grrizzly: I agree that there is an important connection between the evolution theory and anthropogenic global warming. But I suspect my take on it won’t be to your liking. The “educated class” believes in the AGW and evolution for the same reason, namely that all other smart, educated people believe in it. The key word here is “believe.” Few people studied biological, paleontological, or geological arguments in favor of the evolution theory. Fortunately, the evolution theory is not very important in its practical applications and as far as I know correct. On the other hand, the AGW has drastic implications for humans and polar bears and failed to make predictions that were later verified. But the “educated class” doesn’t have ability to distinguish between testable scientific theories and theories that only claim to be scientific. I’d go further and say that the “educated class” has discredited itself by falling for a junk science. And much of the blame should go to the role that the evolution theory plays in the Western society. It is not used to illustrate how the scientific method works; instead it serves only as a cultural marker.

Word.

Sarcastro: Untrue, Calderon! Only one side has knee-jerk partisans!

Well, my point was less about both sides doing it than giving a couple of examples where advocates were successful by taking principled stands and refusing to engage in serious discussion with the other side. You and I may prefer that “winning debates” happens only when people engage in reasoned arguments with the other side, but there are at least a couple of examples of advocates “winning debates” in the sense of their policies becoming law by repeating slogans based on unyielding principles without seriously engaging the other side.

Start drilling instead.

Aside from the question of why we need more and more and more taxes, why would you impose a consumption tax on just one arbitrarily selected commodity? Why would you not spread a consumption tax broadly? This statement amounts to a “never mind” the fact that carbon is not a pollutant and needs no curtailing, because we should have consumptiojn taxes instead of income taxes anyway (ignoring that we will of course now have both.)

This article demonstrates that it will take a long time for the debunking of the AGW myth to penetrate the years of effort by entrenched interests and gullible believers to propagandize an entire generation. Grasping that CO2 is not a pollutant and that the concern about its production is entirely unnecessary is a major change of worldview for very many. It shakes the very foundations of an entire belief system. For awhile, people will simultaneously hold two positions: that AGW has been debunked, and that we have to curb carbon emissions anyway. This article seems to be an example of that. Wake up! Gaia is dead!

BobC says:
I havn’t been here long, but it seems like the correlation between moral/political views and a similar interpretation of the law is really close to one. It is what fascinates me about this place. A place where it seems law would stand on its own has a lot of people interpeting law through their moral compass. It is quite different from my training in economics, where I am suppose to be as objective and counterintuitive as possible.

And, exactly what about this surprises you? You’re looking at discussions primarily by lawyers, who as a group, have little to no education, training or experience in Science, Technology, Engineering or Math (STEM) subjects, opining on STEM subjects.

Note: Most people in Congress, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive Branch are also lawyers, and are likewise generally STEM-illiterate. And, you wonder why workable solutions to even simple problems are seldom found?

In the meantime, the small effect of CO2 on temperature, and the large effect it has on food production will keep millions from freezing and starving to death.
===============

grrizzly: I’d go further and say that the “educated class” has discredited itself by falling for a junk science.

I’d agree.

The global climate models have a figure for climate sensitivity which is too high and that is why they are failing. We cannot calculate the sensitivity from the historical record without complete understanding of the natural cycles, and an accurate temperature record, neither of which we have now. Recent and repeated calculation of climate sensitivity from observations rather than from models is showing a low sensitivity, meaning that anthropogenic CO2 may have a small effect.

Given the recent unsettledness in the science, we have time to wait until we have settled the sensitivity issue. To do otherwise is foolish, because policy based on present knowledge is almost guaranteed to be wrong.
====================

Sarcastro: The key is to have principled stands that do not involve discussion. “I’m against any taxes,” “I’m against any lowering of our energy consumption,” “I’m against anything that mentions global warming.”If you want to seem at least a bit engaged, you can mix in some talking points about why your principled stand is against something evil. e.g. “I pay enough taxes!” “Global Warming is a total lie!” “Al Gore is fat!” “SOCIALISM!”This is how you win debates, by not engaging anyone, opponent or otherwise.Similarly, it is how I win at golf — by not playing, and thus declaring myself superior.

