Why are Republicans offering a carbon tax?
posted at 4:00 pm on May 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Conservatives have warned of the disastrous economic effects of Barack Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade system and the massive burdens it will impose on American families. Republicans have derided it as a tax, and a particularly regressive one, that will force working-class earners to choose between heat, lighting, and food. In response, House conservatives have proposed … a carbon tax?
Well this complicates things. Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) have proposed a carbon tax as an alternative to Democrats’ cap-and-trade legislation.
The legislation would tax carbon at the rate or $15/ton, rising to $100/ton over three decades.
For months, House Republicans have been blasting cap-and-trade as the equivalent of a tax on energy, a message which seems weaker now that two very conservative Republicans have proposed a direct tax themselves.
From McClatchy:
Reps. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona on Wednesday became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels.
The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would set a tax of $15 a ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 a ton over three decades.
“The first axiom of economics is if you want less of something, you tax it,” said Flake, a leading fiscal conservative, in an interview. “Obviously, we want less carbon, so we tax it.”
Is it really obvious that we want less carbon? Particulate matter, perhaps, but Republicans have challenged the notion that more carbon dioxide leads to anything other than better plant growth. An EPA memo appears to at least make the argument that the government hasn’t proven any harm from CO2 that doesn’t involve a gas mask and a lot of duct tape.
So why propose a carbon tax as a rebuttal to cap-and-trade? Eric Zimmerman at The Hill postulates that Flake and Inglis hope to use the proposal to give some Democrats cover for breaking away from cap-and-trade. Obama’s proposal is not popular with Rust Belt representatives, who want an excuse to bail on the White House’s pet energy project. The carbon tax will go nowhere, they hope, but will create enough inertia to stop cap-and-trade, too.
I’m not so sure. It sounds as though Flake and Inglis are more or less endorsing the prime motivation behind cap-and-trade while Rust Belters want to reject the notion that CO2 presents any proximate harm at all. I hope the strategy works, but it has a high risk of backfiring.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Seems like a shell game here–everybody uses energy, everybody pays payroll taxes. People who conserve energy might win out a little here.
But there could be an accounting problem with this. Payroll taxes go into the Social Security Trust Fund. Would the carbon tax money also go there, or would it be used to subsidize “green” energy? In the latter case, we would be robbing the nation’s elderly to build windmills.
Steve Z on May 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I like your end result but you belittle the wrong people yourself. There is good science pointing both ways yet the governments of the entire world have tried to silence the ones who don’t support their political agenda.
It’s not about “believing” science. It is about not “believing” we are being told the scientific truth because of politics.
Also, if it turns out that the warming trend is over, which I’ve read recently could be the case… it is at very least taking a break… Arctic ice seems to be almost at record highs this year. Even proponents have to admit it isn’t happening as they predicted 6 years or so it would. It hasn’t progressed like they thought it would.
Which means they lied to us. That makes people crazy.
petunia on May 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Excellent! RFV is such a poseur! ‘Carbon Tax’ or whatever you want to call it IS a scam & a power grab. Nothing more and nothing less.
Branch Rickey on May 14, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Ah, using the Tax system to punish things you don’t like… instead of using the Tax system to fund the government in the most fair way.
Please tell me how this guy is supposed to be a Libertarian? Or a Fiscal Con?
Romeo13 on May 14, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Steve Z on May 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Yeah, I corrected myself to note that it’s closer to 20 lbs (which does make the $/gal tax lower). Exactly how much, though, will actually depend on the octane of the gas, and I think 17 lbs is on the low end. Furthermore, weight per gallon depends on composition, temperature, etc, but I think it is typically over 6lbs per gallon.
Whatever, the point is that a carbon tax has real, measurable implications to normal people.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM
The defense rests its case.
The Dean on May 14, 2009 at 5:04 PM
If you take a walk, they’ll tax your feet, which of course, are made of mostly carbon, and water. This is lunacy.
kirkill on May 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Woah, Flake is doing this?!
This must be some sort of strat to kill cap and trade. I’m hoping he’s betting to divide the democrats here. I just hope it doesn’t backfire. Flake is too much of a Fiscal conservative to actually think this is a good idea.(Even though it’s a better idea than cap and trade, crap, but better than most crap.)
