Dems to Solve Global Warming Through Taxes

AGW really is beginning to scare me because it is an easy theory to prove wrong yet it is very hard to convince people climatologists don't really know shit about climate. It also just as hard to get people to understand that the scientific method was not used to prove AGW. It is funny, google global warming and shitloads of stuff comes up. Google empirical evidence for global warming and the search results are much different.

Dingell is a lunatic and a posterboy for the term limit movement.

Ahh… the perfect liberal solution… raise taxes! When will they ever learn? Perhaps when the nation is overrun with illegals, the people are taxed at 85% of the income, Islamists have brought back the caliphate, and we all have "free" health care, given to us by our friend the government. But hell, at least the rare brown-backed oak wood chigger will be safe and sound! "He believes we can solve climate change using the power of punitive taxation! He wants to raise gas taxes by fifty cents, tax carbon at $50 a ton, and get rid of the interest deduction on home mortgages for houses over 3,000 square feet. " Did you ever doubt it?

raising taxes are the universal liberal approach to solve all the worlds problems.

And a lot of times there's nothing wrong with it (all right, downvote me).

damn it i can't spell

Forget the policy for one moment (I agree with a carbon tax by the way), and let's get back to the good ol' science. It really isn't that easy to 'debate' the fact that the current global warming is mostly man-made. What do you think is causing Earth's DOCUMENTED warming? Or do you not believe that the Earth is warming, and that scientific reports around the world are completely wrong? And don't give me any BS that we don't know enough about climate science to even guess what is causing the warming. Because you'd sound like a religious fanatic. 'We don't know enough about the universe to even understand god'. P.S. Global warming is a HEATED subject for me.

We will just tax you… We can call it the spelling tax. j/k simmons

Global Warming is a natural and has been happening for a few thousands of years since the last Ice Age. The Sun has more to do with our climate than all the cars and factories combined. remember the alarmists were saying we were going to have another ice age in the 70's. The Earth is warming and we have no control over it. At one time the whole Earth was a frozen ball of Ice. When the dinosaurs were around the Earth was warmer and we had less oxygen in the air. I still do not see any kind of rel evidence that man has caused any change in climate, if you are talking about computer models, they are inherently flawed and never have enough factor to truly replicate the Earth's climate. Just last week we found out we have no cue on what has caused the hole in the Ozone, and remember we banned all cfcs. I agree that we should control pollution and keep our air clean, but if we get rid of co2 we will be in real trouble. see, co2 is what grows our food. And the great savior of ethonal pollutes even more than gas emissions and uses more oil to make it. And it also raises the price of food crops that sustain most of the world with cheap food, and beer if you are in Germany. I am all for finding alternate fuels and making our emissions cleaner, but we should not jump into the fas of the day because some climatologists says we are on the verge of destruction. The Goracle's Inconvenient Truth is that his little movie was bunch of hot air that has nothing to do with science.

It's going to cost no matter how we look at it. The only question is do you really care if your great grandkids have a world or not. It's very hard to convince people climatologists don't really know shit about climate because people don't know shit about climate.

Cooper says: " The only question is do you really care if your great grandkids have a world or not." What a perfect example of the kind of blackmail we're dealing with here. If only climatologists agreed with him! Wrong - The first question is whether humans are causing global warming. Prove that and you'll have unlocked the secret to raising and lowering the climate temperture! We'll never have another drought or flood ever again!

Global warming could very well be happening - it's happened many times throughout the earth's history, long before humans were bent on destroying the world. Flip through that primer I attached to the end of my post - it says a lot without saying much.