Hey, it works for pro-choice advocates and worked to a substantial extent for anti-death penalty advocates. I’m sure there are some other successful examples we could come up with.

(And just for the record, I’m pro-choice and pro-death penalty)

BobC: I have a serious question. I am sure it has come up before in threads like these, but I assure you my intentions are different. I am not trying to produce some “AH-HAA” moment.I am curious how much overlap there is on other controversial science theories. So to everyone who posts, what is your opinion about evolutionary theory and big bang theory?

I agree that there is an important connection between the evolution theory and anthropogenic global warming. But I suspect my take on it won’t be to your liking. The “educated class” believes in the AGW and evolution for the same reason, namely that all other smart, educated people believe in it. The key word here is “believe.” Few people studied biological, paleontological, or geological arguments in favor of the evolution theory. Fortunately, the evolution theory is not very important in its practical applications and as far as I know correct. On the other hand, the AGW has drastic implications for humans and polar bears and failed to make predictions that were later verified. But the “educated class” doesn’t have ability to distinguish between testable scientific theories and theories that only claim to be scientific. I’d go further and say that the “educated class” has discredited itself by falling for a junk science. And much of the blame should go to the role that the evolution theory plays in the Western society. It is not used to illustrate how the scientific method works; instead it serves only as a cultural marker.

Cantwell and Collins estimate that 80 percent of consumers would incur no net costs while the top 20 percent in income would see less than a 0.3 percent decrease in their incomes.

Assuming that requiring a reduction in CO2 emissions does not result in lower total production. If that’s the case, though, and producers can produce just as much just as cheaply without emitting as much CO2, why aren’t they already doing it? Being “green” is a selling point.

Someone needs to stop Graham and the rest of these poltroons ASAP.

We’re watching ‘climate science’ unravel right down to the raw data, not only is there no proof of a CO2 linkage to climate change but even Phil Jones is admitting that urban heat island effect accounts for 40% of the warming they’ve seen in their own numbers. And we know their ‘adjusted’ numbers are a joke.

Start over. Start over, with an open and honest validation of raw temperature data before anyone – scientist or politician – can attempt to draw scientific conclusions or policy goals from it.

The one sure result of increasing CO2 in our atmosphere is that plant life thrives in proportion, as is clear from satellite sensing.

80% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 comes at a mere 20 ppm. It’s a logarithmic scale. If you doubled the CO2 concentration from the present 385 ppm, you’d increase the greenhouse effect a percent or two, but plants would love us for it.

It’s aerosols we should be concerned about, including plain carbon dust.

If you want to seem at least a bit engaged, you can mix in some talking points about why your principled stand is against something evil. e.g. “I pay enough taxes!” “Global Warming is a total lie!” “Al Gore is fat!” “SOCIALISM!”

This is how you win debates, by not engaging anyone, opponent or otherwise.

Similarly, it is how I win at golf – by not playing, and thus declaring myself superior.

However, for cogent reasons expressed above, a carbon tax would be economic suicide. So a better proposal is to beat Lindsay Graham until he wipes that dreadful smirk off of his face.

BobCSo to everyone who posts, what is your opinion about evolutionary theory and big bang theory?

Govt has found a way to tax Evolution, via Carbon/Cap/Climate crap. The result will be migration and potential catastrophic extinction of beneficial species known as Americans.
Big Bang is the sound of exploding debt tearing our country asunder.

Law does not “stand on its own”. There are always consequences. Some unintended, but in this case, I am more concerned about the intended consequences of those who would levy these laws on our society and economy. This is quite real, my friend.

Something like this is just shooting ourselves in the foot (again).

Frank Ch. Eigler: “So to everyone who posts, what is your opinion about evolutionary theory and big bang theory?”… thus dragging a thread about legislation way way off topic.

I think it is important.

I havn’t been here long, but it seems like the correlation between moral/political views and a similar interpretation of the law is really close to one. It is what fascinates me about this place. A place where it seems law would stand on its own has a lot of people interpeting law through their moral compass. It is quite different from my training in economics, where I am suppose to be as objective and counterintuitive as possible.

cfbleachers: Look, I’m against pollution, but it should be apparent by now to any thinking person, that the alleged tie of carbon emissions to alleged AGW is based on rather thin gruel.

