The Times recent editorial, “Adaptation, preservation and change,” was correct in stating the “debate about climate change has, more or less, been settled.”

The debate now needs to shift to what actions we should take and when we should take them. The second part of that question is easy to answer - we should take action very soon.

Why the urgency? The consensus of climate scientists is that if the increase in Earth’s temperature exceeds 2C, we will start to see unmanageable consequences. If we continue to emit CO2 at our present rate, we could easily be at the 2C limit within two or three decades. Changing our energy source from carbon-based fuels to renewables will not be an easy task, and every delay compounds the problem.

The first part of the question concerning what actions we should take is not as easy to answer, but one action gaining support and would put us on the road to reducing our CO2 emissions is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, collected wherever carbon-based fuels are produced, such as the well head or mine. The purpose of the tax is to reduce the production of CO2, not to raise money, so the revenue is returned to taxpayers.

Taxes are often used to limit the use of products and, in fact, a version of this tax on carbon-based fuel has been used in British Columbia since 2008 with good results. A number of economists support it, including George Schultz who served as Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Treasury, and Gary Becker, a 1992 Nobel laureate in economics.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax deserves our serious consideration - now.

(76) comments

Trek04
Trek04

You have to love these people that promote money-making scams that will crush our industries and ratchet energy prices out of control for the average consumer, based upon unfounded global warming hysteria.

First, they mislead you as to what is “settled” science. The political and economic engine behind global warming alarmism is so strong that they resort to falsifying data to do it, like John Cook, who was caught falsifying the “97% of scientists agree” claim, when it turns out that only approximately 50% of them agreed.

Second, they fail to explain what scientists really agree about. They agree that CO2 is a natural and necessary component of the atmosphere and that it is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and re-emits heat. Beyond those points, there is very little agreement. And there is certainly no consensus on the idea that the earth will experience any environmental disasters if we continue using fossil fuels.

The UN IPCC, the main proponent of global warming alarmism, has now produced five alarmist reports, with every one of them predicting disasters that never happened and producing models that consistently fail to predict actual climate conditions. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me five times – time to re-examine your theories.

A little inconvenient truth for the alarmists is that in the last 15 years global warming stopped despite dire predictions of accelerated warming, leaving the warmists scratching their heads, trying to figure out how they can keep their grip on humanity and profit from schemes like the carbon tax. What did they do? They re-branded their alarmism from global warming to “climate change,” so every uninformed alarmist zealot can run around claiming in the editorial sections of newspapers that every storm, every cold front, and every two-inch ripple on a lake is the result of man’s use of fossil fuels.

Australia implemented the carbon tax and here is the result: “Analysts virtually all agree that Abbott and his more liberty-oriented coalition were elected by voters mostly to abolish carbon taxes and restrain the “green” machine, which has contributed to record business failures and soaring costs even for essentials.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16536-australia-reining-in-climate-schemes-after-voters-reject-carbon-tax

Some people say “what’s the harm in erring on the side of caution global warming claims.” They fail to understand that, in additional to the economic damage caused by things like the carbon tax there are much more insidious designs behind the global warming scheme, including the UN’s Agenda 21, which would nullify many of the liberties you enjoy under the U.S. Constitution if Agenda 21 is implemented in the United States. Agenda 21 is described as follows:

“Lord Christopher Monckton revealed, global warming science had become the chosen vehicle to compel nations to cede their democratic sovereignty to the UN.”

“Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.”

“Agenda 21 is not an environmental management policy, but an attempt to impose a global centrally planned quasi-government administered by the United Nations. Under Agenda 21 all central government and local authority signatories are required to conform strictly to a common prescribed standard and hence this is just communism resurrected in a new guise.”
http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

And, if that’s not bad enough global warming hysteria is used to promote China-style schemes for population controls, including by President Obama’s own science czar, John Holdren, who advocated in the book “Ecoscience” population control measures that are so wild and so bizarre that it is difficult to believe that a sane individual actually authored them.

What follows are actual quotes from Holdren’s textbook:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements.”

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.”

“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

From: The Population Control Agenda Behind The Global Warming Movement: For The Environmental Extremists At Copenhagen Population Reduction Is The “Cheapest” Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions
By Michael Snyder, on December 15th, 2009, Thetruthwins.com

Sterilants in drinking water, “coercive fertility control,” “official permission” to have a child. A law prohibiting more than two children? These are Brave New World type proposals coming from your very own government officials, which they claim will be necessary to combat global warming.

The global warming alarmists need to stop getting a pass on all of their phony science, phony alarmist predictions and phony claims of “consensus.” People need to really see them for what they are: frauds, motivated by political and economic gain, who seek to control your life in bizarre and almost unimaginable ways.

Cbrown
Cbrown

The carbon tax idea here in America is nothing but a LIE! It is another of the many means they use to get more taxes for themselves. It is true that the old communists of 20 years ago fled into the environmentalist movement!

