Tax greenhouse gas emissions!

I agree. This is the quickest and most effective way to deal with global warming. One wonders why politicians don't advocate this more. Cheers!

Well said!

Makes sense, Sam.

Yep! That's the best solution. But you know the fossils won't stand for it.

Gore proposed taxing carbon instead of income. I agree with that one too.

Sam,
"The quickest and most effective way to deal with global warming is to tax greenhouse gas emissions and to spend the proceeds to encourage the use of renewable energy locally."
I guess you would have to prove that a reduction in man made greenhouse gas emissions would actually stop global warming first.

Steve B.
"Gore proposed taxing carbon instead of income. I agree with that one too."
And we should start with AlGore's massive carbon production.

Dan: "I guess you would have to prove that a reduction in man made greenhouse gas emissions would actually stop global warming first."

The target is to prevent more than an additional 2 degree Celsius increase in the global average temperature. That is linked to no more than 450ppm CO2 atmospheric concentration. That's the science, though I acknowledge you probably do not accept it.

Dan: "And we should start with AlGore's massive carbon production."

Carbon emission are not political, though your comment shows clearly that you are.

Steve B.
"That's the science"
The science is, if the greatest greenhouse gas H20 is included in the mix, human contribution to global warming is .28%

Well well well, it is what this was all about from the beginning, finding a way to tax us for no other reason than living and redistribute the wealth. Funny how you leftists are too lazy to do something productive and create some wealth and what you will with your own earnings. No you lefties rather find ways to steal from others.
Oh yes, we are greedy and evil if we won't buy into this hysterical attitude about our climate.
Socialists are clowns and the green movement is their circus.

Professor Bob Carter an environmental scientist at James Cook University in Australia who studies ancient climate change wrote a very interesting article , to find it follow this link: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

Dan: "The science is, if the greatest greenhouse gas H20 is included in the mix, human contribution to global warming is .28%"

Source?

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The debate is no longer about whether we should do something about emissions. Scientists have generally said so for more than a decade, without major changes in their findings. For those who doubt that, there was a nice issue of the New Scientists recently looking at the various myths that deniers like to bring up. You can revisit those myths at:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
There is a discussion of water vapour in there as well.

For those who like to deal with reality, I think what Sam advocates makes a lot of sense. Sam's proposal is strong in many respects. Firstly, it isn't a policy that is specifically left (or right) wing. So, it could receive bi-partisan support (1). It simply seems the most effective way of dealing with global warming by taxing emissions for immediate impact and using the proceeds to subsidise local suppliers of clean and renewable energy, thus keeping the proceeds in those communities where change is needed most in order to deal with global warming, rather than spending the money on other causes.

Thanks, Quintessence, there's actually an easier URL:
http://environment.newscientist.com/climatemyths

Keith: If taxing pollution was stealing, then explain why polluters are not stealing clean air from others. Not all calling for action on greenhouse emissions are from the left. In fact, I do not propose to tax the rich and give the money to the poor, I actually believe that this is inproductive and doesn't make sense in regard to global warming. Instead, I propose to tax polluters and use the money to support local supply of clean and renewable energy.

Point is that this supposed crisis we are all facing is nothing but a ruse to hide a socialist agenda.

I'd hardly take Bob Carter's word for it. Anyway - it is the same argument as other pollution - before we never really worried about it because the sky and sea seemed endless. We just dumped waste where ever we wanted. But the producer or the consumer has to pay for the sorting and storage of that waste (just like you have to pay taxes and rates for landfill). It is about making efficiencies so less pollution is made and more energy is gotten from production to consumer.

As for a conspiracy (YAWN) I think that when the insurance and finance industries start saying we'd better plan for the problem, then it is pretty sure that it is a real risk. These people are not known for their socialism or their non-conservative politics.

On a related issue - water resources are getting scare and most countries seem to charge for water use, so why not carbon use.

Dan. Your link is to just the usual "skeptics", mostly with ties to fossil fuel industries - e.g., Singer and Lindzen. This is the kind of **** that Inhofe often quotes. It's not the state of the science, but I think you know that. Now, refer to the IPCC report earlier this year, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change," p. 10ff.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf

Quintessence & Sam - thanks for your links. You are right, of course, that the real debate is what actions should be taken to reduce emissions. On a personal level, green energy can be purchased now through many utilities across the country. It costs a little more per month on your utility bill. As renewables take hold, though, prices will come down. To see if your utility offers that options, see:

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm

If your utility does not have this option, you can still buy green energy from Sterling Planet's national program, which I do for a mere $30/month:

http://www.sterlingplanet.com/

Steve B.,
But then you have to take into account that by way of Quintessence & Sam's link's even the science that you would consider valid, when they take H20 into consideration man's contribution to global warming amounts to around 6%.