Trov on May 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM
See your points petunia and Ed’s points; but didn’t a lot of people also think that the misnomer “Campaign Finance Reform” would be repealed by SCOTUS? That did not work out very well imho, so I do not have much hope for this.
Branch Rickey on May 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Huh. So, if we don’t have an asterisk that says *I believe in climate change, but not anthropomorphic climate change every time we comment on this issue, we are effectively saying we don’t believe in climate change? Let’s just say that that’s not a very, er, scientific deduction on your part.
But, I have to ask:
Do you actually know anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change? Because I don’t. The climate changes, it always has, and it always will.
But you’re right about not pursuing things like ethanol (which enriched the coffers of Iowans, who just happen to have the first primary, but I digress). I put things like that in the “first do no harm” category.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Then stop.
Branch Rickey on May 14, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Sorry, but most conservatives I’ve spoken with don’t doubt that the climate is changing but rather that humans are responsible.
It’s not a matter of ridiculing scientists. There’s a basic assumption that scientists have settled on the fact of man-made global warming. It’s not true.
Fewer than half of published scientists endorse the theory. Thousands of scientists, including climatologists, recently signed a petition denying the theory. NASA can’t even get its data correct. Global warming alarmists have been busy changing their stories. Meteorologist John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, calls global warming “the greatest scam in history”. The CATO Institute recently got climatologists from all across the globe, including the IPCC, to deny that the earth has warmed any for at least a decade.
amerpundit on May 14, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Branch Rickey on May 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM
There is that… but there is the name droppers who have said Krauthammer and Steve Forbes have suggested this direction. I don’t get it and I was persuaded that TARP should pass… at the time… now I feel duped.
So I want some proof that this is something good. I don’t trust any of them.
petunia on May 14, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Al Gore and the rest of the idiot left. They are staticists who believe that the Earth’s climate is perfect, now, and should never change at all.
They view everything with the same static eye, as if it will never change, which is why they are more into confiscating people’s money rather than promoting growth. The left doesn’t understand concepts such as growth or change. They are stuck in the moment … forever.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:11 PM
And let me tell something, nothing says “real conservative” like taking millions in pork for shrimp research in your district.
amerpundit on May 14, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Exactly. Unless they dump the whole system and switch to the Fair Tax or a flat tax.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Do you have a link? Couldn’t find it.
kirkill on May 14, 2009 at 5:12 PM
But shrimp are tasty. Isn’t that all that matters? Feeling good?
kirkill on May 14, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Oh, I think they understand change. We’re getting a whole lot of it right now. But they are stuck in reverse, not in neutral.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Could not agree more :)
Branch Rickey on May 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM
That’s a straw man. They don’t think it should never change–at least I’ve never heard one actually say that–they just don’t think it should change unnaturally due to human CO2 emissions.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM
When are these anal orifices going to wake up and realize that they aren’t going to win friends and influence people by trying to be just like the Dumocrats, but just a little bit less. Sooner or later some of them have to grow a pair and stand up and announce the obvious. We don’t “need” to do anything about carbon! We need to find, create, or produce and efficiently utilize as much energy as we can productively use, here, and more importantly in the developing areas of the world. Energy is a wealth creator, and most of the real damage to the planetary environment is occurring in places in the world which have the most poverty. If we really feel we must invest trillions of dollars to save the planet, the best way to spend the dough would be to donate nice modern American power plants throughout the Third World and help them to use the energy to bring their people up to a middle class standard of living. Increased wealth allows a society to afford to be concerned about the environment, to adapt to whatever vagaries the weather provides, reduces population growth, and diminishes conflicts. Of course, if the statist pinheads would get out of the way, we wouldn’t have to donate we could sell them stuff and make everybody richer. than no matter which way the climate trends, the world would be in much better shape to deal with it.
djaces on May 14, 2009 at 5:19 PM
For every 12 grams of carbon “burned” in the combustion process you add 32 grams of oxygen to form the carbon dioxide molecule. Since I don’t have the exact formulation of gasoline other that it is a volatile liquid mixture of highly branched C4-C12 hydrocarbons. Assuming all 6 lbs of a gallon of gas (it’s not) is just carbon atoms then Dave S’s approximation is in the ballpark. So 22 cents per gallon would be a high ball figure.
chemman on May 14, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Let me rephrase, they don’t understand natural change and growth. But the left do love taking things apart and destroying them, which is all they are doing, now. Their view of the world is a totally static one, which is why they can say that they are against “climate change” with a straight face. I still laugh when I even think that anyone is rallying against “climate change”. It’s absolutely hysterical!
