A series of videos by Topher Field, director of the 50 to 1 Project addresses the futility of attempting to solve the problem of AGW. The proposed solutions to this problem are not cost effective and would be catastrophic financially. [video=youtube;Zw5Lda06iK0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0[/video] This video is an interview with Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and popular science blogger (wattsupwiththat.com) [video=youtube;RiuHOzykxC0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiuHOzykxC0[/video]
Topher Field obviously knows nothing about economics. Increasing tax revenue is most certainly not a loss of GDP, as he seems to believe. Since his entire analysis is based on that mistaken belief, his entire analysis is nonsense.
Nonsense...Gross Domestic Product is effected by increasing tax revenue. GDP isn't just government spending minus costs, it includes business and exports/imports as well as consumer spending or consumption. If you tax business and consumers more they have less extra to purchase with. If they spend less, the GDP is effected... Please, that claim was false in your last posting of it,and it is false now...
Wrong, because when the private sector spends less (due to taxation), the government spends more (due to taxation). The net effect is nearly zero. Nice try though.
LOL waiting two days to respond with a weak bit of nonsense?? Really? More taxes automatically means more government spending on things that would effect GDP? Oh really? So you have evidence that when private sector spends less due to taxation, then the government in fact spends more due to taxation.. First off, taxation is not the government paying, understand? Higher rate taxes, or even more or new taxes do not mean more money spent either. It simply means there is more money to spend.. Like Clinton's "surplus of funds" the liberal media kept bragging on. He taxed at a higher rate, and cut a lot of military spending at the same time. Closed a few military bases, and soon and so forth. So before long he had a surplus of funds. Or extra money after the budget.. He didn't pay any of the deficit with that surplus, nothing went to our national debt, or anything else of importance. it just sat there until Bush got in and he spent it,on tax refunds, military of course and many other things. Now according toyour logic, that shouldn't have been able to happen. The money should have been spent as soon as it was received... But it did happen... Your talking nonsense again... You assume all things government spends on is a postive to the GDP, and you assume higher or more taxes automatically means more government spending. Both assumptions are false.. Please read the definition of GDP again and then read the formula... http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp Notice the formula? No where in that does it assume all taxation leads tomore government spending so why do you think that?
Giving up the incandescent light bulb is one sacrifice I'm not willing to make. The savings from banning it are really rather trivial in comparison to everything else. I absolutely hate fluorescent everywhere. Ugly light, strains my eyes, and skin sensitivity
Let's ignore political posturizing and look at the fundamental proposal to reduce manmade CO2 in the atmosphere that has two elements. 1. Cost effectively reduce CO2 being released into the atmosphere. An excellent example of how this could be done is by mandating the installation of "clean coal" technology in US coal fired power plants. Clean coal technology is promoted by the Coal Industry itself as being cost effective, and it is, but to date not a single existing coal fired power plant has converted to use it. Why not? There are literally hundreds of ways we can reduce CO2 emissions cost effectively. 2. Increase the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. A notable item to do this would be to just replant the illegally cleared forests in the Amazon basin. Countries like Brazil have limits on deforestation of the Amazon but the actual deforestation is much higher because of illegal clear cut operations and it accounts for millions of acres of forest that has been lost. Simply replanting the forests that were illegally destroyed would provide a huge increase in CO2 absorption from the atmosphere.
Paying the poor in third world countries to get vasectomies and tubal legations would also be a very cost effective way to prevent future pollution and deforestation. It would also ultimately help reduce immigration into our own countries. This could eventually stop all the population growth the West has been experiencing.
That whole premise automatically assumes that CO 2 is actually harmful and thus needs to be reduced. To date there is not a shred of empirical evidence that it is or does so until that is established we should perhaps stop throwing our money at problems we have invented in our own minds. I rather suspect the well established benefits of extra CO 2 in terms of increased crop growth will far outweigh any of the entirely hypothetical negatives over the long term
The problem is that government is so inefficient. If they take in money for a problem they spend too much on administrative costs. There is also "crony capitalism" and products aren't produced for profit or even to solve problems. Most of the time money is used to pay off political favors or in return for political favors in other areas. And also the government can't return the money dolar for dollar or even return a profit on that dollar unless it is a loan that just happens to get paid back. I think the best thing a governmnet can do is set standards and make sure they are enforced. - - - Updated - - - The problem is that government is so inefficient. If they take in money for a problem they spend too much on administrative costs. There is also "crony capitalism" and products aren't produced for profit or even to solve problems. Most of the time money is used to pay off political favors or in return for political favors in other areas. And also the government can't return the money dolar for dollar or even return a profit on that dollar unless it is a loan that just happens to get paid back. I think the best thing a governmnet can do is set standards and make sure they are enforced.
Both the measurement of lighter CO2 molecules and the scientific computer models are empirical scientific evidence that man is the predominate reason behind global warming. To say that empirical evidence doesn't exist is simply false. The science is very conclusive and only someone living in denial of the actual science can ignorantly believe that human activity, predominately the increase in manmade CO2 and destruction of nature, is behind the documented increases in global temperatures over the last century that are increasing faster than previously projected.
em·pir·i·cal emˈpirikəl/ adjective adjective: empirical 1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Neither the value of CO2's spectral broadening nor computer models are empirical scientific evidence, both are theory.
