America’s First Carbon Tax

well stated!!

People like you truly frighten me. The issue isn’t that plants utilize CO2 (they certainly do), the issue is the accumulation in the atmosphere that leads to global warming. In other words, it’s not ok to recklessly emit CO2 because photosynthesis will take care of the excess. California is once again exhibiting the leadership that is shamefully absent in DC.

Well in this case, taxing polluters makes perfect sense. We all suffer as a result of an increasingly polluted world, so why should the worst polluters profit at our expense?

California doesn’t exhibit leadership. This state is a joke. I live in Sacramento. Our genius politicians consistently voted down upgrading the capitol city’s mass transit infrastructure. So now we have a downtown business district with virtually no bus or rail system that people can use to go to work instead of driving their cars. And I wouldn’t be shocked if they come up with the great idea of a “fee” (read: tax) on cars and trucks that commute downtown to “combat” global warming.

I hope the slimy liberals and other degenerets that populate the Mecca for scumbags in the US (san francisco)remember to levy that tax against their municipal busses, garbage trucks and the like. This tax won’t fix a thing.
You Californians are a wierd bunch. We in Texas are unfortunate enough to get smarter californians fleeing your miserable state coming here. We have to teach the rude little peasants manners. You say hello or good morning to them and they don’t respond. We have even changed the name of running a red light or stop sign to pulling a cali stop. You guys should move to vegas instead of Texas. Californians would feel more at home in the bastion of immorality and rudeness!

I don’t get this backlash against people trying to make earth cleaner… Unchecked free markets do not work, it has been proven time and time again. Unless some economic incentive is made to make industry cleaner nothing will happen. Saying there is nothing going on and climate change isn’t real is akin to being aboard the titanic as its sinking saying, thats fine its just a submarine now.

Is California still one of the fifty seven states? I think all of that CO2 has done somthing to the minds of those people out there. I am starting to understand the logic of people like pelosi and that is scary.

SF tax business for CO2. Great, now business passes the tax on to Jimmy and Joanie Jet. Business isn’t paying a thing, not a red cent comes out of their pocket, nor should it.
And how is this tax equal? Is SF going to audit every single business, have CO2 tables?
Jimmy and Joanie Jet just got the pooch from the SF city government.

Or if global warming is even reality, as opposed to a complete scam.

There is no way to control pollution levels as long as human population increases. Impossible, no way, can’t be done, forget it. Plain and simple, people pollute. More people = more pollution. Fewer people = less pollution. I can go into algebraic proof if I must.
Our society, national and global continues to promote population growth. We continue to create our own demise. “Feel good, do nothing” legislation only serves to cover up the problem in order to placate religions which only seek to increase their numbers and thus their power.
We make heros of families with 17 kids. … They are the real source of pollution.

Another dangerous precedent set by this (assuming we drink the pitcher of global warming kool-aid set before us) is that we can buy ourselves out of doing something wrong. I make CO2, no worries, because I can pay for it. If I cannot, I go out of business. That is better for the CA economy, right? Nope. And by extension, how long until we can buy ourselves out of a murder charge? (I know, OJ already did it). If it is wrong, it should be illegal. If it is not, then it should be free. And just what magical wand is this money going to buy that lowers the CO2 level to 0.00322 (thanks for the stat MTM)? There is not one. So this tax is going to get poured right back into supporting the hysteria so rightly cited as a haven for the misled. I often wonder why any company would squander their revenues by being located in CA at all. That is why I left and choose to provide my tax money (at less than half the rate of CA) to a state that spends it on more appropriate things. Like schools. Or roads. Or parks. Or emergency services. Or any of the other hundreds of things that should be supported over this tripe.

Taxafornia – that’s a better name. Always a gimick to collect more tax dollars on the backs of citizens.

There are two issues being thrown about here: 1. Whether or not global warming is a threat 2. Whether or not a carbon tax is an appropriate and fair countermeasure. As for the former, looking at CO2 concentrations only makes sense in light of historic values. As such the “0.00323″ estimate, although a very nice wikipedia tidbit, is without merit. I’ll assume, jfm125, that you are not an atmospheric or climatic scientist, and therefore are really not qualified to comment on the climactic significance of fluctuations in CO2. You either believe in science (and consequent innovation), and trust the scientific community, or you don’t. If you don’t, you really have no right to be clicking away on that personal computer, using a cell phone, etc. , nor do you have a right (next time you fall ill), to utilize modern medicine, receive vaccinations, etc. ad naseum. If a worldview rooted in logic empiricism is “scary”, then there, regrettably, is no hope for you.

Well put Royce.

So WE in America have to subsidze China, India and the rest of the unregulated, polluting world with OUR capital, so they can continue to pollute without repercussion, and make things worse… I see. You don’t care about the enviroment, your just using it as an excuse to make the US a third world country and prop up Communist China, Russia, North Korea and the rest of the corrupt regimes around the world. Enviromentialism is a tool to win the gains that Communism couldn’t win on the battlefield. Ah, I see… That’s certainly worth all of this trouble. I can see how having us pay these countries to pollute while forcing us to de-industrialze is for the good of the nation and for the enviroment… uhh NOT!