Stagnation is the essence of socialism (and other centrally planned systems) and a stagnant environment is the only sort that the left’s ideologies are able to deal with.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:22 PM
*sigh* Human CO2 emissions are as natural as it gets. It’s called “exhaling”.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Yeah, my original 30 lbs was based on a lot of “back of the envelope” math. :-) But it is just under 20 lbs, varying depending on octane.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Let’s not be silly. That’s another straw man. Nobody is worried about humans exhaling.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Oh man, a couple million for shrimp! Let’s ignore the trillion dollar bailouts and trillion dollar wars and focus on the minutia. Also, let’s remember that earmarks (i.e. Constitutional designations) are legal, as opposed to the wars and bailouts done by Bush and Obama. Earmarks are consistent under the conservative principle of de-centralized power.
The Dean on May 14, 2009 at 5:25 PM
They are against climate change. They say it all the time. “CLIMATE CHANGE. BAD.”
We know that they don’t want us to ever get hotter, since they used to be against global warming, so … are you saying that the left wants us to cool the Earth? Are they for global cooling? If not, then they want the climate to … not change.
Which is it? What are they fighting against, allegedly?
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:25 PM
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I assumed you were doing quick and dirty calculations of which I have no problem. Those without a Chemistry background would get lost in the math and chemical equations.
chemman on May 14, 2009 at 5:28 PM
This is not correct.
There is no “science” that supports the AGW hypothesis.
There are models that support the hypothesis.
Models are not science. Especially these models.
These models have so many fudge factors built into them that it is trivial for the model makers to get any result that they want.
They models fail completely when you attempt to take past data and use it to hindcast historical climates.
Yet we are supposed to believe that these same models, when given the best guesses about future data, are supposed to be accurate.
MarkTheGreat on May 14, 2009 at 5:32 PM
“Why are Republicans offering a carbon tax?”
I dunno, because they’re idiots?
Sorry if the following is a repeat quote, but it describes the “carbon tax” so succinctly I believe it bears repeating:
“Carbon dioxide is what we breathe out. It is what plants breathe in. Plants breathe oxygen back out. Oxygen is what we breathe in. The OMB was merely pointing out the obvious– the administration is seeking a way to tax the air that we breathe. What the government can tax, the government can control.”
Jack Kinsella
oldleprechaun on May 14, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Oh, of course. Just cows. Let’s not be silly.
MadisonConservative on May 14, 2009 at 5:33 PM
That’s good! I want to pass out to hippies “I DO NOT HEART WEATHER” bumper stickers ~ cause that’s all ‘climate change’ IS! It’s WEATHER people. It relies on the sun, tidal movements, etc. It has NOTHING to do with driving to the post office instead of walking…
Branch Rickey on May 14, 2009 at 5:33 PM
DaveS,
BTW, I know what they should have called it, if the left had a brain, but you have to wonder how they ever came to rebranding ‘global warming’ as ‘climate change’. Who would ever think of using such a totally moronic name? It goes to the way that the left thinks – they are staticists who cannot deal with any sort of natural change.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:34 PM
gotcha…
Really? To many of these freaks (including John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor), babies are pollutants who should be aborted to save the planet. The same circle of Useful Idiots (and a spattering of “neo-malthusians”) think livestock are pollutants because… they produce methane. It goes on and on…
Things that are a natural part of life are considered evil (yet at the same time they want nature to be left untouched by man, left in its “pristine state”).
It is insane. And I mean that literally.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 5:34 PM
They charge a carbon tax (around $25) to have a bar-b-q in britain in your yard. A FRIGGIN’ BAR-B-Q!! That’s not too far from regular, old breathing. Dangerously close, especially as we know how unhinged and insane the left is.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Unless I’ve missed something you are misinterpreting DaveS’s statements. The AGW now Human Caused Climate Change Theory does not dispute that the climate changes over time, it wants to put the blame of current climate change on human (not breathing) sources (technology) of CO2. They use CO2 as the independent variable when plotting CO2 vs Temp. graphs. This methodology makes CO2 the driving factor. Based on the observations of paleoclimatology records that CO2 appears to lag temperature I would put temperature as the independent variable in a Temperature verses CO2 graph which means temperature is the driving factor. For me this means that human factors are a small role in overall climate change but not the driving factor.
chemman on May 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Exactly.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Got these from a previous commenter at HA a few months ago– each fact had links (but I don’t have the current links):
Christian Conservative on May 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Cows and sheep!
