We Should Totally Be Grown Ups And Implement A “Bipartisan” Carbon Tax Or Something

The Greensboro News and Record runs a “letter” that is actually shilling for a far left climate group

Let’s be grown-ups about climate change

It’s time for us to talk about climate change like adults. Anthropogenic climate change is a reality. Ninety-seven percent or more of climate scientists agree that climate warming over the last century is “extremely likely due to human activities” (NASA, 2017).

If we want to “be grown-ups”, should we be starting with a lie? The 97% consensus thing has been utterly debunked, and the NASA version goes back to the Cook et all version. Which is a lie. Is this an adult conversation?

Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. The sea level is rising, and some types of extreme weather — such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events — are happening more frequently (AAAS Climate Science Panel, 2014). This is a mounting issue that will impact every political and economic topic, from immigration to disaster recovery funding.

A 1.4F increase since 1850 (notice that writer Sam Shanty uses the wrong time frame) is not much, and wholly within what would be expected during a Holocene warm period. Then we get the lies about extreme weather. Regardless, what’s the whole point of this “letter”

Now it is our job, as engaged citizens in a democracy, to show our representatives that we want to take action. A carbon fee and dividend is the most bipartisan, logical and efficient means for incentivizing change in consumer behaviors without hiking up prices. For more information on the carbon fee and dividend plan, visit www.citizensclimatelobby.org.

That’s right, to pimp a carbon tax, one which would make people more reliant on government as they give people some money, like dad with an allowance, to offset the high cost of living increases the taxes would cause, while at the same time having the government use their power to force change in the way we live. This is what they call “science”. Even if the climate has changed mostly/solely due to Mankind’s activities, you get a sense that Warmists really do not want to fix it, they want to use it for their Progressive/Marxist/Statist/whatever you want to call it Big Government purposes.

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

25 Responses to “We Should Totally Be Grown Ups And Implement A “Bipartisan” Carbon Tax Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The 97% consensus thing (sic) has been utterly debunked,

    No, the consensus has not been debunked, let alone “utterly” debunked. What is your estimate for the percentage of actual climate scientists who understand that human generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm? 10%, 40%, 90%?

    A 1.4F increase since 1850… is not much, and wholly within what would be expected during a Holocene warm period.

    You keep typing that the current rapid increase is “within what would be expected during a Holocene warm period”. We’ve asked you several times to support your claim but so far you’ve refused.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      You’ve become irrelevant, little guy, since you ask the same questions over and over again then feign ignorance with the answers provided many times long ago.

  2. Rotterdam says:

    Im curious as to why the AGW crowd thinks a TAX will solve the problem. Lets say for a minute that we tax the crap out of everyone. What will that accomplish and where will the money go?

    I propose that steep taxation is required to change habits, which would throw the USA into not only recession but depression and with it the rest of the world.

    I propose that these tremendous amounts of dollars that are collected at first will then dry up as no one is working or purchasing because there is no longer any taxes being collected because no one has a job to buy anything.

    Prove me wrong.

    Even if its a slight tax? Whats the POINT? What would be the point of a slight tax, a modest tax?

  3. Jeffery says:

    And TEACH got his butt handed to him in the comments section of the Greensboro paper, too. LOL.

    What are your sources for the “utterly debunked” 97% consensus? WUWT? Climate Depot?

  4. Jeffery says:

    Rot,

    Perhaps you don’t understand how markets work. Typically, adding a tax to a commodity (if there are replacements) triggers movement from that commodity to a reasonable replacement. On a macro scale it can even trigger wholesale changes in an industry.

    Fossil fuels have existed for their entire span with both direct and especially indirect subsidies. The indirect subsidies result from ignoring climate change, and this is why fossil fueled deniers deny that global warming is happening. Or have recently changed their tune to global warming is happening but it’s all natural.

    Their is no evidence that gradually increasing carbon taxes would trigger a depression. Just more doom and gloom from the science denier crowd.

    Small government Con Men always call taxation “stealing” or “confiscation”.

    • Rotterdam says:

      I’m pretty sure you don’t understand how the markets work my friend. In this particular case you(AGW Proponents) are all saying that we desperately need to do something and sooner rather than later.

      However

      You then propose:

      gradually increasing carbon taxes

      Your own secretary of Energy under Obama claimed that Gasoline needed to be 8-10 dollars a gallon to alter habits or to have an impact. The same goes for coal. As Obama said we can have coal plants they will just be so expensive to run that no one will want too. Thus putting Trump in the White House. See coal country in PA and OH as primary examples of why he carried those states. Of the 25 US states that produce coal 24 of them voted for Trump.

      Going green has proven disastrous in Germany so much so that they have had to reopen COAL plants in order to prevent the rolling blackouts and brownouts caused by their Green energy plan.

      There is no quick fix for Co2 emission unless you want the planet to go dark and a gradual tax increase is not going to fix anything.

      We have to act now. But we want a gradual tax increase. Gradual and now does not seem to me to be mutually inclusive of your agenda.