Once again, the left coast leads the way in stupidity. Follow Algore down the road to ruin. Libs, gotta wonder how they tie their shoes.

>>>There is nothing wrong with making as much money as you possible can>>>
Yes, there is something wrong with that and those principles are enshrined under US law. To further your own profit margin you can’t exploit child labor, provide unsafe working conditions, fail to reward your workers or abuse them, etc. There are also caps on the amount and type of pollutants you can release while pursuing your profits. There is nothing new here. It’s hardly the new world order.
Let’s set aside the elementary school rhetoric and look at capitalism as adults. It of course needs to be regulated to some degree. That line will always be changing depending on the whims of government (local, state or federal).
Now, according to the comments above this decision has lumped the american left in with “OJ”, “Marxism”, and one poster believes the left should be executed by firing squad. Wonderful sentiments, surely derived from talk radio. This local San Fransisco decision should be good news if you believe scientists dont’ believe AGW, theyll have plenty of opportunities to debate it nationally as a result.
I also find the escalating claims of there being armies of scientists opposed to the idea of AGW a bit odd. On the previous thread they promoted a list of 400 skeptics. It was filled with non-specialists and organized by a young earth creationist. A similar list of 500 released by the “Heartland Foundation” has no actual signatures, iirc, and just placed the names of scientists they believed to have made remarks critical of AGW. The bar lowers. Some have even asked that their names be removed to no avail.
Now, we have a new list. 31,000 “scientists” who signed an online petition over 10 years. The rhetoric escalates. A quick search on the list finds that it’s a pretty screwy affair that doesnt event reveal its “verification” procedures. You just have to trust them. What kind of methodology is that? Why the secrecy? That’s just bizaree. Scientific american did a random sampling of the Phd climate scientists and found many who didnt support the petition. When they confirm, are they just confirming the existence of such people and not confirming the opinion? Anyone can get a list of scientists and spam a list.
Also, the language is classic creationist obfuscation. It basically asks the signers to deny evidence that warming will “in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating”, not dismiss global warming or even AGW. Creationists circulate simliar lists to “darwinists”, with very careful language, trying to trick people into signing. Its a public relations effort, not reality.
And the “review” they posted and sent out doesnt even claim the earth is warming, they say its cooling. They also tried to pass it off with NAS font and formating, which even the head of the organization said in retrospect was stupid. When does the honesty begin?
Just a common sense check: And how could it be that almost every climate scientist in the world opposes AGW when dozens of major scientific orgs support the the AGW claims as reasonable while none oppose it. Do these skeptics not have employment with scientific organizations? What do they do?
I personally couldnt say whether AGW is a fact or not but why the need to resort to these silly and bizarre lists? When attached to inflamatory political rhetoric it doesnt leave the impression of reasoned opposition.

The fact that emitted pollutants circulate to other parts of the world makes it ok? Well, then lets dump all of our nuclear waste across the border onto Canadian soil. They won’t mind and then it won’t be our problem. In fact, lets repeal all of the clean air legislation of the 60s and 70s and return to using leaded fuel. It’ll bow away eventually and become someone else’s problem. Please try hard to understand this – the CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere is not innocuous (even though we happen to exhale it and plants use it to create chemical energy).

Is there something in the water in that state?

I see you were polluted by the vast emptiness of modern liberal college professors who were busy telling you that America is BAD, Communist are good and that everything in the world is ideally 50-50. (Must be a liberal arts major, right, or worse the dreaded “sociology” degree for you, eh?) Scientist are wrong, doctors are wrong, and you are legend in your own insular mind. Be careful the last person who had those views was President for eight years… But don’t think that (horrific) example makes you qualified for the highest office in the land. Hell you still think that the world functions so rigidly that if human beings burp the whole world will explode. The Earth has survived earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, flooding, mudslides, nuclear explosions, solar wind, solar radiation, “global cooling”, the ice age, the “little ice age” and variations in the output of the sun… And yet you want us to believe that human beings and animals breathing as well as cow farts are destroying the planet… I think the Department of Homeland Security was made to track people like yourself. Do the country a great service and don’t replicate. You may even want to go ahead and end your life as well; After all, look on the bright side, you will be doing your share to control that evil pollutant gas you emit, every time you take a breath. And you will play a valuable role in “saving” the planet, naturally at the expense of yourself. Although if your survive this attempt… you may need a shrink to justify your existence and your failure at this most simple basic step. God bless… (Ew, sorry, I mean “Earth bless”)

Alright – you’ve on to us. Anthropogenic global warming/climate change is nothing but a hoax, perpetrated by the UN, the IPCC, and nearly every scientist, university, and governmental body – for the sole purpose of making Al Gore rich. We’ve been plotting it for the last 35 years and finally decided the time was right -after every idiot in this country finally bought an enormous SUV that gets 10 mpg. I work in recycling ops – my assignment is to cart a bunch of aluminum cans and plastic bottles to the recycle bin every 2 weeks. So you all just keep on doing what you’re doing. Buy lots of waterfront property. I hear you can get a good deal in Louisiana.

blog, I live in Florida. I recycle voluntarily. It’s part of the global plot to make Al Gore rich.

bubba – does the list mention how many of the 31000 “scientists” are alive? The old list had a lot of dead people on it.