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Get thee to a highschool chemistry book
C combines with O2 in the air to become CO2.
Working from memory, C is atomic weight 12. O is atomic weight 16.
one atom of C (12) becomes a molecule of CO2 (44)
H combines with O2 to become H2O (1 becomes 33)
as to your second statement. Are you under the impression that a fissioning process is going on in your engine?
MarkTheGreat on May 14, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Pence is off my “I can count on one hand the legislatures that are still conservative” list
macummings on May 14, 2009 at 5:47 PM
They aren’t going to change it because they aren’t addressing the cause.
1) During the latter half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been at any time during the last 1000 years. (Note, 1000 years ago was the mideival optimum)
2) Several recent studies have found that Urban Heat Island contamination was between 0.05 and 0.1 degrees per decade over the last century.
3) Several recent studies have discovered that the quality of the ground based temperature network is (to put it mildly) atrocious. With almost all of the contamination on the side of higher temperatures.
CO2 has little to no affect on climate.
MarkTheGreat on May 14, 2009 at 5:48 PM
You’ve missed something, evidently.
Jut “change”? Any change? Or is it the idiotic warming they were screaming about until it became too ridiculous a theory to defend – forcing them to change the name of it to something totally idiotic, like, “Climate Change”?
Yes … I know full well what they are trying to say. They are morons. And most of their global warming hysteria is based on runs of computer models, not the Vostok ice cores that they liked to point out as proof of CO2 driving climate – until it became appraent from that data that:
1) CO2 is lagging climate
2) Vostok predicts that the Earth is at the peak of a natural hot period and about to head into a 10,000 year cooling that will freeze the Earth by over 10 centigrade.
Okay, we’re in agreement on the CO2 lagging part. Now, seeing this you have to wonder who the geniuses were who initially thought it was a good idea to use data that clearly shows the opposite of what they are claiming. I mean, that is crazy stupid!
Also, I don’t see where you have any proof that Man has any role in climate more than other species or other natural events, such as vlcanoes, etc.
BTW, for the models, we have had econometric models for far longer (and with more funding) than any of the climate models, and not a single econometric model forecasted the credit crisis (or anything close) and no econometric models have proven worth too much in any sort of predictions. And our economy/financial system is far simpler that the Earth’s climate.
The insanity and stupidity on the left are without bounds.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:48 PM
NO NO NO!!
This move is textbook “Reaching Across The Aisle”
Act conservative, be conservative, and you will win!
macummings on May 14, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Now that the fruit loop brigade has had it’s say, can we get back to reality?
MarkTheGreat on May 14, 2009 at 5:49 PM
I think most of us can make a distinction between cows, humans, animals in general, and hundreds of millions(?) of cows raised as livestock, which wouldn’t exist otherwise.
I personally think that such complaints from “environmentalists” are stupid, but it is absurd to extrapolate, from that, a suggestion that they are opposed to people exhaling. If you stick to reasonable arguments and avoid the straw man arguments and non sequiturs in general, you will be much more persuasive.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Either they are idiots, OR they see an outright carbon tax as more transparent than the cap and trade route. If people see the amount they are being asked to pay in added tax, rather than having a behind-the-scenes C&T that adds cost to everything without showing what portion of that cost is AGW nonsense, then there will be a better chance of it being rejected.
iurockhead on May 14, 2009 at 5:55 PM
The fact that CO2 lags temperature in a “natural” environment does not mean that in another environment–where an unnatural near-doubling of CO2 occurs over a century rather than millenia–the relationship can’t move the other direction.
The people advocating a response to climate change acknowledge perfectly well that CO2 responds to temperature, so I don’t understand where you get the impression that they deny it. In fact, one of their concerns is that rising temperatures will trigger all of those natural feedbacks causing even high CO2 levels.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 5:58 PM
LOL. That’s just batshit craziness. I’ve never heard anyone make this sort of argument. Do you understand logic and the direction of implications, at all?
Again, what change? Up? Down? What cahnge are they working against?