They know that carbon taxes are a lie as far as they will help stop carbon going into the atmosphere because 2 billion of the planets people have made it very clear they will NOT lower their carbon emissions! America is expected to sacrifice- pay huge taxes going to the tax and spend WASTERS for more things like Obamacare- yet the rest of the world will emit all the carbon they want.

A carbon tax in America will do NOTHING to limit carbon emissions worldwide!

You environmentalist need to work with Asia, Russia, Africa and those in S. America if you really believe in limited carbon output other than just using it as an excuse to get tax money from people!

Settled science? Don’t even close. More LIES from the self serving tax-you-more-people!
_______________________________________________________________

“Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
______________________________________________________________

“Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2mWAiN0bW


DominOrcutt
DominOrcutt

"A revenue-neutral carbon tax deserves our serious consideration"

"revenue neutral" to whom?

taicho
taicho

Lyle studies the situation and states facts. I think he is more qualified than many who call him a liar an then state their political opinions again.

Those opinions appear on every subject whether they know of what they speak or not.

Just keep reading and see.

Trek04
Trek04

taicho writes: "I think he is more qualified than many who call him a liar."

What are Lyle's qualifications?

Cbrown
Cbrown

As far as Taicho is concerned the LTE writer is very qualified. He wants more taxes that government will get to spend. Spend on Grey Terrorists like Tiacho!

Anything to keep the wasteful government programs that people like Taicho have become dependent on. They will destroy all America just for the few years they have left. After they are gone- they don’t care what happens to you and me!

Selfishness is their calling card!

Cbrown
Cbrown

Irrational Taicho-

Where is your answer to your claim that republicans added amendments to Obamacare just so they could criticize it? How did they do that?

Where is your evidence that republicans voted for Obamacare? I posted the actual congressional voting record. Where is your proof other than your faulty, flawed memory?

Cbrown
Cbrown

Irrational Taicho-

I posted my evidence! Where is your except for the claims that you have made that have been proven to be untrue!

Guys like YOU try to claim the King Claus did not lie about Obamacare- when people who think know better.

Who can trust anything you say?

Cbrown
Cbrown

Hey Taicho-

Where is your answer as to who you voted for president? You claim you did not vote for King Claus- right when his poll numbers hit 37% and falling?

You carry his water on everything he lies about- yet you claim you did not vote for him? Sounds pretty unlikely.

Cbrown
Cbrown

The environmental movement had better get a clue.

There is hope for the future….once these old progressives Hippies die away finally! Their generation has been a plague on America!

Will the progressives try to discredit Harvard and their poll?
_________________________________________________________________
“Poll: 52% of Young Adults Want Obama Recalled, 57% Oppose ObamaCare”

---A stunning new poll of young adults aged 18 to 29 shows that in large numbers, they have turned against President Obama and ObamaCare.

Among the youngest in this group, those aged 18-24, a full 52% support a recall effort that would throw Obama out of office. The number is only a little better among 18-29 year-olds, 47%. Individual members of Congress actually fare a little better with 45% of Millennials favoring a recall. A majority do, however, favor recalling Congress as a whole.

Since his reelection, Obama's overall approval with young adults has plummeted 11 points to just 41%; which puts it in line with the rest of the country.

ObamaCare is even less popular with this group. Fifty-seven percent disapprove of ObamaCare, with only 38% approving.---

http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-poll-5-key-findings-and-trends-millennial-viewpoints?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=hero&utm_campaign=Fall2013Survey

madwand
madwand

Way I read this is they want to run things but don't know what to do. You are saying you won the war but don't know how you are going to implement things. So we should follow you down whatever road you should choose to go. I don't think you have it together. One thing I am sure of you should be made to play with your money not oil companies.

Cbrown
Cbrown

Sorry, but the home of the displaced old world communist is the environmental movement. Remember that well-known communist Van Jones told his “green group” of environmentalists that the only reason he was leaving the presidency of his group for the Obama WH was to get funding for projects and things that the public would never fund- if they knew what it was going to be used for. Hence all the wasted money thrown at environmental groups. Especially ones that donate to the Obama election funds.

Just look at Obamacare and all the other hidden cost and taxes involved. The people expected this to be about cheaper health insurance and they are now getting the shaft, instead! A tax on selling your home to fund Obamacare? Who would have ever agreed to that if they were not lied to in the first place?

The scandals and lies from the environmental movement are well known and documented. Much the same way the lied about Obamacare. Not a coincident that it all has new TAXES as the end goal!

Progressives do not trust you with the most basic decisions of your own life. They do not trust you with your own money and are jealous that you have it in the first place. They make all these convoluted arguments about how “We’re a village” and “In this together” to justify their grabbing your wallet!