I dont think they take dead people off at all but Im not sure. Theyve run the list since 1988 so many have probably died. Scientific American found a dead guy in a sample of 26 years ago (as well as other problems obviously).
His home schooling science curriculum has about 40 items. Lesson 2 is creation. ;). Lesson 3 is evolution versus creationism. He doesnt beat around the bush.
I’d like to get into the yahoo group to see more detailed stuff but you need to be a member and my interest is fading.

blog,
What is this obsession you have with water, and what does it have to do with global warming. Water vapor contributes to the natural greenhouse effect, but that is not a major driver of climate CHANGE.

bubba, the list is most likely on a par with Inhofe’s. Full of economists, tv weathermen, and 90 year old astronomers.

San Francisco reasoned that guns kill people so they outlawed guns. Now they reason that cars and refineries kill people so why not just outlaw cars, power generation and refineries? LOL
It’s simple really, people pollute. More people = more pollution. Fewer people = less pollution. All the taxes, “feel good” laws, articles, speeches, prize winning slide shows and money making technology that modern man can come up with is not going to change that simple fact.
As long as our society continues to promote world population growth there is no way to reduce pollution levels or depletion of resources. If you want to tax something, tax people for having large families. That might actually have a positive affect.

So if your against population growth, that makes you pro euthanasia, and pro war. So we’re so full, some large sections of humanity must die… except YOU… In a word… INSANE. But please feel free to set an example for all of us if you’d like. I’m sure mother Earth would appreciate your sacrifice to extend her life. (Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath…) Just don’t expect ME or anybody else to bit the bullett, just so YOU can stick around here and enjoy the planet. Go ahead, kill your kids, kill your family and especially yourselves… Mother Earth just can’t survive if you do. If we all die, who’s gonna defend “fragile, poor” mother Earth. Well, I guess she’ll just have to fend for herself then…

Thanks for the support, jock59801, though I’m not insulted. I’m secretly amused by it. It’s as good an example as any of why the population needs to slow its advance. People are already prickling because of the overcrowding and arguments over resource depletion are increasing. Whoever came up with the idea of using food to fuel vehicles should be the butt of the anger of the starving people it has and will create.

Jock,
My line of thinking was of an ME event. So at what point does CO2 become lethal, regardless of O2?
I know the Navy conducts studies all the time on submariners on this to ascertain how long various sizes crews could adequately operate on various size boats.
The studies I was looking for, and found, dealt only with atmospheric CO2 levels. Since the current levels are <0.04% but the body exhales 3-5%, there is a point when inhaling CO2 would exceed the amount we could exhale, leading to eventual organ failure. Surprisingly, it seems this area is in the 1.5-2.0% range.
One thing I was also looking for that these studies didn't address was the natural ceiling effect of CO2. At some point it would just rain. Rain, rain, rain until enough CO2 had been naturally washed out of the atmosphere, something the modelers can't or won't put into the models…probably because they don't have a baseline. Must be easier to pretend it doesn't exist, I guess.
The good news was that the ones that did address if we could ever reach those levels concluded we could burn every known and suspected amount of fossil fuels and never even come close to those levels.

Nobel,
I still don’t understand the relevance of toxic CO2 levels. Nobody has ever suggested that would be a problem from our carbon emissions. Damage to humans and species is proposed to come from habitat loss, drought, sea-level rise, the expansion of insect-born diseases, and increased wars over resource scarcity. Nothing to do with toxicity.

Jock,
It was a analogy, perhaps not a very good one. CO2 in vast atmospheric quantities, is “toxic” to humans indirectly, in all the ways you just mentioned. Similarly, water or oxygen (seemingly innocuous substances) can be acutely toxic to humans if consumed or inhaled in large enough quantities.

MTM
The use of the word toxin is incorrect although I do see your analogy. A toxin is a poison, ie. CO is toxic. Water is not but it’s contaminants may be.

“toxic” in a colloquial sense. Perhaps a bit of a metaphor in addition to analogy.
It is however, by definition, a pollutant.

Quietman,
Water can in fact be toxic, ie. water intoxication, just as oxygen can (ask any diver).
Almost anything in sufficiently small quantities (ie. cyanide), is safe.
The toxicity occurs as you dial up the dose. As for water, a massive excess will throw off the electrolytic balance of cells, leading to organ failure and death.

intoxication is when you get too much of a good thing. Saying anything can be toxic is the same as saying anything can cause cancer, both statements are true but only one is alarmist.

Re: As of Nov 2007, the IPCC conclusions were pretty clear…
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
Saying something does not prove it to be true. I could tell you over and over that the martian sky is red but it still would not make it true.
Their hypothesis has not been proven to be correct. There has been zero warming caused by CO2 or anything else since 1998 which was a record EL NINO that caused the warming just as a combination of LA NINA and a reversal of the PDO has caused the current cooling. Denial of the facts will not prove AGW correct. AGW was first disproved in 1905 and ressurected in thr current CO2 argument. Greenhouse gases are required to keep this planet a habitable place but CO2 is extremely weak and has reached enormous concentrations in the past without destroying life on earth. The IPCC has cherry picked the extremely small period of time consisting of an era within the confines on an ice age. An ice age represents 10% of the actual climate on this planet. The other 90% is abnormal?