Oy. I don’t even know what to say about this. You can’t pull data that allegedly proves that CO2 drives climate, then have a 3rd grader point out that any moron can see that CO2 lags in that data and then turn around and say, but the feedback (e.g. the opposite of what we were using this data to prove) will make it worse. Crazy, man. Crazy.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 6:05 PM
add to that list, snow is Saudi Arabia in May.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/snow-in-saudi-arabia-in-may/
iurockhead on May 14, 2009 at 6:10 PM
I think John Holdren is pretty darn clear on what his arguments are. Apparently Obama thinks they are “reasonable” and “persuasive” or he wouldn’t have hired him as his Science Advisor.
Certainly designating CO2 as a pollutant is not “reasonable” (nor is taxing sheep for methane production). Since these are positions advanced by “mainstream” environmentalists they are not “straw man” arguments, but essential parts of the Left’s relentless agenda.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM
It is beyond rational argument that the earth has been cooling for the last 2 years.
Climate is not significantly inluenced by a trace molecule that makes up less than four one thousandths of one percent of the earth’s atmosphere.
To put it in perspective, in a stadium comprised of 100,000 molecules only 38 are carbon dioxide.
Basilsbest on May 14, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Calling Democrats Socialists is dumb but this isn’t? Riiiight.
Rocks on May 14, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Add to more idiots to the list.
Yes donate to my campaign and vote for me, I’ll tax you less. But I definitely will tax you and continue the growth of government. Never, ever forget, I am a politician first. My goal is to stay in office.
patrick neid on May 14, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Gee, Socialist lite. Tastes red! Less filling!
Can we not take one principled stand? The way forward is not to follow the left but only at a distance.
moxie_neanderthal on May 14, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Ah, so because those cows (you think) wouldn’t have been born naturally, the efforts to feed the world should be punished for their unnatural crime of…um…getting animals to breed.
MadisonConservative on May 14, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Good point!
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 7:15 PM
No, I think their pretty clear argument is that any human behavior which changes the climate should be altered so as not to change the climate.
LOL, yes, climate is inarguably influenced by this particular trace gas. Nobody with the most elementary understanding of the physics involved would question this.
Furthermore, your “argument” here is embarrassingly fallacious on its face. You are basically asserting “it’s a tiny amount, therefore it can’t be important.” To outline the bald stupidity of that assertion, consider the fact that only 500 micrograms of ricin can be fatal to a human. That is to say, .0000006% of the mass of an average-sized man is enough to kill him. Does that blow your illogical mind?
Much better than you do, apparently. If you don’t understand how C02 feedbacks over centuries might be driven by temperature, but temperature might also respond to rapid changes in CO2, then this discussion is above you.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Oil/energy companies are supporting the carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system for 2 reasons:
1) Cap-and-trade becomes enmeshed in the system and is much harder to remove, like a cancer. Relatively speaking, a tax is much easier to remove once people realise they are getting screwed.
2) With C&T, oil producers are forced to pass the cost onto the consumer and the consumer blames the companies for the increase. On the other hand, a tax is easier for consumers to see that it is coming from Congress and will thus blame the gov’t for their skyrocketing energy costs. (That’s how energy producers see it, anyway.)
That is what oil companies are lobbying for right now. They see some kind of anti-energy legislation as inevitable, and they are just trying to pick their poison. I would guess this partly explains why republicans in congress are offering it as an alternative.
No, I don’t have a link to any of this. It is second hand info from family members in the industry . Pure internet gossip. Take it or leave it.
bitsy on May 14, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Might, might, might, …
The Vostok core data says that CO2 level is driven by climate. Period. Your babbling on about “natural” environments and what MIGHT happen in an unnatural environment is pure silliness. Let me refresh your memory as to what you actually said:
This statement is so stupid that I don’t really have words for it. It is clear, however, that you don’t understand the first thing about implication, not in any rational sense, at least. Your whole idea about “the relationship [moving] in the other direction” is without any justification, whatsoever. Do you not understand this? You are reversing an implication because it serves your argument – actually, because your argument depends on it. That is ridiculous and no one with a brain would put up with anything like that.
Just because we have A => B (climate drives CO2 levels) does not say anything about the idea that B => A (CO2 levels drive climate). NOTHING. NOTHING!!