Dan,
I think you may be mis-understanding or mis-using the meaning of "man's contribution to... ." You are likely selectively picking out a portion of the whole mechanism, with out taking the big picture into account...
Think about the energy, you personally, have to put into driving a car for that car to put out very high amounts of energy: What... say... the amount of energy it takes to push your foot on the gas pedal and hold the steering wheel (if you want, you can throw in the energy it took you to pump and pay for the gas and put the car into gear)... BUT, on the outward side of that energy situation, your car is roaring down the highway at 80+ MPH (how many horses???). Now, you could say: "Well, me, a human, is putting in only x calories of energy expenditure... What's the deal with that???" But that small amount of energy expenditure that you are putting out into 'pushing the gas pedal' PUTS into motion a series of processes (mechanical and chemical) that end up putting XXX amount of Horse Power out of your cars axles...

I'm not sure what numbers you are looking at or why you have quoted the ones you have, but the point is that we can't just say:

"Well it's the car that's screaming down the highway, I'm just barely pushing the pedal..."

The car wouldn't be going anywhere, if it weren't for "man" sitting behind the wheel ... as it were...

Oh my God Bob Carter is yet another heretic. No oh no don't take yet another real scientist's word for it, no claim again they are funded by BIG OIL....you leftists must be right, you have yet another cause to justify sticking your noses in everybody's business and coming up with yet another reason to stick your hand in our pockets. You guys are wrong and that is pretty much it. You Global warming alarmists come in different flavors; there are those of you who genuinely believe this nonsense, there are those of you who are using it as a platform for your real agenda and there are those of you who know that your science is faulty and don't care, it is a means to and end.
It is no secret the planet's average climate cycles, it is pitiful to see this farce go on because some politically motivated screwballs out there are trying to use the weather as a means to "unite" people in a false "cause". Kind of reminds me of Edgar G. Robinson in the 10 Commandments, Global Warming is a Golden Idol.
I'm all for going about being a human on our planet and being clean about it, but that doesn't mean I am going to support handcuffing my country's ability to provide me with energy and productivity at the expense of progressing our technology and living conditions. If you simpleton clowns who drive your goofball Prius cars out there, you know the ones that on the backend cause more environmental damage than a Hummer, want to deprive yourselves of modern day comforts and technology , go ahead , but keep it to yourselves , you don't have a right to compromise my lifestyle, you aren't "saving the planet", the planet will do just fine.

David,
Thank You!
You are the first person in I don't know how long who didn't respond in the "you're an idiot" fashion because I express doubt about the science of man being the cause of global warming.

But just like there are a lot of really smart people saying G.W. is a crisis there are a lot of other really smart people saying it's not and that mans contribution to G.W. is minimal.

Dan... eh...your welcome,
I guess the point is though that among those two groups of "really smart" folks you mentioned, the second group hasn't really panned out... I mean it hasn't really been substantial in what they have presented in hard science terms, either on their own merits or comparitively with the first group of "really smart" folks you mentioned. Most of what the second group has been presenting has been at the level of grasping at straws and picking at the foibles of any scientific study or endevour rather than presenting proof of their own right...

I think the trouble across the spectrum is in dealing with and using the word "crisis" and what it implies to different people and whether or not it should be used at all. However, the basis of the science itself is not at issue in that case. The outcomes are the same regardless of the differing view of using the word "Crisis" ... Yes?

Keith, you keep incorrectly assuming that concern about global warming was part of some left-wing political plot. Look at your own Bob Carter, he uses a left-wing argument, i.e. concerns that the costs are going to be imposed "on the poor and underprivileged". So, does that mean that Bob Carter was a leftie, seeking to0 impose a hidden socialist agenda upon society? By contrast, I do NOT use left-wing arguments and I do NOT propose a typical left-wing policy like taxing the rich and giving the money to the poor, I actually believe that this would be counter-productive in regard to global warming. Instead, I propose to tax polluters and use the money to support local supply of clean and renewable energy.

Keith, you're assuming that reducing carbon emissions and other environmental steps (like using water more efficiently) will cause economic hardship or reduce lifestyle. Certianly not! Innovation will save us, and big business is stepping its foot on the pedal in that area (to use a maybe inappropriate analogy) to make money from reducing emissions etc. All that research money, all that money to be invested into alternative energy, all that money to invest in carbon trading schemes (imagine - making money from actually not producing anything!) all that money in product that is carbon neutral etc. That's why fighting global warming is the flavour of the month (25 years after the first warnings). The economy will exploit anything.

David,
Have you researched the "skeptics" science?

Moysant G.,
Do a search for "the cost of Kyoto" you will find plenty of sites estimating what kyoto is costing the countries of the world.
Junk Science estimates Kyoto has cost the world 350 billion (so far).
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html

Dan. Do you buy green energy? If not, why not? Even if your ideological delusions do not allow you to "belive" in global warming, there are other reasons for buying green energy - most notably, national security. Or would you prefer to keep fighting resource wars in the Mideast?