For those with open minds Google “Global Warming or Global Governance…” ALL of this has been properly debunked. It’s worth a look, if for no other reason as to give a point by point debunking. But it is nice to see ABC to provide a place for like (closed) minds to congregate, and spend countless hours patting themselves on the back, instead of bothering with that nagging little pest of a nuisance called critical thinking, and scientific fact instead of subjective, artficical, and manipulative computer models. (The IPCC is an absolute farce, than even it’s own scientists denounce. There is no greater red flag to pinpoint fallacy than to trumpet their “findings” as fact. It simply flies in the face of pure logic and is in complete absence of reason) Please people, look into this for yourselves, believe nothing that you hear, try to confirm as much as you can. Before you alter your lives for one second over any of this information.

Jock,
The USDA has been working on finding a “threshold” to what plants will grow better where as the climate and precipitation pattern changes, without much luck.
NOAA has something called the Carbon Tracker….but, alas, it’s just a model. On it you can see the eastern US emits a great deal of CO2, especially the NE. Makes sense, more populated. Remember I was telling you about CO2 measured in rainwater up to 700 ppm? Well, there you go. It really isn’t a global mean of 380 ppm with a 3% seasonal swing like the WDCGG or IPCC reports.
It is known that the eastern US, particularly the NE, always has more rain and better chances at rain. Granted the jet stream, moisture off the Gulf, and Arctic wind patterns play a HUGE force of the rain patterns. But emissions are driving that as well. How much is anybodies guess at this point.
Like anthropogenic greenhouse warming, we need to study the anthropogenic rain making, as well, to get a clearer picture. As that Bray / Von Storch survey clearly shows, climate scientists are a little pissed at the models and how they don’t handle this. Even if that survey was manipulated, and there is no evidence to suggest it was, EVERYONE seems to agree the models handle most everything well except rain and cloud formation and thus EVERYONE seems to agree (according to that survey) the models as pretty much useless for long term predictions. They are suppose to be doing a third survey, hopefully it will be conducted this time as so there can be no criticisms.
What really burns my ass to no F%#*king end are these stupid little experiments like the Kangaroo papermache to measure albedo effects. Scientist teams around the world every year wasting millions of research dollars and tying up OUR satellites when they can and have been directly measuring it and then world politicians editing what gets into the published reports. Kinda makes you go: “Hmmmm….”.

Nobel -
Models are not intended to predict the future exactly. The first thing you learn in Science 101 is: “All models are wrong, but some models are useful.” They are scientific tools to help us understand what affects what and how a complex system might work.
If they need to do a better job of modelling rain and clouds, then they will work on it. But do you have any real evidence that it will change the overall picture? Predictions that are not perfect are not necessarily wrong; they are just uncertain, like EVERYTHING in science.

Jock,
I didn’t take a Sci 101. I took Chem, Phy, and ENG’s that went into the 300, 400, and 500′s, along with Man and Bus that went a little further. But that was back when we only had calculators and FORTRAN.
We have had these models for 20 yrs now. They suck and haven’t improved much. Meanwhile, the fix has been put in to relieve the US of our manufacturing jobs to the first and third largest emitters because they get a pass on Kyoto.

Nobel
Fortran is what the IPCC models are made of (most likely Fortran IV). That says a lot in itself.
Jock
Some countries have already caused a food shortage by switching to corn based biofuels. England has stopped production in favor of food already.
The switchgrass idea we talked about would seem the better idea IF it in so doing we don’t waste other resources. Have you heard any more about that?

The actual papers, by necessity, must be extracted into parlance understood by the lay person, and even politicians. Just because they are not the actual papers, doesn’t mean that those statements don’t encompass what the BODY of research finds, which is the point of international committees a such.
Look at the first page of the Summary for Policymakers. It was prepared by 40 of the international scientists. Each one of their names is right there. I’m not making this up. No hoax. Would you lend your name to a report that contradicted your research?
Or maybe you’re right, It’s a global conspiracy.

MTM
It is not a conspiracy that I am aware of, at least not on the part of the IPCC. But there is definately alarmist money backing some of these sites, rendering them just as unreliable as sites backed by big oil.
The issue with the IPCC is that it is a UN function, with politicos that have an anti-american viewpoint just like California, rendering their words shaded at best.
Some argue that we should only listen to climatologists, well Hansen isn’t one and Rhodes-Fairbridge was (as an example).

And these alarmist financiers.. exactly who are they (sounds sinister!) and what proof do you have that their dollars have tainted scientific integrity? Academic papers generally will include conflict of interest disclosures on the title page..

Re: “Academic papers generally will include conflict of interest disclosures on the title page.. ”
Some do and some don’t. Many of the papers claimed to be backed by big oil don’t either. So we can’t use that argument either. However, I would easily believe a paper that stated who paid the bill before one that did not.

Re: Again, are you, or are you not suggesting there is a conspiracy.
No, A conspiracy requires that the members are aware of each other and conspire to commit fraud.
What I point out is simply that those companies and individuals who are making money on AGW are supporting the sites of alarmists because it is to their benefit to do so, making them no different than the deniers and just as credible.