I understand that both equations use all the same symbols, but logical statements are ordered. You know?
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Global warming is caused by the sun. Duh.
The thought that somehow mankind controls the weather – and a sacrifice is neccessary to appease the angry climate gods- is a stone age superstition. It has been recently revived by a bunch of commies that can’t win elections without terrorizing the population into agreeing with them.
bitsy on May 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM
I’m putting you in the neo-Malthusian camp, which argues that people are polluters, and babies who result from the ‘normal human behavior’ of love, sex, and reproduction should be aborted if necessary to save the planet.
Go ahead – pat yourself on the back.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I think your problem is that you are trying to apply particular rules of logic to a situation in which those particular rules make no sense at all. For example, your statement that “A => B (climate drives CO2 levels)” is absolutely meaningless. What are you asserting to be A and B, and how does A imply B?
What you ARE clearly trying to argue is that since thing A affects thing B, that thing B can’t affect thing A, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Nobody is arguing with you over the fact that in long, natural cycles climate drives CO2… there is no logical rule (since you seem to want to apply those) by which you can go from that fact to the conclusion that CO2 can’t affect climate.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Why would you put me in that camp? I’m on your side, I’m just apparently less tolerant of stupidity than some people here. Tortured logic and scientific illiteracy doesn’t make us look good, so I try to convince people to abandon it from time to time.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM
A “carbon tax” is a tax on breathing!!!
If you let the politicians get away with this, everyone’s a criminal and the government will have an excuse to take all you have and imprison you whenever it wants.
landlines on May 14, 2009 at 8:28 PM
All scientific reasoning takes place within the language of logic. Now, if you want to argue that lefties aren’t making a scientific argument, then you would be released from the constraints of logic. Is that what you want?
Er … I put that in the parentheses for you.
A = climate
B = CO2 levels
The Vostok Ice Core data was pulled up and used as the basis for the argument that CO2 levels drive climate (B => A). That was easily proven to be a false analysis of the data, which, instead, showed that CO2 levels lagged climate changes and seemed to imply that climate drives CO2 levels (A => B).
If you don’t understand this way of translating the simple statements to logical implication, then I can’t figure out how you could have the audacity to be making any scientific arguments, at all. That would be as if someone who couldn’t count to 100 was lecturing on the number of people in the world.
No. Read my post again. I never said anything like this. What I did say was that just because A affects B doesn’t say anything about whether B affects A. NOTHING. You cannot just turn implications around. That is illegal, in the logical world, where all scientific discourse takes place.
I have no idea how you even came up with that idea.
I said that your hypothesis that the implication from a “natural environment” might just be reversed in an unnatural environment is without any basis in reason. You might as well have just said that chocolate cookies are expensive, because the Vostok data supports that as much as the idea that CO2 drives climate.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 8:32 PM
You have got to be kidding.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Those statements are contradictory but the former is true. For example, models could not account for the mid-century cooling period. Adding another parameter (aerosols) allowed them to reproduce the historical data. Similarly, although the models don’t account for temps in this new century, I’m certain that adding a ENSO variable or some such will get them back in business.
Anti-AGWers are playing a losing game. They must change the rules to win. One way is to insist that scientific theories like AGW must have a track record of reliable *future* predictions before being used to formulate policy.
edshepp on May 14, 2009 at 8:41 PM
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 8:32 PM
You’ve confused yourself, mostly because you don’t understand logic as well as you think you do (for example, A->B and B->A is possible, but again is not relevant here), and because you are trying to apply irrelevant rules of logic to the CO2/temp relationship.
There is no logical implication here. There are causes and effects…. yes, warmer climates CAUSE elevated CO2. However, you are asserting that elevated CO2 cannot CAUSE warmer climates. And that is when you start to sound silly.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 8:54 PM
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Using your tortured logic, for example, the ideal gas law (PV = nRT) would not be possible. You would observe pressure increasing as volume decreased and you would declare that “pressure drives volume!” You would then erroneously (and inexplicably) attempt to formalize that as a meaningless logical statement that P->V, and you would argue about it and stick your fingers in your ears.
And you would never realize that you can also change volume and affect pressure, because you are too busy trying to apply inapplicable ideas from some logic class that you just took.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 8:57 PM
That is not what I wrote. Stop putting your idiotic words into my mouth. I’ve already explained this to you several times.