Note how the popularity for these things drops like a rock once they find they are expected to pay for it- like Obamacare or NPR!

madwand
madwand

another point if you want to be in charge where are you going to get the energy to fulfill oiur needs in the next twenty five years and thereafter. Please say you have a plan other than taxing oil companies.

madwand
madwand

http://bme.ccny.cuny.edu/faculty/mbikson/Courses/BMESeniorDesign/EthicsOfHealthRationing.pdf

I don't normally get involved in the Obamacare debate but I happened to read this today and this link is to an article written by Rahm Emanuals brother who is an advisor to Obama. I apologize if its already been posted but this article actually prioritizes who or who should lnot get care. Interesting reading.

Cbrown
Cbrown

The death panels of Obamacare are very real! Ezekiel Emanuel is the advisor to King Claus and he wrote an entire book where he outlined his case for rationing care, not to better life or for the good health of the patients but to save money, period! Your very life or death becomes a dollar equation that is not decided by your family or friends, but by some bureaucrat who does not know you! That has quotas and balance sheets to answer to!

This has been talked about here at length. Many of the pro-Obamacare advocates deny it even though it is very clear! They will claim it is a lie or some tactic of the right to damage the idea of Obamacare.

Very much the same conversation you have with someone that is wasting their money on lottery tickets. They will argue to their death that they will make it all back when they win! Wishful thinking or their dreams of all the things they expect to buy like a new car or expensive yearly vacations overshadow their critical thinking. Greed and money trumps all for them!

Many of the left here on these forums simply want to win a political fight. They are retired and those small kind of “wins” are all they have left in life. They will never admit they were wrong or that something like Obamacare was a terrible mistake. Never admit they were lied to about it!

Only once they are on a hospital bed and needing some care that could extend their lives and they are told NO- will the reality hit home for them. Those with money will get all the private care they need.

Once that happens here- the private for profit care- the class envy jealous types will get upset that some can buy better care. Like Canada tried- there will be lawsuits to prevent private medical care, but the Canadian courts shut that down. Now Canada has private care that upsets the class envy crowd!

Once again, the left will learn that the only way the can equalize outcomes is to LOWER the top down so that everyone is getting terrible care. They equalize misery by spreading it around everywhere. They can never reduce it so they give all an equal portion!

Trek04
Trek04

Madwand, Scary stuff, isn’t it?

When people opposed Obamacare for its creepy social engineering and “death panels” they were skewered by the media and Obamacare proponents, and called all sorts of nasty names. But when you read the kinds of things these people write, like Ezekiel J Emanuel, the main contributor to Obamacare, and the bizarre sterilization proposals I cited below, from Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, you see that these social engineers really believe in things the average person would find disturbing.

Here are some things you will find in the report you cite:

First, they justify refusing care to some based upon an allocation system, stating: “In health care, as elsewhere, scarcity is the mother of allocation.”

What about the allocation of care for infants?

“Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.”

What about the elderly?

“We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life.”

What if you are disabled?

“When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.”

There you have it. If you are an infant, elderly or disabled, when the rationing begins under Obamacare you are screwed.

madwand
madwand

Trek I actually got that off a contrarian investors website and yeah I read that stuff. Like I said its interesting and if you go back to the Nuremberg Doctors Trial and compare that with what those guys were charged with you get a sense of where Mr Emmanuel is taking it. Life is strange isn't it

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Folks,

I think Mr Lyle Yager has A LOT credibility than the trolls on the SMTIMES website. Since Trek04 = CBrown, we know they are one and tbe same. Sad.

Just saying,

Ignacio

DominOrcutt
DominOrcutt

J,

For G@d's sake man. Slow down. Proof read. Get yourself under control!

I'm ready for that beer when you are.

ccOrcuttguy
ccOrcuttguy

seems to me that he has too many beers before he writes comments. he has anger management-attention seeking problems. insult him like just like he insults you and he goes insane. he posts under fake id’s and says that everyone that disagrees with his stupidity does the same. crazy.

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo Orcutt dummy,

You are crazy if you think I'm Mr. Iggy!

Just saying,

JC

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo Dom,

"J"????

I think Ignacio begins with a "I".

You're welcome!

Just saying,

JC

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo Iggy,

Treky = wyett earp!

Notice how he always picks on Taicho and tries to correct everyone?

Yup, Treky is wyett earp sobered up!

Just saying,

JC

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Folks,

To be sure, Obamacare has it's problems, but let's not tilt at windmills.

Just saying,

Ignacio

"The one and only"

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Dom,

You need to be 21 to drink beer, silly. Unless you want a Dad's Rootbeer.

Just saying

Ignacio

"The one and only"

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Folks,

Justin, yes, these fools are very confused, and cannot seem to discern us from one another. If they get confused on this issue, just imagine their little brains on the big issues.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.

Just saying,

Ignacio

"The one and only"

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo Iggy (short for iganacio),

Proves my point;

God must have loved dumb people, he made a lot of them (Treky=wyett earp=jflossums=ect ie)!

