The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[Epoetker]

1. Clean air is beneficial outside of global warming. I don't think government spending on climatologists is anywhere near a budgetary concern.

I'm concerned less about the budgetary hazard (that mostly exists in anti-poverty programs) than the moral hazard of scientists working for Funding and Social Prestige rather than Truth and Profit.

2. What specific taxes would cease to exist or decrease?

A bunch of very smart people would no longer be wasting their lives on intractable problems.

3. Coal mining is bad for the environment outside of global warming and it's a very hazardous profession. You remind me of the politicians who vote to fund the building of tanks the military doesn't want so people can keep their jobs.

Are you a complete idiot? Because I didn't hear you once offer a defense of a form of energy less hazardous than coal when you made this attack. All energy-sector jobs invite hazards, and the bigger and more concentrated the energy yield the more dangerous the mistakes. If you want to move away from coal because it's a dangerous, crappy job, plug for nuclear power.

[Sparko]

I still don't understand your argument. If our government wanted to consider these changes they could hire people to look into these statistics. If you want proof that these ideas would be effective then you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that they are.



1. Clean air is beneficial outside of global warming. I don't think government spending on climatologists is anywhere near a budgetary concern.
2. What specific taxes would cease to exist or decrease?
3. Coal mining is bad for the environment outside of global warming and it's a very hazardous profession. You remind me of the politicians who vote to fund the building of tanks the military doesn't want so people can keep their jobs.

1. I never said we shouldn't have clean air. That is a completely different topic than trying to eliminate excess Co2 if Co2 isn't an actual problem and is not causing man-made global warming. The government goes beyond pollution control and wants to control c02 output by limiting industries and creating crap like carbon credits.

2. Well, I have just gotten a letter from my electrical company saying that my rates are going up because of government regulations on global warming. And if electrical plants can't use cheap sources of energy like coal, the costs are higher than they should be. The EPA has a ton of regulations and are adding more penalties and taxes on industries to force them to comply with Co2 Emissions. Those costs get passed down to the consumer. Me and you.

3. Coal mining is not bad for the environment. We have clean burning coal plants that do not pollute. The reason the government wants to eliminate coal is because it claims that burning coal (which is basically just carbon) raises co2 levels and causes global warming. I am from eastern kentucky where closing of coal mines has put thousands out of jobs in coal mines. That means that the towns have no income, which means that other businesses go out of business too because there is no money coming in from the mines. The end result is that people have to move away, or end up on welfare. And that costs the taxpayers more because someone has to support all those people on welfare.

[Psychic Missile]

I give up. Why don't you just say "I don't know"?

I don't know why we seem to be miscommunicating.

I'm concerned less about the budgetary hazard (that mostly exists in anti-poverty programs) than the moral hazard of scientists working for Funding and Social Prestige rather than Truth and Profit.

Aren't funding and social prestige tied to truth and profit? Good science stands on its own merit, and a scientist that can find hidden truths is desired.

A bunch of very smart people would no longer be wasting their lives on intractable problems.

Are they? Global warming isn't its own discipline.

Are you a complete idiot? Because I didn't hear you once offer a defense of a form of energy less hazardous than coal when you made this attack. All energy-sector jobs invite hazards, and the bigger and more concentrated the energy yield the more dangerous the mistakes. If you want to move away from coal because it's a dangerous, crappy job, plug for nuclear power.

I would.

1. I never said we shouldn't have clean air. That is a completely different topic than trying to eliminate excess Co2 if Co2 isn't an actual problem and is not causing man-made global warming. The government goes beyond pollution control and wants to control c02 output by limiting industries and creating crap like carbon credits.

I think we would both agree that there needs to be limits on Co2, otherwise we'd see what's happened to air quality in China happen here. Even if you don't like carbon credits (I don't either) the argument for them can still be made outside of global warming.

2. Well, I have just gotten a letter from my electrical company saying that my rates are going up because of government regulations on global warming. And if electrical plants can't use cheap sources of energy like coal, the costs are higher than they should be. The EPA has a ton of regulations and are adding more penalties and taxes on industries to force them to comply with Co2 Emissions. Those costs get passed down to the consumer. Me and you.

The purpose of the tax would be to get people to use less energy so their bill would be equal to or smaller than what it was before the taxes were implemented. I don't think it's right for people to use non-renewable energy sources without having a limit on consumption.

3. Coal mining is not bad for the environment. We have clean burning coal plants that do not pollute. The reason the government wants to eliminate coal is because it claims that burning coal (which is basically just carbon) raises co2 levels and causes global warming. I am from eastern kentucky where closing of coal mines has put thousands out of jobs in coal mines. That means that the towns have no income, which means that other businesses go out of business too because there is no money coming in from the mines. The end result is that people have to move away, or end up on welfare. And that costs the taxpayers more because someone has to support all those people on welfare.

The World Coal Association has a list pf possible environmental problems, and while I would not call their list at all exhaustive, it illustrates that the goal industry itself admits negative environmental impact is at the very least a possibility. I don't think we should employ people to do a job we don't want or need them to do. I don't see how that's any different than welfare. If anything, it's worse. I would rather all those people have better jobs that people want and need in their community.

[John Reece]

The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

The following is the opening paragraph from a three-page behind-a-pay-wall article in The Weekly Standard:

Climate Cultists

Has the desperate global warming crusade reached its Waterloo?

Here is a paragraph from the middle of the three-page article:

Here are the two concluding paragraphs from page three:

[John Reece]

This is the concluding paragraph of an article at What's Up With That, titled "Standard Deviation, The Overlooked But Essential Climate Statistic":

IPCC studies and prediction failures were inevitable because they lack data, manufacture data, lack knowledge of mechanisms and exclude known mechanism. Reduction or elimination of the standard deviation leads to loss of information and further distortion of the natural variability of weather and climate, both of which continue to occur within historic and natural norms.

[John Reece]

We know the increases in CO2 are human-driven because the C13/C12 ratio of the atmosphere is characteristic of fossil fuels.

However, there is no documented cause and effect correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the trend line of surface temperature.

See here and especially here.

[Truthseeker]

Great good news for alarmists! G. B. Trudeau, the brains behind the comic strip Doonesbury, is on your side! Here's proof: http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com...hive/2014/6/22 Now you have nothing to fear.