Okay prove me wrong, just like I said to Evrviglnt. You say it's the sun; I say it's not. Why? A sun-induced global warming trend would cause a temperature rise in the stratosphere. This occurs because the stratosphere is warmed largely by absorption of UV radiation from O2 and O3 (AKA the ozone layer). If the sun’s temperature increased, this would a) shift the sun’s spectrum further into the shorter wavelengths, and b) raise the intensity of all wavelengths. So there would be more UV for the stratosphere to absorb. This would create a net imbalance in the stratosphere’s energy budget: more energy would be coming in than going out. The natural response would be for the stratosphere to warm until it radiates enough to match the increased solar input. Thus, the stratosphere would warm if the sun was increasing its output significantly. A greenhouse gas-induced warming would cool the stratosphere. Greenhouse gases operate by reducing the surface’s ability to cool radiatively, and so increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would reduce outgoing IR from the troposphere. In turn, there would be less IR from below for the stratosphere to absorb, and this would create a net imbalance in the stratosphere’s energy budget. The stratosphere would have to cool to restore equilibrium. So for a greenhouse gas-induced cooling, the stratosphere would get colder.

And, coincidentally, the stratosphere is cooling. Search Wikipedia for Solar_variation and you'll see more on it.

You're avoiding my question. What do you think global warming is caused by?

I'm not avoiding your question - Climate change is a natural cycle that happens roughly every 1500 years. The climate temperture is not fixed, only moving when abused by humans. What causes it? Who knows, water vapor, co2, the sun; it could be many things working in concert. The Earth's climate is a complex system of countless variables not entirely understood by scientists. To insist that its humans doing the damage is a politically convenient position based on faith. If you want people to clean up the environment, you don't have to threaten them with annihilation of the earth to get them to do it.

Whenever anyone says "Search Wikipedia" they lose credibility. Pick a source acceptable in the classroom…

I have to agree, however, I do use Wikipedia quite a bit. I find a lot of great stuff there. Evrviglnt… you must use Wikipedia… No? Simmons: do you have another source? If so, please share. I do believe global warming is natural effect which is being enhanced by us.

It's not the sun, I explained that below in enough detail. Water vapor? Water vapor can cause climate change? Because that's news to me. Ever heard of 'saturation (like humidity)'? The atmosphere can only hold so much water. The amount of water vapor in the air does not change dramatically over time. I've written about this. Nuclear power produces water vapor, and no one complains that it is causing global warming (because, as the primer you provided correctly says, H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas). Why? Because it isn't. The atmosphere can only hold so much water. Otherwise the oceans would be sucked up. I'm not one of those idiots who doesn't understand the science and runs around screaming that global warming means the end of humanity. I know the science.

I never use wikipedia as a source - it's unreliable and one only needs to be burned once by it to know. You can use it to broaden one's understanding of an issue, place or person, but never as a source.

I find it interesting that conservatives in general seem to distrust wikipedia. It identifies the conflict in Iraq as a civil war and the burning of fossil fuels as the source of global warming. That's my theory. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia if you check the sources.

It would be a lot easier to enter into this debate if it was simply a matter of arguing the veracity of the scientific evidence. However, the inflammatory rhetoric of the zealous global warming advocates seems to fit a little too neatly into the America-bashing, anti-Republican, anti-Western agenda of the far left. At its core isn't this just one more example of the Internationalist Left's tireless efforts to find something else wrong with America?

Hey, China is actually worse than the U.S. now. They produce more emissions than the U.S., and it usually isn't the left who's criticizing China.