Just saying,

JC

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Yo Justin,

I agree, These guys are truly fools! They cannot even distinguish between two obviously different people. Sad.

Here's to you, my friend.

Mr. Iggy

Trek04
Trek04

You have to love these people that promote money-making scams that will crush our industries and ratchet energy prices out of control for the average consumer, based upon unfounded global warming hysteria.

First, they mislead you as to what is “settled” science. The political and economic engine behind global warming alarmism is so strong that they resort to falsifying data to do it, like John Cook, who was caught falsifying the “97% of scientists agree” claim, when it turns out that only approximately 50% of them agreed.

Second, they fail to explain what scientists really agree about. They agree that CO2 is a natural and necessary component of the atmosphere and that it is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and re-emits heat. Beyond those points, there is very little agreement. And there is certainly no consensus on the idea that the earth will experience any environmental disasters if we continue using fossil fuels.

The UN IPCC, the main proponent of global warming alarmism, has now produced five alarmist reports, with every one of them predicting disasters that never happened and producing models that consistently fail to predict actual climate conditions. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me five times – time to re-examine your theories.

A little inconvenient truth for the alarmists is that in the last 15 years global warming stopped despite dire predictions of accelerated warming, leaving the warmists scratching their heads, trying to figure out how they can keep their grip on humanity and profit from schemes like the carbon tax. What did they do? They re-branded their alarmism from global warming to “climate change,” so every uninformed alarmist zealot can run around claiming in the editorial sections of newspapers that every storm, every cold front, and every two-inch ripple on a lake is the result of man’s use of fossil fuels.

Australia implemented the carbon tax and here is the result: “Analysts virtually all agree that Abbott and his more liberty-oriented coalition were elected by voters mostly to abolish carbon taxes and restrain the “green” machine, which has contributed to record business failures and soaring costs even for essentials.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16536-australia-reining-in-climate-schemes-after-voters-reject-carbon-tax

Some people say “what’s the harm in erring on the side of caution global warming claims.” They fail to understand that, in additional to the economic damage caused by things like the carbon tax there are much more insidious designs behind the global warming scheme, including the UN’s Agenda 21, which would nullify many of the liberties you enjoy under the U.S. Constitution if Agenda 21 is implemented in the United States. Agenda 21 is described as follows:

“Lord Christopher Monckton revealed, global warming science had become the chosen vehicle to compel nations to cede their democratic sovereignty to the UN.”

“Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.”

“Agenda 21 is not an environmental management policy, but an attempt to impose a global centrally planned quasi-government administered by the United Nations. Under Agenda 21 all central government and local authority signatories are required to conform strictly to a common prescribed standard and hence this is just communism resurrected in a new guise.”
http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

And, if that’s not bad enough global warming hysteria is used to promote China-style schemes for population controls, including by President Obama’s own science czar, John Holdren, who advocated in the book “Ecoscience” population control measures that are so wild and so bizarre that it is difficult to believe that a sane individual actually authored them.

What follows are actual quotes from Holdren’s textbook:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements.”

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.”

“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

From: The Population Control Agenda Behind The Global Warming Movement: For The Environmental Extremists At Copenhagen Population Reduction Is The “Cheapest” Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions
By Michael Snyder, on December 15th, 2009, Thetruthwins.com

Sterilants in drinking water, “coercive fertility control,” “official permission” to have a child. A law prohibiting more than two children? These are Brave New World type proposals coming from your very own government officials, which they claim will be necessary to combat global warming.

The global warming alarmists need to stop getting a pass on all of their phony science, phony alarmist predictions and phony claims of “consensus.” People need to really see them for what they are: frauds, motivated by political and economic gain, who seek to control your life in bizarre and almost unimaginable ways.

Trek04
Trek04

I think we have all read enough of Case/Ignacio writing to himself. Back to the subject of the LTE.

Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

“The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.”

“For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.”

“Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.”

“Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report.”

“If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300.”

“Yet none of this unsettles the rush to kill debate. The Los Angeles Times has even announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor questioning man-made global warming. Had the Times been printing before Columbus, perhaps it would have banned letters saying the Earth was round.”

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Folks,

Trek04/CBrown (same troll) is a paid shill for the oil industry. His comments are motivated by greed and should be seen in that vein.

When we honor the creation, we honor the creator.

Just saying,

Mr. Iggy

'The one and only"


ccOrcuttguy
ccOrcuttguy

say something he does not like and he goes insane like an upset child that needs a timeout. look at me! look at me!

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo orcutt dumb,

"say something he does not like and he goes insane like an upset child that needs a timeout. look at me! look at me!"

Similar to what you're doing too??? Hypocrite!!!

Just saying,

JC

"The only and one"

madwand
madwand

An article in the NYTimes today More than two dozen of the nations biggest corporations including the five major oil companies are planning their future growth on the expectation that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution as a way to control global warming. This is despite that past efforts to impose such a tax have failed and are likely to again with the current configuration of congress.