LOL, SO your political group dedicated to environmental solutions, is not only in full support of the UN IPCC AR4 report, which they have now replaced that bit of garbage with a new and less alarmist piece of garbage, but also in fact support AR4 (now discarded) and are willing to present theory as fact... Anybody else unsurprised? Just a quick point... When your linked source stated this "A carbon molecule that comes from fossil fuels and deforestation is lighter than the combined signal of those from other sources." They were being misleading. Which is why they wrote the specific words in quotations. Those qutations within their phrase are where they took "artistic license". CO2 gained by such means is not actually "lighter" or heavier in the sense one would assume. The weight difference would be pretty much unmeasurable, because the difference is at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, and due to the different isotobes of CO2. CO2 isotobes from fossil fuel burning and land clearing are different than the natural CO2 of the atmosphere because plants evidently prefer one isotobe over another. And animals eat those plants and therefore when they all became fossil fuels their content of the plant-favored isotobes are higher. It DOES NOT mean anything regarding the effetiveness of one CO2 isotobe over another in terms of AGW theory. All it means is the Isotobes are from fossil fuels. However one problem... IF the plants prefer that particular isotobe over another, how did they get those isotobes before we were around to release them? The theory they are using here does not make any such case regarding warming vs isotobes. It merely tries to show that forensic data they are using shows that before man's industrial age, the isotobes content ratio was different.. SO what? From one of your own warmer sources, so you don't assume the concept tainted by my predisposition... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ One of the reasons I stopped supporting AGW theory and the warmer nonsense that came with it 4 years ago, was their continued use of irrelevent and to the point, indifferent data and scientifc findings, and the virtual rape of the scientifc prosess in order to force world changing legislation and create false scarcity. And your political blog shows my point and hardens my resolve... They are using bits of science in ways they were not intended to make case for something that those "bits" do not support..
Nonsense. Measurement currently counts against you and computer models are utter guesswork as their performance to date has amply illustrated. They are not by any stretch of the imagination empirical evidence What science ? Assertion and opinion is not science
What is actually being reflected is a lack of knowledge related to scientific empirical evidence. A computer model that can confirm past occurrences, as well as making future predictions, verifies that the criteria in the computer model are accurate. It establishes that the criteria being used in the computer model are accurate because it's judged based upon what is known to have occurred. Obviously the fact that the CO2 molecules are different from manmade sources and natural sources provides empirical evidence of the percentage of manmade CO2 retained in the atmosphere and that is also empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is that evidence established by test and that is exactly what was cited. The computer models were tested and they were accurate when manmade CO2 was introduced into the equation. The amount of manmade CO2 is measured by testing and that is empirical evidence. Learning science goes a long ways towards understanding it. We can also note that for climatologists actively engaged in research of our global climate (not just those with a science degree) that 100% agree that our current global warming, which is unprecedented in how rapidly it's occurring, is being driven by man. There is no dispute scientifically by those actually engaged in the science.
The computer models are confirmed based upon the historical climate change and the unique signature of manmade CO2 is measurable in the atmosphere. They're not theories but instead verifiable empirical evidence.
Actually the computer models don't do a very good. And that should be what they do best because you know what you are trying to match. All you have to do is tinker with the model until you get the result you need. This is why we get models with CO2 forcing ranging from 1.5-5C both with approximately the same degree of accuracy in hind-casting. Hind-casting is no indication of accurate modeling. Just the modeler was able to tweak variables until he/she got a close enough match. So it is only a first step. It is a models ability to forecast that proves if it is accurate or not. So far the models have failed miserably. As for being verifiable empirical evidence. No sir. You do not get to change definitions of words. You are not that important. God hte arrogance of Warmmongers. Do you consider yourself a god or something.
Computer circulation models (CCM) can't predict tomorrows weather let alone 100 years into the future....??? Where's the hot spot in the real world...???? weather balloons and satellites just cant find it.....it can only be found in the IPCC's CCM's. Where's the correlation of temperature and CO2....????.....in Al Gore's...fantasy of getting rich from the carbon credit derivatives his compony will trade. Dear old Al ehhh he failed to tell everyone that FIRST temperature rises and then more CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the ecosystems. Oh yeah and dear old Al never bothered to mention that in our past we have had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have in our atmosphere today, acting as though this was a first. He never bothered to tell everyone that we are coming out of a mini ice age so its natural for temperature and CO2 to rise. He never bothered to tell everyone that the arctic has been melting since the year 1850. Or that TODAY we have some of the lowest temperatures in out history and also the some of the lowest amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere. New AR5 paper says most of the warming in the oceans is on the top.......??? What happened to their argument that the missing heat was in the ocean depths down to 3000m. How can anyone listen to these bozos.....??? The day is coming when the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion will just DIE OFF.......!!!!!
The computer models have not failed miserably. They've under-predicted the climate change because the models assumed less influence of manmade factors than is apparently the case. An increase in the effects of manmade contributions to global warming including a higher impact from CO2 emissions and deforestation would bring the computer models into line with what we're seeing. Scientist tend to be conservative in establishing the computer models, which is the case here, and then adjust the factors upwards based upon the under-prediction of change. Remember that they're basically dealing with a balance beam and very little change creates a huge impact on the prediction. They're very close but have slightly underestimated the impact of the human influence on the climate change. We're only taking a fraction of 1% of all the factors that affect climate change so even a 0.001% change in the model makes a significant difference in the prediction.