I think I see where the problem is.

… thus dragging a thread about legislation way way off topic.

I am curious how much overlap there is on other controversial science theories. So to everyone who posts, what is your opinion about evolutionary theory and big bang theory?

1.) They won’t increase U.S. energy “independence.” Only ‘nukes-now’ will do that, and that ain’t about to happen.

2.) They won’t impact global temps. Depending on the assumptions, it would take 40 to 55+ years of zero (Yep, we mean ‘ZERO’) world-wide CO2 emissions to eliminate a 1-degree Celsius increase. A 20% or 50% U.S. reduction of CO2 will accomplish squat in terms of global temperatures. Here’s an example of the plain & simple science calculations of CO2 and temps……

http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/the-futility-of-copenhagen-preventing-future-global-temp-increase-of-only-1c-cant-be-done-its-scient.html

Repeat after me:
“Carbon is our friend, not our enemy”
“CO2 is not a poison”
“Man-caused Global Warming is a hoax, scam and fraud”
“We are $14,000,000,000,000 in debt”
“Democrats are spending $2,000,000,000,000 more than we take in”
“The vast majority of states are broke”
“Government is the problem, not the solution”

Just like ethanol mandates, CO2 legislation is here to stay notwithstanding zero to negative environmental impact. The only unknown is the form of CO2 regulation.

Best, of course, is a revenue-neutral pigouvian tax (Inglis’ plan). For the same reasons as above, that ain’t gonna happen (no rents to dole out).

Second-best is a revenue-neutral cap and trade with full refunds. For the same reasons as above, that ain’t gonna happen.

Third-best is the CLEAR Act. The only question is whether it gives enough rent-granting powers to the legislators and agencies to make it worth their while. If they can’t skim enough off the top to hand to their friends, it won’t pass.

Plain horrible is any 2,000 page bill. The only question is whether the rents outweigh the public outrage. That’s the trade-off — outrage, or overflowing riches for campaign contributions / soft money / PACs.

Will the public forget before the next election? The money sure won’t.

We don’t need more taxes on “the top X percent” of people. We don’t need more reason to hang an albatross around the necks of those who could enhance our energy independence, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil producers.

We don’t need to retard our ability to produce and sell energy to other nations. We need to fix the economy, stabilize jobs, reduce taxes and limit government interference, size, scope and hyper-stifling of entrepreneur ism in this country.

Get their hands out of our pockets and stop making excuses for this “smaller invasion” being so much better than the “larger invasion” of our liberties and independence.

I get a laugh when it is claimed that “this energy group” (usually with a snarky appellation attached such as “cabal”) is “paying for” or is “behind” the study that says something in opposition to the “green” position. Of course, that corporation is using private funds to balance the position that is being paid for by the government, directly or indirectly. The quality of the advocacy doesn’t seem to be markedly better or more free from fraudulent claims and misrepresentations simply because the government is on the side of one of the parties.

We can no longer merely accept “the state’s position”, ipso facto as genuine, well-researched, pure of motive…or even fundamentally true or accurate.

A government grab at banking and finance, at the auto industry, at the health care industry, at the insurance industry and at the energy industry does not sit well with me. It’s damn frightening to tell the truth. And just because one of the grabs is “more palatable” because it’s less invasive….today , is not much comfort.

These are both big negatives for the real metric: NET job growth. Absent real net job growth (not just green jobs), all of this is academic. An America that isn’t working, DOESN’T WORK. 8%+ unemployment undermines everything, from national security to debt reduction to health care to state budgets to personal freedom. If that isn’t clear by now, it never will be.

They would take away our money, then give it back to to selected people, while moving industry to China and India – where carbon is not and will not be taxed.

CO2 emissions are just moved around,from the US to China and India.

So they want us to pay to cause our industry to move to China and India?

Why is there a presumption that there needs to be a tax at all? Whenever this is some problem, the first reaction from the folks in power is tax it. That kind of thinking needs to stop.

Adler, defend your need to tax first. Which you have not done.