During the 2012 election, every Republican presidential candidate but one, Jon Huntsman, questioned or denied the science of climate change and rejected policies to deal with global warming. Opponents of carbon-pricing policies consider them an energy tax that will hurt business and consumers.

Mainstream economists have long agreed that putting a price on carbon pollution is the most effective way to fight global warming. The idea is fairly simple: if industry must pay to spew the carbon pollution that scientists say is the chief cause of global warming, the costs will be passed on to consumers in higher prices for gasoline and electricity. Those high prices are expected to drive the market away from fossil fuels like oil and coal, and toward low-carbon renewable sources of energy.

Past efforts to enact a carbon price in Washington have failed largely because powerful fossil-fuel groups financed campaigns against lawmakers who supported a carbon tax.

Should this be passed then consumers (that's us) will be taxed higher on gas and oil products and most everything else that is a by product of gas and oil. Supposedly we are going to scream and yell about the high prices and we will begin a phased transition to renewable energy. I can't foretell the future but the oil companies will simply pass the tax onto us at the pump so congrats to all those people who support this. The only way it can be revenue neutral for me is to get a check back from the government for the taxes I paid or an equivalent deduction dollar for dollar on my income tax. If those taxes are going to be used for other things then the only people its going to be revenue neutral for is those companies passing along the tax, but its not going to be us.

Cbrown
Cbrown

The revenue neutral part of this is nothing more than a LIE just like the lies that have been proven about global warming itself. This is about lies built on lies! Not ONE SINGLE claim they have made has come true. Dozens of long term deadlines have passed as well. Nothing has ever come from claims or deadlines.

The environmental movement has a long history- since its very beginning of making doomsday predictions. None of those have come true, either.

One of the problems for the liars in the environmental movement is that the internet now exists. It’s storehouse of knowledge makes it easy for almost anyone (that WANTS the truth) to find out about all the claims made in the past to justify some drastic tax, drastic action out of the people- all for things that never came true at all! The internet will be the undoing of the environmentalist liars.

The one driving goal for all government claims- whether it is global warming to Obamacare to today’s deflection of the bad news by the WH’s push on income inequality- is for you to give more money to the desperate politicians that use your money to buy themselves votes that keep them in power. Both the R’s and the D’s do this. That’s why I support the Tea Party- until they become corrupted too!

It is THAT simple!

Trek04
Trek04

madwand,

Those demanding acceptance of the global warming theory are motivated by power and profit. The profiteers are trying to push us into alternative energy by making fossil fuels cost-prohibitive, so they can profit from their investments in things like cap and trade, carbon exchanges and alternative energy companies.

Here is an example from the most notorious global warming advocate:

"Al Gore pushes Global Warming for personal profit"

“Former vice president Al Gore stands to personally benefit from proposals he advocates to ward off global warming. Government solutions, such as Cap and Trade, may very well put billions into his pocket. It is an interesting situation. If Al Gore gets his way and governments undertake drastic measures to counter the fear of global warming, then Al Gore gets rich – filthy rich. It makes one wonder what his real motive is.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit

“Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor”

“Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”

“Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=0

DominOrcutt
DominOrcutt

I'm sorry. But, you forgot the exclamation point on the end of your post.

Allow me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Folks,

CcOrcutGuy=Trek=JFossum!

Our SMT Internet troll persist with his inane baloney. Longtime readers on this site know his poor reputation.

Lately, his bigotry and hatred towards people of color has reached new lows. He and the other 'Crazy Five' persist in dividing our community. Sad.

Just saying,

Mr. Iggy

Trek04
Trek04

"Global Warming Guru Calls Green Energy 'Drivel'"

“James Lovelock, founder of the global warming movement, is now supporting natural gas fracking and mocking the idea of wind power, according to The Toronto Sun.
The man, called "the godfather of global warming," called renewable energy "meaningless drivel."

Lovelock is a famous scientist who developed influential ideas about the environment and came up with several important inventions. But he now said he was too alarmist about climate change. The Toronto Sun reports he still believes man-made global warming is happening, and that greenhouse gas emissions have to be cut back. But he admitted his doomsday predictions were clearly wrong.

Lovelock said the earth has not seen a rise in global temperatures this millenium in the way computer models predicted. He also told The Guardian newspaper that climate change followers have turned their beliefs into a religion.

"It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion," Lovelock said. "It's got all the sort of terms that religions use."

Lovelock said the science on global warming is not a settled fact."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2012/June/Global-Warming-Guru-Calls-Green-Energy-Drivel/

madwand
madwand

excerpts from the Toronto article printed verbatim

1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.