National Geographic talks about the effect of water vapor (I suspect its not on Wikipedia, which is why you've never heard about it ) - interesting reading: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1..."Evaporated H2O is a known greenhouse gas—a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth's atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. According to a team of Swiss scientists, heat from other greenhouse gases is causing more water to evaporate, releasing the vapor into the atmosphere above Europe. That vapor in turn, adds to the greenhouse effect, further warming the region. "This research indicates that small changes in temperature, driven by greenhouse gases, put more water vapor into the atmosphere, which drives up the temperature more," said Thompson, who studies ice cores and glacier retreat in the tropics." So: ""The Earth's surface temperature would be about 34°C (61°F) colder than it is now if it were not for the natural heat trapping effect of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor. Indeed, water vapor is the most abundant and important of these naturally occurring greenhouse gases. In addition to its direct effect as a greenhouse gas, clouds formed from atmospheric water vapor also affect the heat balance of the Earth by reflecting sunlight (a cooling effect), and trapping infrared radiation (a heating effect)." Furthermore, 99.72% of the greenhouse effect is by natural causes. If cooling periods mean lower co2 in the atmosphere, then ostensibly the earth was able to create more on its own to pull it out of the ice age and into warmer periods. Or - if man's co2 abuse is enough to effect changes in global climate temperature - shouldn't we take credit for pulling the earth out of the little ice age with the industrial revolution? Look at the bright side - if we all buy SUV's, we'll never have another ice age again! There is no climate model that has been proven to be accurate, but in fact the opposite is true. Therefore, it is not our job (skeptics) to prove you (true believers) are wrong - it is your job to prove to us that the drastic measures you proscribe combat a real threat. So far a large chunk of the persuasion you offer is doomsday scenario based on predications cobbled together to explain a massively complex system. Then when we question you, you tell us the debate is over. Retorts like that stink to the high water vapor - rendering everything after that suspect. My interest in the boondoggle that is human induced global warming extends only to the point that politicians are taking a climate history spanning millions of years and telling us what is happening now is unnatural and is to be feared. The Earth has cooled and warmed countless times, and it's not humans flipping the switch. If you want us to take care of the planet, let's do so without throwing this country into a depression and lowering our standard of living. It can be done. That's got me think about the medieval warming period, so I'm going to spend the rest of the afternoon playing Medieval II - Total War. Maybe I can wipe out enough Frenchmen to cool the planet!!!

This is prewritten because I've tried to sum this up before on my blog (it's hard to condense all the science into a couple of paragraphs): Here’s a short summary of what’s happening in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide molecules have 3 atoms: 1 carbon, 2 oxygen. This makes it a greenhouse gas. Gases with 3 molecules or more are greenhouse gases. Why do they have to have 3 atoms, you ask? 3 atoms make them just big enough to block stop radiation from leaving the atmosphere. To explain this, you need to know about the greenhouse effect. Energy from the sun travels to Earth as electromagnetic waves. It first encounters the atmosphere. Some infrared radiation and most ultraviolet radiation are reflected by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of the rays are reflected by clouds, gases, or dust particles. The energy that gets past the atmosphere next encounters Earth’s surface. Some of it is reflected back into the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed. When the surface is heated, it radiates some of the energy back into the atmosphere as infrared radiation. This radiation cannot escape back into space. Instead, much of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. These gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane make life on Earth possible through this effect. This process by which gases hold heat in the air is called the greenhouse effect. There is no question, even among global warming doubters, that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. CO2 is the biggest cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect, or man made global warming. Global warming doubters will say, “What about water vapor, the most common greenhouse gas?!” It is true that water vapor is the biggest cause of the natural greenhouse effect. Why doesn’t water vapor contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect? Because of saturation. The air can only hold so much water. There is always the same amount of water on Earth because of this and because of the water cycle. Therefore, water vapor always contributes the same amount to the greenhouse effect no matter what.

Show me how agw is proven using the scientific method. AGW cannot be proven false or true because we are not experimenting in a closed system. Whenever there are variables in an experiment that you cannot account for, then there is no way you can prove anything. Clouds are one of those variables. Cosmic rays are another. NO ONE on the 'believe' side can show me empirical evidence. Correlation does not prove cause and effect, the scientific method does. That is science my friend, like it or not. If you cannot falsify a theory you cannot prove it true.

If you are trying to back up your claims using wiki you are screwed. It is not a RELIABLE source because ANYONE can edit and write them. Great for say video game stuff, but not science. If you really are serious about your claims, can you cite your other sources please.

I don't understand what you want me to do. There's no way you can prove conclusively with 100% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/ There is all the refuting data you need, done by a high school student.