I said that you made this claim (that CO2 levels might drive climate in unnatural environments) without any reason backing it. Period.
But, prove me wrong. What is your basis for hypothesizing that CO2 levels drive climate and how is that reflected in the Vostok Ice Core data? Be specific.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 9:08 PM
It is not my hypothesis… it’s so well-known that CO2 affects climate that I’m embarrassed for you for asking this question. It is a known greenhouse gas. Specifics? Mars, Venus.
What the hell does the Vostok Ice Core data have to do with this? You even already said yourself that that data shows a CO2 increase after warming climate, so I don’t understand how you think that relates to climate warming in response to CO2… it’s an entirely different scenario.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 9:16 PM
This is a joke, right? “It is a known greenhouse gas”? That’s your answer? Mars, Venus? You’ve got to be kidding me, man.
Memory problems? You responded to my post, quoting this part of mine:
This was all about the Vostok data. It showed the opposite of what the global warming freaks were claiming it showed. The opposite! Which is what led to our little tete a tete, here.
It doesn’t relate at all, which is what I have said to you over and over and over, and why I have been on your case about talking about that while the whole discussion had been about the Vostok data and what it showed (and climate models, which are jokes beyond belief).
Your statement that Vostok data doesn’t preclude the notion that CO2 might drive climate in an unnatural environment is vacuous. That is what I have been trying to get through to you.
Meanwhile, you still haven’t shown me why you think that CO2 might drive climate, other than to cite its naming as a greenhouse gas (and North Korea is a Democracy because that’s what it’s called …) and to throw out some meaningless references to planets. I suspect that you don’t know, likely because the Vostok data had been the main hinge for the global warming nuts’ “CO2 drives climate” claims.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 9:30 PM
That’s fine, but the fallacy of that argument is the assumption that man has had more of an impact on the climate than other natural forces would lend it to. The constant error is the differentiation between nature and man. Man is part of nature. All that man has created has been through and because of nature. It’s a common misconception that really taints the argument.
When natural droughts occur and massive forest fires take place, how much CO2 is released? When volcanoes or, hopefully not in our lifetime mind you, supervolcanoes erupt, how much CO2 is released? We’re speaking as if we’ve risen above nature, which is a complete and utter falsehood. Tell someone from New Orleans that we’ve risen above it. Tell someone from Indonesia, or anyplace that has earthquakes, tornadoes, flooding, etc.
We are part of nature. The presumption that we are somehow misplaced on this planet is a twisted worldview nurtured by the fevered rantings of misanthropes, animal rights wackos, and environmental extremists. We need to kick that out of the argument and approach the issue from a far more pragmatic viewpoint.
MadisonConservative on May 14, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the scope of your point about the relationship between CO2 and climate. I didn’t realize that you were only referring, narrowly, to that data set. I have no idea where I could have gotten the idea that you were disputing the basic science of it… oh, wait, maybe its language like this:
I don’t think its an exaggeration to say that this is, possibly, the single stupidest thing I’ve ever seen someone say in these types of discussions. The ignorance of elementary school science is mind-boggling. “Meaningless references to planets”… brilliant.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 9:57 PM
MadisonConservative on May 14, 2009 at 9:54 PM
I agree with most of that.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Well it seems they really are going to tax the very air we breath.
Next thing you know we’ll all be required to wear government approved respirators that wirelessly send our CO2 input/output to the IRS for taxation.
DrDeano on May 14, 2009 at 10:27 PM
I am not as hopeful as some others that cap and steal or other tax on carbon will fail. If that gloomy prospect eventuates, I would prefer a tax which can be enumerated on utility bills, on gas station billboards, on airline tickets and at the grocery store so that all voters, not just conservatives, unstand what their vote means.
burt on May 14, 2009 at 10:42 PM
LOL.
Not brilliant, just sensible. Naming planets has no meaning for this discussion. It is not a proof of anything. But, I’m sure that your concept of proof and mine are quite different.
You still haven’t provided a single specific reason why you think that CO2 drives climate. That’s okay. I didn’t expect you to.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Stop with the “drives” nonsense. The question is whether increasing CO2 can significantly affect climate. You heard somebody say “drives” and you’re just repeating it. “Drives” has, for quite a long time, been a keyword that is ubiquitous in the rantings of those who are only politically driven skeptics with no real desire to understand what the hell they are talking about.