So here's a guy who turning down the role of Jesus. Hey three hundred years from now who knows another Council of Nicea and he might be Jesus. The point is if you go into wikipedia which according to one person here has been heavily edited in favor of global warming, there is a problem in the Eocene. They can't account for the high CO2 rise from low levels to approximate 900 ppm without an industrial economy. All the models using all the green house gases don't account for the warming of the poles. So something else had to cause it. There are theories of course. Also there are multiple warming and cooling periods between around 49 million years ago and 39 million years ago leading up to the gradual cooling of the earth from then till now. Right now there is no mind out there capable of fully understanding planetary dynamics and solar system dynamics or galaxy dynamics etc and who can say this or that is going to definitely happen.

So one has to ask himself who stands to gain and who stands to lose here. There are winners and losers on all sides of the conflict. The point is who is going to pay for it. We will it is always socialize the cost and risk, privatize the profit. Nuff said

Trek04
Trek04

Good Article!

Here are some graphs global warming alarmists do not want you to see. They show two things: 1) Climate change is a natural, historical process; and, 2) Temperatures do not correlate with airborne CO2 concentrations.

Notice that the graph in the Climate Physics article shows historic CO2 concentrations as high as 7000 ppm, compared to 400 ppm today, negating the myth that we are experiencing extraordinarily high CO2 levels, that would result in catastrphic climate change.

http://www.nativevillage.org/Messages%20from%20the%20People/Global%20Temperatures.htm

http://climatephysics.com/80/

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Folks,

Despite what these few radical anti-environmentalists try to say, our world is cleaner and better because we have 'earth advocates'.

The truth is, as most reasonable people know, is that we need an. 'All of the above' energy policy.

That fact that divisive voices like Trek04 continue to try to besmirch the reputation of good earth stewards just says that he emits the tactic of trying to attack the reputations of good people. Sad.

Do you agree with me that America deserves a good energy supply AND a good environment?

I thought so.

Just saying,

Mr Iggy

DominOrcutt
DominOrcutt

Now might be a good time to remember that Kenny Rodgers song you mentioned the other day.

You know I'm ok with you. Right J?

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo D,

Me & you's have always been cool, well, except when you assume I'm Mr. Iggy!

However, which one of Kenny's songs were you referring to? “Ruby, Don’t Take Your Love to Town” or “Coward of the County”?

"Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
Now it won't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old enough to understand:
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man."

Yeah you're right!

Thanks D!

JC

Cbrown
Cbrown

More bad news (or what rational people call evidence) for the global warming grabbers of your wallet!

That “97% of scientist agree” figure is melting from the heat!
______________________________________________________________________
“Report: Scientists predict a century of global cooling”

--- German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

“Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870,” write German scientists Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.

Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle.----


http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/#ixzz2mdzZHoLM

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Folks,

Don't be fooled by the con artists who deny climate change. To be sure, let's continue to research and act on facts, not hysteria.

That being said, people like Trek04/ JFossum and CBrown cannot be trusted, their judgement is clouded by politics and prejudice. If you have read any of their bigoted and arrogant comments, you know what I mean.

When we honor the creation, we honor the creator.

Just saying,

Mr. Iggy

"The one and only"

Justin Case
Justin Case

Folks,

I agree with Mr. Iggy (short for Iganacio),

Anyone can "cut and paste" articles found on the internet which suit their agenda while at the same time ignoring evidence which dispute their "facts"< questionable?.

That's why we have our own mind, to seek and find the truth.

Thank you all!

Just saying,

JC

madwand
madwand

Yep you also can cut and paste to suit your agenda I presume your posts are also keeping in line with your agenda and your correct that's why we have our own mind.

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo mudwand,

Yes, a mind is a terrible thing to waste; maybe you can salvage what little you have left!

Just saying,
JC

Trek04
Trek04

madwand,

There is no point in arguing directly with Case/Ignacio, she will just lower you to her level then beat you with experience.

Trek04
Trek04

Greg wrote: “For the record, San Ignacio de Loyola is a female teacher who is assigned to Santa Maria high school. She actually used her own name when blogging, until her spiritual leader, Mark Goodman, instructed her to cease and desist in the best interests of the CTA.”

Story: “Local Latinos under attack.”

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo Treky.

So you’re saying my colleague and mentor Mr. Iggy is really a woman? Well I’ll be d a m e d!

So I guess since Iggy is a female; she has more in common with you than me!

Just saying,

JC

Trek04
Trek04

Excerpts from: "Carbon tax would raise unemployment not revenue"

1. A Carbon Tax Would Damage the Economy

In 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) made a comparison analysis for a carbon tax that starts at $25 and rises by 5 percent per year (after adjusting for inflation).[1] Compared to the baseline case, without the carbon tax, this would[2]:

• Cut the income of a family of four by $1,900 per year in 2016 and lead to average losses of $1,400 per year through 2035;

• Raise the family-of-four energy bill by more than $500 per year (not counting the cost of gasoline);

• Cause gasoline prices to increase by up to $0.50 gallon, or by 10 percent on an average gallon price; and

• Lead to an aggregate loss of more than 1 million jobs by 2016 alone.

