooling guess what the cure would be? Taxes. Only liberals could come up with foolishness. And nice try, J, but the debate over CO2 causing warming is far from settled. And the notion that warming, whatever the cause, would be harmful to life is not only not “settled”, but there’s no proof for it. J thinks the matter settled because of his warming mantra, but that would just be the beginning of another debate as the hoaxers try to tell us more scare stories of what warming will do..in the future. Always in the future. “The End Of Snow?” NYT, Feb.7th, 2014

  14. Jeffery says:

    little puppysucker,

    I have no desire to repair your obvious stupidity, only to continue to point it out. The greenhouse effect has been falsified!. Good lord. You’re giving K9sexers an even worse name.

    No, little puppy, the greenhouse effect has not been repealed.

    According to NASA (whom the Conspiratorial Denialists “know” is lying):

    The Moon has no appreciable atmosphere. The sky is always black and the radiation from the Sun strikes with full force on the surface of the Moon. The lack of atmosphere produces temperature extremes on the Moon that range from -250 degrees F in the dark to +250 degrees F in the light.

    Little one, do you have a plausible alternative explanation as to why the temperature of our moon’s surface shows such extreme fluctuations? Or have we climbed above your pay grade?

  15. Jeffery says:

    dave typed:

    DP most definitely made a mistake in assuming that CO2 is not toxic to humans.

    dave threw you under the bus without hesitation, didn’t he?

    The horror… being corrected by dave.

  16. drowningpuppies says:

    Carbon dioxide is generally regarded as a safe and non-toxic, inert gas. It is an essential part of the fundamental biological processes of all living things. It does not cause cancer, affect development or suppress the immune system in humans.

    -Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations, vol.3

    Fuck with them, little one.

  17. Jeffery says:

    Oh little one… you are so adorably dumb and mindless. Just like a puppy. Flouncing around, tripping over your own feet, wetting yourself. How cute!

    Just because somebody wrote something doesn’t make it true! Even dave saw through your shenanigans.

    And all your nonsense is irrelevant anyway! Carbon dioxide is not harming individual humans directly (at this time), but by causing the Earth to warm. This has been known for a century.

    Now, I must admit I don’t understand the unmoored feeling that the unschooled and superstitious experience in their daily lives. It must be like the entire world is a magic show and you don’t know what to expect next! But you can arm yourself; you can protect yourself against the advances of the charlatans; you can learn the basics of chemistry and physics and biology – you will be less paranoid, more secure – you will begin to understand that you needn’t invoke magic to explain what you at first do not understand. It will be freeing.

  18. Jeffery says:

    little one,

    And what do you use to support your nonsense? Authority.

    You accept anonymous Authority when it supports your bologna?

  19. Robert Arvanitis says:

    There is a fair point to be made about “tragedy of the commons” and there is also a fair point to charging for environmental harms – assuming such are demonstrable harms.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

    But even presuming demonstrable harm, there is one further problem with the warmist agenda.

    True, the Pigovian tax reduces the undesirable activity, but it also puts more money in government’s hands. The money never goes to remediation. It goes to the “general spoils” account.

    That just encourages the pols to sell our Chippendale for firewood.

  20. Jeffery says:

    Actually, doesn’t reducing the undesirable activity contribute to remediation?

    And there is no reason the increased revenue can’t be used for remediation – rebates to those most affected, infrastructure, investments in ‘desired activities’.

  21. Robert Arvanitis says:

    “Stop cutting” is a start, I suppose.

    “Bind the wounds” is the real remediation which never happens.

    There is a very powerful reason why that revenue can’t in fact go for remediation – politicos are selfish and will only spend for their own purposes.
    Mandate the tax goes to clean up? Then the fix will go to cronies, no matter how unqualified for the work.
    And besides – money is fungible. Pols will just reallocate resources freed up elsewhere in the budget.

    Cynical? No, I can’t get ahead of that curve fast enough to match reality.

  22. Jeffery says:

    Indeed, it does seem hopeless. Then you have my sympathies.

    As for me, in my pollyannish ways, I will keep trying.

    • Rjschwarz says:

      Jeffery, you seem fairly knowledgable. Help me with a few questions:
      1. How to explain volcanoes duming mass amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I’ve read 1 volcano can add more than all human caused CO2. If true this indicates warming might not be man-caused.

      2. How to explain warming on Mars that parallels warming on Earth. If true this also seems to indicate man is not the source.