As for sticking to papers:
“Multi-resolution time series analysis applied to solar irradiance and climate reconstructions” by Hee-Seok Oh, Caspar M. Ammann;, Philippe Naveau, Doug Nychka, and Bette L. Otto-Bliesner (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics).
And then my favorite paper thus far: ” Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate” by Richard Mackey, Journal of Coastal Research SI 50 955 – 968 ICS2007 (Proceedings) Australia ISSN 0749.0208.

300 yrs, err…., 150 yrs, um…., 25 yrs…yeah that’s it, 25 yrs of AGW and no problems yet from it. Except recent food shortages cause by the false sense that bio fuels were needed and doable.
Maybe it’s the next 25 yrs we need to be worried about. Yeah, that’s it…the NEXT 25 yrs. Get the word out for all the youngins to be SCARED.

That’s very nice you were able to find a few papers that support your position. Unfortunately, that ‘s not how science works. The body of work is what’s important, which is the point of IPCC.

bubba
I did ask a skeptical question once at Real Climate – from their answer they are NOT scientists but believers in a new faith that consider it ok to humiliate anyone who disagrees with them. Many creationists have degrees as well and sound about the same.

RealClimate is run by Gavin Schmidt, a Jim Hansen subordinate and Michael Mann, the author of the now statically proven false hockey stick. And there is one more I can’t remember his name but he told a lady friend of his, and her friend, that they could go swimming in the Arctic during winter where ice used to be.
They had to be rescued and toes amputated because they ran into -100F weather.
RealClimate “scientists” are modelers who can’t win a debate against other climate scientists, so they don’t anymore.

Quietman: “Prove the AGW hypothesis and there will no longer be skepticism.”
We have a problem with this however. There is a time lag in the perceived effects of carbon emissions. IF the models are correct, we may have an additional one degree of warming already locked in even if we go for radical change now. With another 20 years of accelarating carbon emissions, it may be too late to avoid some potentially very serious consequences.
If it turns out the scientists were right, and 20 years from now people are screaming about why we didn’t avoid this mess by doing something about it earlier, which of you will stand before the crowd and say “Oops, my bad!”

Quietman -
Do these hundred papers in your collection say that CO2 does NOT have a warming effect, or just that other factors have more? Because neither the IPCC of any scientists I know of have said that CO2 is the only affect on climate. They talk a LOT about methane, and even ENSO, solar cycles and most anything else you might name.
The only question that needs to be addresed sooner than later is: “Is there a significant chance that we are causing avoidable harm with our present course of action?” It seems like a fairly string Yes to me.

Jock
Actually the ice cores have proven that CO2 lags temperature rather than being the cause. CO2 has been increasing now for a long time but temperature has not followed suit. The best fit of any forcing found so far has been from the PDO but must also reflect other forcings indirectly. Unfortunately CO2 has been shown to be so weak that it could not prevent the current ice age (it was EXTREMELY high by the end of the cretaceous). They have found that CO2 fluctuates quite widely and has little effect as a GHG. Water vapor is the primary GHG on this planet, not CO2.
If there is any AGW at all it is from Water Vapor and Methane but the contribution is tiny and easily overpowered by the natural climate cycles.

Jock
We are talking past each other a bit. The papers say both that CO2, while a GHG, is very weak and while we are a contributor it is not of any importance. This view is held by a few climatologists in particular and more importantly, the founder of the science.
Thus making the AGW issue an argument against the teacher. I pick the teacher.
Re: “Is there a significant chance that we are causing avoidable harm with our present course of action?”
Yes it is avoidable, but it is not critical – and that is the whole point. Obviously we should find better and cleaner ways to provide energy and avoid waste of resources, but not to our own detriment. The sky is not about to fall (at least not from carbon) but that does not mean that we should not take action to improve the environment. We just need to avoid “Greenpeace” methodology and do it the right way. Taxing is not the right way, only the CA way.

Nobel
England bought it. They only recently admitted it was a mistake and stopped.
SA is buying it. Not only does SA produce food based biofuel that are clearcutting forrests to do it.

Yes, Quiteman, I’m aware of that. I thought the argument was limited to the US since it turned into a free market argument.
I read the guy who is head of the biofuels program for the EU is still trying to make the case for it.
I guess he is more worried about his job. Maybe there is a lesson in there for some people.

Quietman -
You are indeed “banking” on the elder scientists, although it isn’t all your own money. Will you pay for the trillions of dollars in damage if “your” scientists are wrong? Tell you what. We’ll make it fair. I’ll pay for the cost of shifting our energy profile if AGW turns out false, if you’ll pay for the damages from delayed action if AGW turns out to be real after all. And we can even argue endlessly about which costs are due to which!

Jock
You say AGW but mean CO2 induced AGW because that is what the alarmists have pushed on us. There is real AGW albeit not much, but it is not CO2. Pehaps you can tell me the sources of water vapor?

BTW
Farmers have been making fuel for their tractors for the past hundred years, it’s really not a new concept.

Nobel
I am not too sure. Jock might know.