2. A Carbon Tax Would Not Save the Planet

Despite actions taken by the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, the developing world has massive expansions planned to increase coal consumption. According to a recent report from the World Resources Institute, there are plans to build nearly 1,200 coal-fired power plants in 59 different countries totaling over 1.4 million megawatts. China and India alone account for 76 percent of the proposals

3. Revenue Neutrality or a Regulations Swap Is Unrealistic

Just the sniff of a new revenue stream to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually has the special interests in Washington running to Congress for more handouts. Before carbon tax legislation has even been introduced, ideas on how to use the revenue already include income transfers, paying for defense spending cuts, reducing the deficit, transferring money to developing countries to adapt to climate change and the list goes on. History shows that any time more money comes into the coffers of the federal government, there is a political interest to spend it one way or another

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue

madwand
madwand

Good posts trek, people apparently do not know who is going to heft the bill here, but the bell is tolling for them. Loss of jobs not gain of jobs, higher electricity bills and higher fuel costs and believe me no telling what else you will be paying on. Socialize the cost and risk, privatize the profit, and ultimately the planet loses with 1,200 more coal plants and more hydrocarbons. You do a good job illuminating this issue, I don't see the detractors doing anymore than a one to five line answer here claiming their side is truth. You can say it's truth but after awhile you have to say why its the truth. They don't counter you. In the end people will see that if they read here. Thanks for the information.

Trek04
Trek04

Why did Australia just drop their carbon tax scheme?

“An analyst's report shows the companies which own some of Australia's dirtiest power plants are passing on the entire cost of the carbon tax, while pocketing the compensation they've been paid by the Federal Government.”

“MARK WAKEHAM: The most polluting power stations remain extremely profitable and in fact it had their profitability enhanced by the compensation arrangements in the carbon price.”

“GREG HUNT: Families are paying twice. They're being hit with higher electricity prices and then there's a massive windfall profit in terms of cash payments from the Government to brown coal generators.”

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3694439.htm

madwand
madwand

The point needs to be made again and again if its going to be revenue neutral than whatever individuals pay in a carbon tax needs to come back into their pockets as a check or refund other wise its not revenue neutral, its a tax to the federal government pure and simple. Good scheme.

Cbrown
Cbrown

Not a chance!

The phrase “revenue neutral” always refers to government getting the same amount of taxes. That’s what they mean. Not neutral to the people!

The tax will take money from the economy and less taxes will be generated from it because of the lower business revenues, but we MUST somehow, someway make sure the all-important, all-powerful government can NEVER do with less!

The calls for more taxes always have the in-place idea that government can never do with less- while the people are expected to sacrifice all the time.

Remember the foremost idea of the progressives- they are better, smarter, more educated and just all around superior people than the average American. The progressives in government SHOULD never do with less because they are the most valuable component of America!

madwand
madwand

Not a chance..... I know like I said good scheme

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo mudwand,

Why are you worried about taxes? Welfare recipients like you don’t pay any!

Just saying,

JC

madwand
madwand

Are you stabbing in the dark there Justin hoping for a rise. If you had answered with an argument of what the taxes were going to be used for and how good it was going to be for whoever I could respect that. Then we could all state our opinions on the merits of the case, no pun intended.

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo mudwand,

Ok, you got me; assuming welfare recipients like you pay taxes?

Is that better for you?

JC

Trek04
Trek04

madwand,

There is no point in arguing directly with Case/Ignacio, she will just lower you to her level then beat you with experience.

madwand
madwand

You are most likely correct trek, I was just gassing up my vehicle and dreaming of 50 more cents on the gallon and thinking back to NY in the early seventies. Back then if you flew at around 5000 ft in South Jersey NYC was a brown smudge. That was all that you could see. 10 or so years later after unleaded gas was introduced you could do that same flight and see NYC very clearly. I remember it being said at the time lead was an additive so why did unleaded cost more. They were also cleaning up the smoke stacks etc but the point is made there was a solution for the problem. Now we are having economists telling us how to clean up the atmosphere rather than scientists and government bureaucrats telling us what type of health care we can get rather than doctors. Times have changed

IndependentThinker
IndependentThinker

On a day when several large Chinese cities have suspended all flights at their airports due to smog affecting visibility, and days after the announcement that 12% of the smog in the San Francisco Bay Area can be traced to Chinese air pollution, one would think the Climate Change Deniers minority would pause then revise their so-unintelligent opinions. Does an increase in smog cause an increase in global warming?

Justin Case
Justin Case

Excellent observations Indy!

JC

Trek04
Trek04

Thinker,

It’s about time you weighed in on this issue!