Here is some stuff refuting you: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboni...http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/sto...http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/n...http://www.mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/0...http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22494642-2,0...http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm (note some of the wacky ideas science had 30 years ago are coming back! The story below shows it!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7014503.stm http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/s... I can keep going if you like. I like to cite legitimate sources, not wiki.

@Chris: Okay ID is getting really screwed up. 1. Wikipedia is a perfectly legit source 2. " nuclear weapons testing in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, that may have made a small contribution to cooling at that time." LOL! 3. At least one of those stories you linked to does not agree with what what you say. Hopefully you can read this

Hi guys, Sorry about the ID issues. As you can tell we are pushing solutions to solve this now. If you ever have an issue or see something funky hit the "Got Feedback" button and leave your email address, where, and what the problem is…thx for your patience.

looks like it's fixed not, sorry for the inconvenience.

Ahhh… Much better!!!!

Simmons wrote: "There's no way you can prove conclusively with 100% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming" Exactly! For what we are about to embark on, as far as taxes, changing our economy, using food for fuel, we need to be 100% certain. We are talking about moving away from a fuel source that has no equal as far as caloric output. No other alt is even in the ballpark. There is a reason why our societies only developed so far before oil. How can you grow and grow on an energy source that is inconsistent like water or wind or the sun? Once oil is gone, we will not be able to live as we currently do. We need to do this for reasons that go beyond a theory based on the prediction of the future. I don't like the idea of the Russian Government taking in huge oil profits, especially with the way they have been acting the last few years. They also have stated if they are going to be expected to do things about global warming they want money first. I may be wrong, but I think we are on course for Russia to once again not play nice with others. But we need to change fuel sources the right way, through careful planning, not schemes designed to make some people a ton of money. Oh, and the whole atmosphere thing, there is no warming in the stratosphere, which is what is supposed to be happening according to the theory. Richard Linzden himself says this often. And where has that warming gone? Been almost a decade since the hottest year on the 200 year old record. Oh wait it wasn't 1998 after all, it was some year in the 1930's. I have stated many times where our real problems lie: land use and land use change. These impact us and life on the planet with 100% certainty. I will make a bet we never get to this one because there is no profit in it. Also, if you could Simmons, tell me which articles exactly refuted me and why?

Also wanted to add… Simmons, about your proving 100 thing. All I ask is show me how the theory of global warming stands up to the scientific method. Since it is proven, then show me how it was done, and what was the empirical evidence. The beauty of the scientific method is that you you yourself can use it. You can use simple observation to prove things like sunlight and its relation to heat at the surface. To test this, simply look at temperature differences in the Summer, when the Sun is closest, and winter, when the Sun is the furthest. Energy is transfered to us from the Sun, it really is that simple. You may say that we are simple people and climate change is something complex. We cannot possibly look for observable data ourselves and prove it right or wrong. Gravity is a pretty big and complex theory but yet you can test it right now yourself. The people that tell you science is too complex for the average person do not want us to think of it in a common-sense manner. I will even start you off with a good one: go around in your town and county and look for where the official observations are for recording temperatures. Note where they are located and what is around them.

Excuse me?!? I'm really trying to stay out of the pissing match between ignorati here, but "…in the Summer, when the Sun is closest, and winter, when the Sun is the furthest…" that's beautiful. Are you actually that daft, or did you just miscommunicate your thoughts? While it's true that in the northern hemisphere the Earth is closer to perihelion in the summer, it is the less oblique angle at which the sun's rays strike the surface that allows more infrafred radiation to be absorbed. More hits, more is absorbed.

"…we need to be 100% certain." That's just unrealistic. You can never ever ever ever ever ever ever be 100% certain in science. "Oh, and the whole atmosphere thing, there is no warming in the stratosphere, which is what is supposed to be happening according to the theory. Richard Linzden himself says this often. And where has that warming gone? Been almost a decade since the hottest year on the 200 year old record. Oh wait it wasn't 1998 after all, it was some year in the 1930's." I'm not sure what you're saying. Anyway, I hate when anybody brings up the 1930s crap. Sure, the warmest year on record IN THE U.S. was in the 1930s, but the hottest year on record EVER FOR THE WHOLE WORLD was actually 2005. Just google it.