Quietman -
Scientists consider all of the greenhouse gases, although they sometimes convert the final tally to “CO2 equivalents.” The reason CO2 gets more of the attention is because there is so much more of it than methane and other gases, so even though it is a weaker GHG, it still adds up to a larger effect.
Water vapor is a somewhat different case. It is often considered a feedback rather than a forcing, but regardless of terminology, the point is that only so much water vapor can accumulate in the atmosphere. Warmer temperatures allow more water to be held in the atmosphere, but it still is going to get saturated and rain out at some point. The other GHG can accumulate and have more lasting effects.

I also see you neglected to include that that story is 5 yrs old, talking about the three summers prior. That would put it during stronger El Nino’s, now doesn’t it?

cturple
The PDO, MOA and vulcanism have much more to do with northern polar warming than anything else. In 1991 the IPCC came out with a revised version of AGW because there was nothing else THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF that could explain the perceived warming. Now that the research has been done and good alternate explanations are available there is no excuse for head scratching and saying well, it will get warm later, maybe in 2015 or 2020 but for sure by 2030.

Using bio’s for personal use like Quiteman was talking about should be used, if you have the means. It’s much cheaper than crude that way.
Like solar cells. I’m hopeful that new plant in Colorado can reach 20% efficiency and delivery them for $2/watt retail like promised, but we’ve heard that before. A company in NJ has developed a way to ink jet print cells with 5% efficiency and demostrated it a couple of months ago, but that’s along time before it hit’s Wal-Mart. Storage is still a little costly.
Those “renewable” SLA/AGM batteries are just forklift batteries, btw. Still, lift batteries are costly, not as much as the same ones with fancy renewable logos. Just a tip.
Where I am, I get about 5 Kw/hr a day per sq meter in solar energy during the summer. I use under 1000 Kw/hr a month which is down from 12-1400. In winter it’s less than 2kw/hr sq meter, so a mixture of wind and solar is needed here. Get great wind in the winter. I’m on nuclear and paying less than 8 cents a Kw/hr including all fees, so I’m in no hurry.

“First you deny that it’s happening at all, then you say it doesn’t matter that it’s happening.”
Oh bs. I guess any climate change is dire, is that what you are saying? Gets pretty dire here every year. About 100 degree swings every year.

Quietman: I haven’t seen any good alternate explanations.

Posted by: Nobel
“First you deny that it’s happening at all, then you say it doesn’t matter that it’s happening.”
Oh bs. I guess any climate change is dire, is that what you are saying? Gets pretty dire here every year. About 100 degree swings every year.

No speakie English? No, that’s not what I said at all. Alaska has not “melted” in human memory. Your “100 degree swings” are irrelevant – nobody said weather isn’t going to happen. And now scientists are predicting that the northern polar ice cap might vanish altogether in summer. Can you say that’s normal with a straight face?

Posted by: Nobel
“And now scientists are predicting that the northern polar ice cap might vanish altogether in summer.”
You mean one scientist, don’t you? Even if it does, can you say sea levels will rise with a straight face?
Where are all the dire consequences of GW we were told about 15 yrs ago? Maldives experiencing massive flooding yet and suppose to be totally underwater by 2030? Oh, they just stop using that one, like the polar bears, huh? Again, we were suppose to be growing palm trees in NY 8 years ago, where are they? Yes, 100 degree swings are relevant seeing you used an article about golfing in Alaska in February. The normal high temp in Juneau in Feb is in the 30′s. I here they golf year round there when the snow doesn’t stick. In fact, it only has about a 30 degree swing in temps every year. Sounds like the Bahamas compared to my home town, and hardly from GW. Wells have been pumped dry? OH NO! They should apply for international assistance. I’m sure it’s money they will get from the UN.

No, nobel, I don’t mean one scientist. And sea levels are rising. Where are the dire consequences? Are you reading what I post? You don’t think collapsing airports and towns are dire consequences? Or do you simply dismiss them because YOU don’t live there? The Maldives ARE being flooded – as is Tuvalu and other Pacific island nations. Sorry it’s not happening fast enough for you – science doesn’t work like a psychic hotline. Global climate doesn’t operate on a timetable – are you for real? Palms were supposed to be in NY 8 years ago? What day? How about pythons moving into the southeast US from Florida? Is that interesting enough for you? 50 years ago they couldn’t have survived – now they could spread as far as Texas and California. I saw a tri-colored Heron in Michigan 3 years ago. They’re subtropical birds, by the way. They don’t belong in Michigan. Manatees off the coast of Rhode Island? sure – that’s REAL normal.
Alaskans are Americans, by the way. The UN isn’t going to give them aid – our federal tax dollars will.

cturple
Sea levels are indeed rising. Dr. Fairbridge discovered that a long time ago. In fact they call the rise and fall of sea level the Fairbridge cycle.
Bubba
The papers I cited are peer reviewed scientific papers that apparently this person did not read or are simply newer than her study or the third possibility is that the study was jaded. Some of the papers cited to support AGW in fact do not. They are actually unrelated to AGW but happen to support the idea of climate change, which skeptics happen to acknowledge.
Another issue is in the wording, may, possibly, and sometimes probable but in fact there is not that high a confidence level. A reason for this is simply that the field of climatology is in it’s infancy. Most of these scientists are fully trained in other but related fields (both pro-AGW and skeptical) and that is OK too, it is expected in a pioneer field. But keep in mind that the confidence levels are actually low and that they have been unable to provide definitive proof.