But the specific reasons I gave–ignoring the fact that it is obvious and small children grasp it better than you do apparently–were two planets which are kept warm by an atmosphere that is almost entirely CO2. That is the most pure proof-of-concept a reasonable person could ask for.
People would take you more seriously if you spent less time pretending that you didn’t believe/understand incredibly simple science that isn’t in dispute by anyone.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Huh? Are you just out of your mind? Or, is this some feeble attempt to insult me? Interesting line of attack, I will say. Odd, but interesting.
You don’t know what ‘reasonable’ means. Mars and Venus say precious little about CO2 levels DRIVING climate on Earth. But then, I would just write this off to the fact that your first paragraph, above, was an exercise in projection. Liberals love projection. It makes them feel normal.
If you think that CO2’s affect on our climate, or that Mars and Venus prove anything about how CO2 works in our atmosphere, then you are just ignorant.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 11:37 PM
I think this reinforces what I said above, about you being a “politically-driven skeptic” who doesn’t really care to actually understand this stuff.
You seem to be confused about the fact that climate/temperature and CO2 each affects the other. Neither “drives” the other… they both have the capability to affect the other, depending on the situation.
And yes, CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars or Venus works in exactly the same way that it works in ours… its a well-understood physical process.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Venus is hot because its’ orbital distance from the Sun is considerably smaller than Earth’s. The greenhouse effect depends on solar energy falling on the planet’s surface, and being reradiated in IR wavelengths which are captured by the gases on the way back out to space. Venus’s atmosphere doesn’t operate that way. Mars has very little atmosphere left. IF you could put a copy of Earth’s atmosphere on Mars, with everything except the CO2, you still have a greenhouse effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is not THE greenhouse gas, that would be H2O. Even the warmists admit that doubling CO2 over a
century will only give a little over 1C change in global temps. Thay hardly counts as a climate driver. The GCMs that support the AGW fantasy all depend on a positive feedback relationship between CO2 and H2O, which is confirmed by neither observations or logic, since if it existed it would lead to inevitable climate instability.
djaces on May 15, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Thay hardly counts as a climate driver.
Should be That hardly counts…
BTW, does anyone else find it interesting that the folks who are now predicting that human use of fossil fuels will be driving CO2 levels thru the roof for the next couple of centuries if we don’t all stick our heads in the oven immediately are pretty much the same crowd that have been predicting that all the oil was going to be gone by a week from Tuesday for the last thirty or forty years.
djaces on May 15, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Anthropogenic Global Warming is about as pure of science as the Lottery ticket is the road to riches. It’s pure unadulterated crap.
The climate changes. We had an ice age, then it got warm… on it’s own. We had a mini ice age in the middle ages, after an unusually warm period (warmer than it is now) with much higher seas and oceans back then.
And then after the mini ice age it got warm again… on it’s own.
Now back in the 60’s and 70’s, we had all sorts of hoo-haw over ‘global cooling’ and a lot of statist legislation went down the pipe to combat it. Didn’t work because it was never implemented.
Then it was ‘Global Warming’ and we have a lot of statist legislation going down the pipe to combat it.
It won’t work because the threat doesn’t exist.
They aren’t fighting against human pollution behalf of mother earth. They’re fighting against us (and our liberties) on behalf of themselves. This isn’t really about being green enviro-warriors at all… It’s about being reds.
It’s all ‘watermelon environmentalism’– Green on the outside… and being communist Red on the inside.
Chaz706 on May 15, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Jeff Flake is no friend to conservatives. He knifed us in the back on the illegal immigration issue, too. We have to remember that he’s from McCains neck of the woods and has been influenced by such.
This is really very good. In times like these true conservatives, like cream, will rise to the top. And the rino’s will reveal themselves and sink. The separation is occurring. Its time for conservative voters to pay close attention. DD
Darvin Dowdy on May 15, 2009 at 8:19 AM
A better way instead of stealth and deceit by political means would be to educate the public on the tremendous burden on the American people and the utter stupidity of this global warming hysteria. Drudge has article this AM that the oceans are now only supposed to rise 10 ft instead of twenty ft. The last ten years have been cooler. We’d need two miliion+ windmills and 4 gazillion miles of solar panels to run a couple of steel mills.
Herb on May 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2