      3. Deliberate lies and manipulation of warming data by experts trying to frighten folks into action. Mann admitted as much. Add to this claims science is settled but actual scientists never say that, they continue to test and fine tune hypothesis and welcome testing from others but this doesn’t seem to be happening. If scientists lie (even with good intentions) it puts all work in question. This sort of thing indicates maybe there is no warming. After all eve had no warming in a decade.

      • Rjschwarz says:

        4. Experts acting as if there is no crisis by flying around in private jets to global warming conferences instead of telecommuting. Buying massive houses instead of living humbly as they ask others to do and crapping on wind farms because they ruin the view or killing nuclear power projects as too dangerous when the world is at stake. These don’t add up.

  23. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Amazing. You must be on the up cycle of your bipolar illness. Your comment are wrong in response to my little lesson. I will not go into it as you can’t seem to understand even the most simple of concepts.

    DP,
    As to CO2 not being toxic. It is not in the sense in which you posted, but as concentrations increase, life begins to cease as it can not be used to oxygenate the body. When you put your head in a pool and hold your breath, the sense to breath comes from increasing CO2. Now, the mistake that jeff is making is that he knows nothing of chemistry and physics. He does not know where the CO2 measure is coming from and has no idea of CO2 distribution. In short, he is very ignorant and should be ignored, thus, like all trolls, he will go away.

  24. drowningpuppies says:

    Dave,

    Understood.

    My statement contained the words ‘generally regarded as’ and didn’t infer that there was no exceptions.

    H2O is generally regarded as non-toxic also.

    The inference was provided by the little Pavlovian mutt.

  25. Jeffery says:

    1. How to explain volcanoes dumping mass amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I’ve read 1 volcano can add more than all human caused CO2. If true this indicates warming might not be man-caused.

    This is not true. Volcanoes do not add more CO2 than humans, or even as much.

    2. How to explain warming on Mars that parallels warming on Earth. If true this also seems to indicate man is not the source.

    There is little evidence of warming on Mars, and even less that it parallels the warming on Earth.

    3. Deliberate lies and manipulation of warming data by experts trying to frighten folks into action. Mann admitted as much. Add to this claims science is settled but actual scientists never say that, they continue to test and fine tune hypothesis and welcome testing from others but this doesn’t seem to be happening. If scientists lie (even with good intentions) it puts all work in question. This sort of thing indicates maybe there is no warming. After all eve had no warming in a decade.

    This is a collection on hoo-ha and opinion. There’s nothing to refute. The fact is that the Earth continues to warm. If you don’t believe the evidence, there’s little to discuss.

    4. Experts acting as if there is no crisis by flying around in private jets to global warming conferences instead of telecommuting. Buying massive houses instead of living humbly as they ask others to do and crapping on wind farms because they ruin the view or killing nuclear power projects as too dangerous when the world is at stake. These don’t add up.

    Everyone could do better, but in general I know little about the size of climate scientists houses. If you power your home with renewable energy, why would size matter? Living humbly has nothing to do with the issue.

    If you depend on the actions of others to dictate your evaluation of evidence, then you’re not responding scientifically. Al Gore having a big house doesn’t mean the Earth isn’t warming.

    The evidence is clear, the Earth is warming and it’s because of CO2.

  26. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    It’s pretty simple.

    You claimed that CO2 is not increasing because someone in “the pyramids in Cairo, you can only stay in the Great Chamber for a few minutes before you begin having distress” and we do not observe that now in the open atmosphere.

    When you did your “experiment” in Egypt did you record the CO2 and O2 levels? Did you record the responses of the subjects? “Having distress” is not very specific.

    Can you describe how you would expect humans to respond to 400 ppm CO2 in the air they breathe? Changes in behavior? Breathing rate? Cognition? Consciousness?

    Over the past century the amount of CO2 (according to ‘lying’ scientists) has increased from 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.04%). You stated emphatically that if this is true we should see changes in human physiology. Since we don’t see changes in human physiology, to your mind this proves that CO2 isn’t increasing!

    As I described, lab studies demonstrate it takes at least 1000 ppm before effects are seen. Here’s a summary of the pilot study:

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-carbon-dioxide-in-a-crowded-room-can-make-you-dumber-180948052/?no-ist

    Do you think the chamber in Cairo had CO2 levels that high?

    We get it. You Deny the reliability of even the simplest of technical measurements (CO2 in air).