That study didnt claim there were no peer reviewed anti-AGW papers. The study claimed that in a sample of that size they were unable to find one. Its an important distinction that argues that skepticism isnt as widespread as some of the funky lists might suggest.
Even a skeptic was unable to find a skeptical article using the same methodology (well, a letter to the editor).
I think it’s interesting and suggests that if the climate community is equally divided then the conspiracy to supress the legions of anti-AGW findings includes not just many scientific organizations but scientific journals as well.
The conspiracy minded won’t have trouble imaging that I’m afraid. That parity doesnt exist won’t even occur to them. They already “know” the truth.

I thought her search couldn’t be duplicated by others yielding the same results and that was confirmed by several others. This is when Gore started to use the “debate is over” thing. She just didn’t randomly pick 928 papers. She conducted a specific search according to her methodology.

bubba
Its largely timing – AGW papers have been written for at least 30 years now while the papers on the new research in ENSO, the PDO and MOA are all less than 10 years old (the latter two very recent) and the solar cycle papers have been since 2002, the most convincing one in 2007. That study was one on ancient history. It also fails to show the change in attitude due to new discoveries, read papers from 2007 and you will see what I mean.

Nobel,
The difference being I investigated those claims and found creationists on the other end.
While you spam easily disproven lists, without doing the slightly fact checking.
There is a difference.

>>>>bubba
Its largely timing – AGW papers have been written for at least 30 years now while the papers on the new research in ENSO, the PDO and MOA are all less than 10 years old (the latter two very recent) and the solar cycle papers have been since 2002, the most convincing one in 2007. That study was one on ancient history. It also fails to show the change in attitude due to new discoveries, read papers from 2007 and you will see what I mean.>>>>
The study covered papers from 1993 to 2003. There may well be some changes since 2007, I can’t say, but it is interesting and directly contradicts claims made by others here.
Claiming “My list is bigger than your list”, while holding up fake lists, is an old creationist tactic. It’s one the lower-brow end of the AGW denial community has been engaged in for years.
Which is not to say that there might be real arguments against AGW. I’m not in a position to say.

That is— Which is not to say that there might *not* be real arguments against AGW. I’m not in a position to say.
Nite!

Bubba,
What changed in 2003 to 2007 were she went from 75% concenus view to a 20% consencus view? Turns out she admitted in 2007 she “channeled” the other 55%.
“In the essay she reported an analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’”.[3] The essay stated the analysis was to test the hypothesis that the drafting of reports and statements by societies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Sciences might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions on anthropogenic climate change. After the analysis, she concluded that 75 percent of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. The essay received a great deal of media attention from around the world and has been cited by many prominent persons such as Al Gore in the movie An Inconvenient Truth.
In 2007, Oreskes expanded her analysis, stating that approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that: “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities”.

Many of us, especially those who were trained as meteorologists, have long questioned the climate research community’s reliance on computerized climate models for global warming projections. In contrast to our perception that the real climate system is constantly readjusting to internal fluctuations in ways that stabilize the system, climate models built upon measured climate behavior invariably suggest a climate system that is quite sensitive – sometimes catastrophically sensitive — to perturbations such as those from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to articulate our ‘hand-waving’ concerns in ways that the modelers would appreciate, i.e., through equations. – April 22, 2008 “Internal Radiative Forcing And The Illusion Of A Sensitive Climate System” by Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville

Nobel,
I dont know what that means, Two of the three posted anti-AGW lists have creationists on the other end. The third is the Heartland Foundation.
Beyond that I cant help you.

I don’t get, chimpy. You take her interpretation as gospel, but you dismiss Bray / Von Storch survey. The numbers are the same, no?

“Peiser examined an essay by Naomi Oreskes published in the academic journal Science which showed the lack of dissenting opinions in a sample of 928 peer reviewed articles on global climate change.[4]
Peiser tried to repeat the study, but failed to reconstruct the article set with the specified search key words ‘climate change’. Oreskes sent in a correction to Science explaining that the keywords used in the ISI database search were in fact ‘global climate change’ and not ‘climate change’ as originally stated.[4]
Peiser then performed a similar survey with the keywords ‘climate change’ and searched for ‘all document types’ (which would include non-scientific, non-peer reviewed publications) rather than limiting the search to ‘articles’ (i.e., peer-reviewed publications) as in Oreskes’ study.”
It appears he too was unable to duplicate it.

Nobel and Bubba
It really does not matter how many papers have been written for or against AGW. Only the ones that can be verified correct actually count. Thus far, that answer is zero. No proof to date. The only papers that have a good correlation are not about AGW or climate change. They are papers on specific forcings and cycles that are proven out by history. Even the IPCC admits that there has not been warming since 1998 now, but refuse to accept that there has been slight cooling (they don’t like that dataset).

Bubba,
the point wasn’t whether there is a majority that believe man contribute to climate change.
The point was she claim in 2003 there was an overwhelming majority that believed man IS CAUSING it. In 2007, she said “nah, I can only say 1 in 5 for sure.”..Peisner wasn’t disputing that, he was disputing the overwhelming majority thing. Maybe his study is what made her give the actual breakdown in 2007. Piesner did not retrieve the exact same 928 paper….only, anyways.
So, she obviously fudged her interpretation. If anything, the numbers in 2007 pretty much match that survey.