And, I will give you credit for your clever attempt to make a point by straying from the issue in the LTE. The LTE is not about smog, it is about a (presumably domestic) tax on carbon dioxide emissions to stop alleged global warming.

You are conflating two different issues: smog v. global warming. Smog is an air quality problem affecting human health, caused by a mixture of particulate and chemicals within certain atmospheric conditions.

Here is what the EPA says about smog:

“Breathing air pollution such as ozone (a primary ingredient in urban smog), particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead can have numerous effects on human health . . ..”

http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.html

Notice there is no mention of carbon dioxide causing smog.

There are good reasons to reduce smog, but a domestic tax on carbon dioxide is a poor method for doing so, and the carbon tax concept is fraught with all sorts of ills already mentioned below.

Trek04
Trek04

Thinker,

In keeping with your idea of straying off topic we do need clarification on your position regarding nuclear energy, which we can all concede, would reduce CO2 emissions, and, therefore, according to you, help prevent catastrophic global warming.

When the Obama administration struck a deal with Iran that allowed Iran to aggressively expand their nuclear energy program, you hailed the deal as a “major accomplishment.” (See comments to SMT Editorial: Iran must prove itself with actions, published November 30, 2013). Do you support an expansion of nuclear energy production here in the U.S. as well, or is your support for the development of nuclear energy limited to fanatical regimes that have taken our citizens hostage, armed our enemies, defied U.N. sanctions for years and vowed to annihilate their Israeli neighbors?

Justin Case
Justin Case

Yo Trixie & Mudwand,

I see you both have been utilizing the “3rd graders survival comeback lines”.

Now, both of you go to your rooms; don’t come out until you have better comeback lines! And don’t forget to brush your teeth!!!!!!

Just saying,

JC

madwand
madwand

what teeth

Justin Case
Justin Case

LMAOOO!

Good one!

Have a great weekend!

JC

madwand
madwand

You also

Cbrown
Cbrown

Independent Liar-

How do explain that CO2 HAS already risen beyond the heights that the warmers claimed 15 years ago would be irreversible today and the temperature was supposed to increase TWICE what it has increased? We have passed the CO2 level and have not seen the temperatures predicted. The warmer scientists themselves have admitted that!!!!!

How do you explain what the scientist cannot- by their own words- explain themselves?

You keep pushing the POLITICAL side of this issue because you want the political win and power that comes with it- when the very scientists you say are on your side no longer make the claims you political never-say-die people are trying to make!

You guys applaud the killing of jobs right here in our own backyard- SM Energy. What do you say about Brazil and their finding of the largest oil field on Earth off their shores? They are going to drill- in ocean waters- whether you like it or not. No matter how you lie about global warming- Brazil with its 7th largest and growing economy in the word- is going to bring BILLIONS of barrels into production for decades and sell it all over the planet!

You guys kill jobs right here in America and instead see the very same demand for oil filled by people overseas. Essentially, you are sending AMERICAN jobs overseas and NOTHING is done to lessen carbon emissions in the slightest!

You killed SM Energy jobs here in the Valley and have not stopped one single carbon atom from going into the air. The SAME amount of oil is going to be used here in America and all over the planet. It will just be gotten from overseas and other people; other countries will get the reward! Other countries will get the tax money.

Yeah! You make GREAT decisions! We should listen to you and your kind!

If we looked at it another way- one could argue that you guys from EDC are foreign agents sent here to purposely HARM America’s economy. That is all you have done. (Plus make a lot of attorneys RICH)

The idea that you have done something positive, anything, even a tiny thing to lessen carbon emission is a joke!

Yet, the harm to the economy is real and easy-to-see!

Justin Case
Justin Case

Folks,

Let us all put our differences aside and observe a moment of silence in remembrance of the servicemen and women who lost their life on this fateful day in 1941.

December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

--President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Just saying,

JC

Justin Case
Justin Case

Folks,

Let us all put our differences aside and observe a moment of silence in remembrance of the servicemen and women who lost their life on this fateful day in 1941.

December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

--President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Just saying,

JC

San Ignacio de Loyola
San Ignacio de Loyola

Folks,

I agree with Justin Case. Let's honor this anniversary of the sneaky Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

We will never forget.

Just as our proud war veterans saved us from fascism, today's environmentalist deserve credit for saving us from ourselves.

When we honor the creation, we honor the Creator.

Just saying,

Mr. Iggy

"The one and only"

Justin Case
Justin Case

Folks,

Unto a better subject;

JC’s 12/8 NFL predictions

49ers over Seahawks
Cowboys over Bears
Cardinals over Rams
Saints over Panthers
Chargers over Giants
Broncos over Titans
Raiders over Jets
Chiefs over Redskins
Dolphins over Steelers
Packers over Falcons
Colts over Bengals
Lions over Eagles
Patriots over Browns
Bills over Buccaneers
Ravens over Vikings

Bonsai JC

AND HAPPY FOOTBALL!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.