  5. Jeffery says:

    TEACH: Are you proposing that papers no longer print letters to the editor, or just that the letters be censored to be pro-tRump?

  6. SgtPete says:

    When one is attempting to predict the future, one needs basic calculus. To obtain equations that predict future results, boundary conditions are needed. E.g., Integration of velocity with respect to distance yields X= Xo+ (Vo x t), go 30 mph(Vo) for one hour =(t), predicts how far one can go. For actual location one needs a starting place (Xo). Xo is the boundary condition, e.g., were we started. In determining ideal boundary condition it should be independent and unchanging. In predicting earth’s surface temperature one needs many boundary conditions. What we have are dependent on boundary condition, e.g., changing one changes the others. Here is my list of dependent boundary conditions required to predict earths future temperatures: Cloud/ice cover reflectivity; cloud/ice cover insulation; relative humidity; atmospheric pressures; latent heat of evaporations (oceans/forests); wind or turbulence; urban development related to weather collections; solar activities (sun spots or asteroid debris); earth’s polar movements, earth’s position related to sun (change related to Mars and Venus gravitational pull); sea densities, temperatures, and currents; plate tectonics; volcanic ash in atmosphere; space radiations causing changes in atmospheric ionic conditions; and atmospheric CO2. Today, there is human bias with cherry picking data or interpretation of such data via computer modeling. Error analysis and accuracy within each measurement device is not addressed. Not one model address the boundary conditions, instrument accuracies, or biases. The first cause of this global scare is politicians believing they can con the majority to tax carbon fuels for their social programs. The second cause of global scare is scientists who have sold their integrity for grant money. That it is easy to say there is global warming hence support my research. If any say it’s not, no grants, no job, and no paycheck. The politicians have killed opposition. These global warming scientists have sold their Integrity, now gone forever. Respectfully Submitted, Sgt Pete, Professional Engineer

  7. Jeffery says:

    SgtPete,

    You hide a lot of your opinions in non-scientific “engineer” jargon.

    Can you support these opinions, please? Thanks.

    Today, there is human bias with cherry picking data or interpretation of such data via computer modeling.

    Error analysis and accuracy within each measurement device is not addressed.

    Not one model address the boundary conditions, instrument accuracies, or biases.

    The first cause of this global scare is politicians believing they can con the majority to tax carbon fuels for their social programs.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Now, little guy, is the time for you to debunk Sgt. Pete’s arguments instead of asking more questions.

    • david7134 says:

      jeff,
      I understand his language very well. Are you sure you cured cancer? If you can’t read that then your whole profile is coming apart. But I am reminded about a fairly dense scientific paper you referred me to once that proved my point and not yours as you could not read it.

      This makes me sure that jeff, is the party guy for a drug company.

    • Rotterdam says:

      Easy to prove the cherry picking data. The Email expose of the climategate showed that they indeed did cherry pick data to get the results they wanted.

      The hockey stick by Mann was proven to be bogus because of cherry picked data. I mean when you have admissions by the lead scientists in the field that they are cherry picking data to get their own results then yes. Its pretty easy to conclude that if some do it. Then the rest are doing it as well in order to get that almighty dollar to fund their research.

      People tend to have short memories. HIDE THE DECLINE? Climate gate? ring a bell where the principals discussed cherry picking data to make their models work and that they didnt understand why there was NO WARMING happening.

  8. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Pete typed:

    Here is my list of dependent boundary conditions required to predict earths future temperatures: Cloud/ice cover reflectivity; cloud/ice cover insulation; relative humidity; atmospheric pressures; latent heat of evaporations (oceans/forests); wind or turbulence; urban development related to weather collections; solar activities (sun spots or asteroid debris); earth’s polar movements, earth’s position related to sun (change related to Mars and Venus gravitational pull); sea densities, temperatures, and currents; plate tectonics; volcanic ash in atmosphere; space radiations causing changes in atmospheric ionic conditions; and atmospheric CO2.

    And climate scientists DO take these variables into account as best as they can. Pete is right that changing one variable can also change the impact of another variable. This is all well known. His argument was that this is just too hard to figure out, even with computers! Too many variables! It is hard for sure. So the simplest model (and the one that Con Men Science Deniers prefer) is plotting atmospheric CO2 and mean global surface temperature – which is not a very good fit. Why? Because of the variables that Pete listed. A better fit is atmospheric CO2 vs ocean heat content, right? That’s a pretty good match. In terms of predictions, real scientists try to incorporate as many of the variables as possible, e.g., what is the role of reduced albedo, the positive feedback of methane clathrate distribution, changes in atmospheric aerosols etc.

    You and your ilk accept any old conclusion as long as it confirms your own old conclusion. My questions to Pete were requests for support for his opinions. It’s unlikely that SgtPete has unlocked the answers of global warming.

  9. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    No, CO2 is not a good fit. And Sony presume to know my actions, that is a bad habit you have and might explain your mental issues.