  27. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    First, the article sited is not science, as you desire. It has nothing to do with a reliable description of events. Second, if you had read the article, you would find that there would be some influence from the CO2 concentrations that concern you. In short, you did not understand the article. That is why you need an education and lesions in critical analysis. There is more depth to my observations than could be summed up in the article. For assessment of this, you need much more insight and, again, education. Try to get some books, start simple and work up, stay off the web as you do not get the information necessary to make a decision. This is what we tell medical students daily. They think that they are getting information of importance off the web when they are getting a very simplified version of more complex events. Oh, the article vindicated my assessment of events in the pyramid.

    Now, if a 40% increase in CO2 is not a big deal for humans, how is it a big deal for the climate. It does not add up.

    Now, I challenge all of the physical observations being made by your religion as your group have been proven to lie, obfuscate and mislead. Why? If it is so important that we reduce CO2 admissions, why don’t the true believers lead the way and alter their life styles? That would be about 30 % of the population and we could see if there was any influence by their efforts. But instead, you and your religion desire that everyone is forced into a system that most feel will not work and has nothing to do with control of the environment as it does with control of our lives, wealth, and economy, at least initially, then it will move on the control everything. Why don’t you advocate filters? You claim to have a bunch of money, certainly someone would build the appropriate filter for you and your group and you would not need a political solution. But, I seriously doubt your wealth claims. You seem more like the 20 year old in the parents basement. Your insight, logic, education, self-absorption, abrasiveness, willingness to disparage individuals who best you, etc. all point to an adolescent. Get out of the basement. Get a life.

  28. Jeffery says:

    Now, if a 40% increase in CO2 is not a big deal for humans, how is it a big deal for the climate. It does not add up.

    That’s classic non sequitur.

    I’ll give you this, dave, you are belligerent in your nonpareil ignorance. This is why I ignore you. Outwitting you is no challenge. Your lack of understanding of even basic chemistry, physics, biology and (shudder) medicine is appalling.

    You once said you consider yourself superior to most others. Dear god, why?

    You should publish a paper on your great “pyramid experiment”, that reveals the fatal flaw in the theory of AGW, LOL. Oh, that’s right, the “broken peer review system” requires science in its science manuscripts.

    So, yes while 400 ppm CO2 is high enough to absorb enough radiation emitted from the Earth to cause it to warm, it is not high enough to impact human physiology in any meaningful way. See, that wasn’t so hard was it?

    Oh, yeah, I almost forgot why I most despise you, even more than your appalling ignorance.

    Put your sheet on and get to your meeting you knucklehead, the Klavern awaits your inspiring words.

  29. Robert Arvanitis says:

    Proper Economic Analysis of Climate

    We really can’t cover everything in sound-bites. But there aretwo crucial issues for any debater.
    1. Climate is a chaotic system. In simplest terms, that means it is unstable and non-linear; small changes can have outsized effects and sudden reversals prevail.
    2. We must consider the costs against the present value of highly uncertain future benefits, discounting the latter at appropriate (risky) rates.

    ******

    Here’s the schema I use to debate the enviros who grasp for the levers of power:

    • Is there global warming?
    o Well, coming off an ice age, duh — some.

    • Is it man-made?
    o Some, not all.

    • What are our alternatives?
    o In part, slow or stop it.
    o In part, adapt to it.
    o In all cases, admit we don’t know nearly enough.
    o Understand that with chaotic systems, we are just as likely to exacerbate as to ameliorate. E.g. Are we trapping heat or in fact raising the albedo?! The backstops of solar panels are black…?!

    • What are the costs and benefits? (This is what kills the left. No price is too great for their crusade, nothing must stop their seizure of power.)
    o Full accounting of current costs, not just direct, but indirect and knock-on effects.
    o PLUS the deleterious social and psychological effects of ever-growing government intrusion. This is really bad but regrettably diffuse and under recognized.
    o Appropriately high discount rates for highly uncertain future benefits.
    o As the math soon makes it clear, it’s far better to increase our wealth, and then fix any adverse results in future, rather than impoverish ourselves AND THE FUTURE, today.
    o Recognize the current poor in the world deserve to live better, and not be kept in squalor for the mere chance at improving the future.

    On that last point — if you’d read this far, invest another ten minutes in a terrific video by Hans Rosling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoKfap4g4w&feature=player_embedded

    Postscripts:
    http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/19/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-of-bjorn-stevens-new-aerosol-forcing-paper/
    http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/24/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-of-ar5-forcing-and-heat-uptake-estimates-2/

Bad Behavior has blocked 7126 access attempts in the last 7 days.