She made a distinction between explictly supported and implicitly supported. Which you are intentionally ignoring, of course.
Peiser admits he was full of s*** and has moved on to other anti-agw talking points.
Two studies, anywhere from 1247-2000+ papers (depending on duplication) over a 10 year period and no peer reviewed anti-agw papers. Unless you accept Peiser’s word, then you have 1.
Where are these skeptics? Publish or perish? I guess they perished.

bubba
SO why did you not cite the peer reviewed papers that I mentioned. Mackey implicily pointed out that the IPCC was wrong in that it left out important forcings.

bubba
How about this peer reviewed paper quote:
“THEJLL, CHRISTIANSEN and GLEISNER (2003) found that only since 1973 has solar activity, as measured by the geomagnetic index, appeared to have a significant impact on the stratosphere and sea-level pressures. TOBIAS and WEISS (2000) have shown there is a significant resonant amplification between solar periodicities and climate periodicities. They argue that during the last few years there has been a shift in understanding about the dominant role of the sun on the earth’s climate throughout the last 11,000 years and especially over the last 60 years. They wrote: The IPCC dismissed any significant link between solar variability and climate on the grounds that changes in irradiance were too small. Such an attitude can no longer be sustained. BURROUGHS (2003) concluded that developments about the role of the sun in climate change published between 1990 and 2002 could not be dismissed so easily as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had done.”
MACKEY, R., 2007. Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate. Journal
of Coastal Research, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium), 955 – 968. Gold Coast,
Australia, ISSN 0749.0208

Or if you just would like to read peer reviewed alternate views on climate change:
Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity.
By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle Washington, USA
Atmospheric Transparency Changes Associated with Solar Wind-Induced Atmospheric Electricity Variations.
V. C. Roldugin# and B. A. Tinsley*
Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity
F. Yu
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, USA
Received: 16 December 2003 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 11 February 2004
Revised: 1 June 2004 – Accepted: 19 July 2004 – Published: 23 November 2004

bubba
BTW
Get the name on that third paper? F. Yu – I love the chinese.

From the first World Climate Conference in 1979 ———————
“…the conference declaration says, in part: “Climate will continue to vary and to change due to natural causes. The slow cooling trend in parts of the northern hemisphere during the last few decades is similar to others of natural origin in the past, and thus whether it will continue or not is unknown”.

From the keynote address: by Robert M. White.
“The timing of our meeting is a response to several concerns. The first is the worldwide reaction to the climatic events which have so disrupted human society over the past decade. The second arises from a growing apprehension that not only is humanity vulnerable to variations in climate, but climate is vulnerable to the acts of humanity. The third is a perception of a broader climatic vulnerability stemming from world population growth, increased world demand for food, energy and other resources…”
“…climatic events of the past decade… the Sahel, succumbed to a five-year drought… drought in the Soviet Union and the occurence of El Nino off Peru. In 1974 poor monsoons reduced food production in India. In 1975, cold waves in Brazil badly damaged coffee crops. In 1976, drought in Europe… In the U.S., the recent cold winters forced many industries and school to close”.
“In recent years we have come to appreciate that the activities of humanity can and do affect climate. We now change the radiative processes of the atmosphere… The potential consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion are already a major concern…”. “The implications of further projected increases [in CO2] are uncertain, but the weight of scientific predicts a significant global surface temperature increase.”

The debate on CO2 = global warming is important and you all have done a good job of throwing around the various positions, problems and political agendas. BUT,
I think a carbon tax is supposed to be an economic incentive to use energy more efficiently; “correcting global warming” would be a side effect. Non-carbon energy sources are such a small part of our current energy complex, taxing carbon is a way to encourage development in other areas. We use less oil today than we did in the 1970′s, per capita, due to increased efficiency. We can and must do better. We can agree that this is in ALL of our best interests, yes?
As to the ‘california bashing’ above, ? Such an attitude is completely beside the point and makes you sound like a tiny tyrant. Let them test out new economic and social structures all they want. If they come up with an idea or model that works, we will all be thankful when it spreads to the rest of the states. If it doesn’t work, where is the harm to your neck of the woods?

Billy Bob
Re: “Is California still one of the fifty seven states? I think all of that CO2 has done somthing to the minds of those people out there.”
Since californians could not answer that, I will – there are 50 states, not 57. 47 Red white and blue and 3 pink.

Ed, I’m leaving Florida as soon as possible. I’m not expecting sudden flooding in the immediate future, but I believe it will begin to happen in my lifetime – and some of it will be catastrophic. People aren’t going to simply walk away from multi-million dollar homes. I just want to be closer to family – I don’t have anyone down here.

justreading
I take it that you have never had to spend much time in California.

Lasombra
Well said.
FYI In scientific terminology, it really is not theory either but still only a hypothesis – not enough evidence for a theory, the most important issue is that to be proved true it must be capable of being proved false. The current hypothesis is not falsifiable and therefore not verifiable either.