  10. Jl says:

    Here in the US emissions are decreasing because of the free market and fracking. Who would be dumb enough to tax something that’s already working? You know the answer. “Seas are rising”. Seas have been rising for the last 20,000 yrs. “Some types of extreme weather are increasing.” No, they’re not, and even if they were that doesn’t prove causation. The junk science continues

    • Jeffery says:

      jeez, j – Tony Wuwt lists 97 “articles” of which 94 are schlock from newspapers and right wing blogs and only 3 are in even semi-“scholarly” sources – two by Richard Tol who believes that there is a scientific consensus supporting AGW among scientists but doesn’t think that Cook’s methods are sound. Do you trust Dr. Tol’s experise? Good. He also supports a carbon tax.

      The other “scholarly” article that Wuwt includes is by the disgraced Willie Soon. ‘Nuff said.

      What Mr. Wuwt ignores are the other journal articles and scientific surveys by several others that also support that 90 to 99% of climate scientists support the theory.

      Here’s one article that finds that 92% of climate scientists agree with the theory.

      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

      Does that debunk the 97% consensus meme in your mind?

      How about: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf

      87% of all the AAAS members in our survey said they believe climate change is mostly due to human activity, compared with 88% of Working Ph.D. Scientists, 90% of Active Research Scientists and 93% of working Ph.D. Earth scientists who hold the same view.

      Is it your argument that 92-93% of working climate researchers support the theory of AGW?

  11. Rotterdam says:

    Additionally there was chained references to banning people from publishing any research papers that disputed AGW. Mann even went so far as to propose a ban of papers given to certain journals until they removed certain members from the editorial board who were okay with publishing papers that conflicted with the AGW consensus.

    My how people have short memories. The University of Pennsylvania held an inquiry into Michael Manns ethics and found him a stellar fellow. Very similar to the trial of the lady killer held in SF by a jury of whacked out lefties who would probably have all been murdered had they found this guy guilty of shooting her. The guy even admitted to shooting her BY ACCIDENT. At the very least that is negligent homicide.

    But when you rig the system to get a result then you get a result that you want.

    • Jeffery says:

      Rot,

      Please point out your reliable sources that solid scientific manuscripts not supporting AGW have been banned. Thanks.

      Dr. Mann has been thoroughly investigated. It’s common for authoritarians to oppose democratic workings such as trials by jury. They much prefer to get their way.

      Do you have evidence concerning the make up of the jury that found the shooter not guilty? Thanks. Do you have more evidence and insight than the jury? Please share it.

      Similarly, the New York deer hunter who killed an innocent woman has been charged with manslaughter.

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff,
        Rot should give “reliable” sources as soon as you come up with some. You have not provided a thing in the time you have been here except puff pieces from magazines.

  12. Jl says:

    “By a disgraced Willie Soon.” Translated: You can’t refute the article from Soon. As far as Tol, again, no refuting what he said. “Newspapers and right wing blogs..”. Again, nothing. Data is data-either it can be refuted or it can’t. Debate the data, not where it came from-which of course you didn’t

    • Jeffery says:

      Jeez, J… newspaper articles and blog opinions are not “data”. Don’t you agree that peer-reviewed scientific journal articles are a better source?

      Willie Soon neglected to disclose that he was on the payrolls of the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, The Koch Foundation, Texaco, etc. He claims that variations in solar output is causing the current bout of rapid warming, but has offered little evidence to support his claims.

      Regarding what “Tol said”, you are mistaken. We explained Tol’s positions regarding the 2013 Cook et al paper. Even if we concede Tol’s point that methodological discrepancies make Cook’s 97% claim invalid, there are many other scholarly papers that support the 90%-99% consensus.

      So what’s your point, at long last?

      Do YOU believe there is a scientific consensus concerning global warming?

      Do YOU really believe that few real-life climate scientists support the theory of AGW?

      Do YOU believe the 97% claim is debunked, but that 96% or 98% are still in the running?

      What is your point?

  13. Jl says:

    Jeez, J-did you read the papers? Where to begin….From the first one: One of the questions was “do you believe temps have risen since the 1850’s?” Duh. Another question:”do you believe humans play a significant factor in climate change? “Significant” means….what? 51%? 80%? Does it include Urban Heat Island effects by humans- if so, nobody doubts that UHI exists. Respondents include astronomers, engineers and “others”. But wait-I thought engineers weren’t credible because Tony Heller is an engineer? Can’t have it both ways. 52% of respondents stated “none of my research concerns climate change.” What was funny in the conclusion section was that one of the findings found that “climate change is occurring.” Duh.

  14. Jl says:

    The second paper found that “climate change is mostly due to human activity.” Again, does that mean 51%,? 70%?, 99%? Is UHI effect taken into account? 50% of the respondents were from biomedical sciences which according to Wikipedia is comprised of medical micro-biology, virology, epidemiology, and biomedical engineering. 7% were engineers (uh-oh), 9% were from Social, History and Policy departments, and 4% “other”. In other words, using alarmist “rules”, 70% of the respondents weren’t “climate scientists”. Whatever that means.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9372 access attempts in the last 7 days.