I don't know how you can say we haven't been applying the scientific method. 1 observation: as greenhouse gas levels rise and fall, so does the average temperature of the earth. another observation: mars doesn't have an atmosphere, and consequently no greenhouse effect. The average temperature there is what, -20 F? You don't even need to design an experiment to prove the greenhouse effect's impact on climate. Just look at a freakin greenhouse to get the idea.

@coyote's girl: We both said the same thing. Your reply is my point exactly. Science is way more simple then most people think. A complex system is really just groups of simple ones. The human body is complex, yet it is a huge combination of cells at it's simplest level. Ok, fine there are atoms, but even now we are finding out there are even smaller things. But how can you expect anyone to actually get a grip on a concept when along comes the commonly-used word 'perihelion'? This is why people believe in theories that can predict the future. Because they get overwhelmed with words they may have heard once in their life. This is physics and climatology we are talking about, subjects most people are not familiar with. Would you teach your kid to swim by starting in the deep end?

"1 observation: as greenhouse gas levels rise and fall, so does the average temperature of the earth" That statement is actually two separate observations. One is that temperatures rise and fall and the avg temp fluctuates. There is correlation, but if there is a cause and effect relationship it is in reverse. Generally, CO2 rises after temperature. This is observed. It has not been observed that an increase in CO2 directly causes the temperature to increase. These are all based on what the models said, not what actually happened in the past. The models have a tough time working in the open system of the Earth's atmosphere.

a) it's a 'Q' not a 'G'. b) What the hell are you talking about? We're not saying the same thing at all, you git. I was trying to point out that you lacked even basic scientific knowledge. It's not hotter in the summer because the "Sun is closest". It's hotter because of the angle of incidence of the sun's rays. Since "perihelion" means "the point closest to the sun", I'll rewrite my comment before for you: "While it's true that in the northern hemisphere the Earth is closer to 'the point closest to the sun' in the summer, it is the less oblique angle at which the sun's rays strike the surface that allows more infrafred radiation to be absorbed. More hits, more is absorbed." I thought I could avoid completing the thought because maybe, just maybe you weren't completely ignorant, but let me continue. When the Earth is *farthest* away from the sun it is hottest in the southern hemisphere. Summer in Africa, South America, Australia, etc. occurs in December through March.

sorry, I wrote that quickly and it was worded wrong. I did mean that the northern hemisphere was closer to the Sun in the summer due to the tilt of the planet. It should have said that it was closer to the Sun and not vice-versa. Now that being said, I think you should re-think how you look at what I wrote about the rest of it because if you take out my grammatical error, it is sound.

I also wanted to add that I think this is a good, healthy debate on the subject. Some may call it a pissing match but as long as we remain on the science and the facts and avoid the name calling why shouldn't it go on? It is mainly Simmons and I and neither of us are being uncivil. I respect him for his viewpoint and both of us are questioning our arguments and the facts behind them. I think this thread is a good example of how this topic should be debated.

No. It's not sound. As I pointed out, the Earth is farthest during the southern hemisphere's summer. The distance is not the relevant factor. It's just the angle of the rays.

no, it's the tilt of the planet that sets up the angle. No tilt=no change in angle. The sun isn't the thing that is moving we are. We could argue semantics all day if you like but the point being that there are times when we can directly observe more or less energy being recieved from the sun. We also are observing warming on other planets like Mars, a place with no people and no CO2. But they do have the Sun. Look, when I am commenting I can make mistakes because the windows are small and my editing is not as thorough as it is in my writing. Call me careless for making mistakes, you are right in that. But underestimating my intelligence is not a good thing to do. Not a threat or a warning, just a heads-up.

comment