Sam, Moysant, Keith. Renewables are not a left-wing, socialist plot to undermine capitalism, as this article shows.

http://www.americanventuremagazine.com/news.php?newsid=3019

Steve B.,
"Do you buy green energy?"
No I don't buy green energy.

"If not, why not?"
It's not available.

"most notably, national security"
I agree.

Give me a hydrogen powered car, one with a good three to four hundred horsepower. Something to make me want to sell my 'vette and upgrade to a more powerful faster vehicle and I will be happy to drive it.
Global Warming apostles follw an non scientist named Al Gore
Sorry , but the likes of Al Gore are alarmist, his movie is filled with skewed data that suits his needs . He is nuts , he is unstable and he is a liar.
I present here and in other postings other qualified scientists in the know articles and they get "shouted " down. Sorry I'll go with the real scientists and ignore a snake oil selling politician.

Dan. Green energy is available. It costs a small premium per month, but many utilities offer the option. To see if your utility does, check out:

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm

If your utility does not offer a green energy option, check out Sterling Planet's national program. I buy green energy from Sterling Planet. It costs me $30/month.

http://www.sterlingplanet.com/

I'm glad we can agree on something. Switching to renewable energy technologies has numerous advantages besides reducing CO2 emissions. In addition to improving national security by making the U.S. more energy independent and decentralizing energy production. In addition, expansion on new technologies will create thousands of new jobs and help reduce our trade deficit as we begin to export technology.

Dan. If you lived in the South, and TVA provided your electricity, you could buy green energy through TVAs green switch program.

http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/

For more information about renewable energy available for purchase now:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/pricing.shtml?page=0

Dan,
Regarding "skeptic science" I suggest you visit the site mentioned twice above:

http://environment.newscientist.com/climatemyths

There are no studies that provide reasonably, substantially, and on their own merits an indication that human activity is not primarily implicated in the rate and intensity of this current Climate Change event. That is, there is no study that has arrived at appropriate confidence levels and been verified and substantiated saying that humans are not the primary cause of this Climate Change.

If there is I'd be happy to look at it.

Instead, what there is are jabs and pokes at the body of science and over-stretches and twists involving valid ongoing climate change questions. (see the link to the New Scientist's climate myths above).

On the other hand, human responsibility in this climate change event is indicated with high confidence by a large body of verified (and verifiable), reviewed, and substantiated scientific work.

You will, I feel, prefer to stick to your "skeptic science" and we will I am sure agree to disagree...

Best

Steve B - I never said renewable energy was a socialist left-wing plot (?!!). Don't know why you've put me in the same camp as Keith. That big business is pursuing economic means to reduce their green house gas emissions is no doubt because they are smarter at smelling the winds and knowing the public has had enough (based on scientific studies). And it is also because members of the public are demanding ethical investment choices. It will be a combination of scientific proof, technological innovation, and shareholders being careful putting their money where their mouth/minds are that will make a practical path to coping or minimising GW.

Just for the record - I do use energy efficient lightbulbs; bought a washing machine that was water efficient (and got a government rebate of $200 for the trouble); water efficient showerhead; changed to a electricity/gas energy provider that promises 10% from alternative energy sources; and bought my parents a 5000l water tank so they could water their garden (if and when it fills up); I don't own a car and travel public transport or walk to work; don't buy unnecessary packaging; use a reuseable shopping bag for groceries; and recycle electronic equipment when I can. If I could I would neutralise my presence on the planet (other than killing myself that is). But for a practical effect on the planet, big business is going to have to bear the load, and they are doing it and quite willingly.

I am providing another link to a story I read today from a Canadian Newspaper
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
Just another story from another "crazy" heretic that only does this crazy climate research for a living. Seems his studies indicate a different source for our immediate climate concerns and indicate a cooling effect to begin around 2020 due to a predicted regular solar cycle that will see a decrease in the brightness of the Sun. After reading this article I really see how ignorant and buffoonish Al Gore is and should feel.

Steve B.,
Thanks for the links but as I said, green energy is not available to purchase in my area.
I live in Hawaii and although there is substantial amounts of wind and some solar produced the local utilities do not have a buy green energy program.

I could buy RECs but I'm still kinda undecided on them right now, seems to me that by buying RECs we dilute the environmentally friendly energy source that provided them and allow polluters to continue to pollute.

I am involved in a company that will bring a viable alternative energy choice to many people but since they are just now getting started it may take a while before I can take advantage of their product, where I live will most likely be a later market. If you want to take a look go to www.pacificsunlight.net

David,
"There are no studies that provide reasonably, substantially, and on their own merits an indication that human activity is not primarily implicated in the rate and intensity of this current Climate Change event. That is, there is no study that has arrived at appropriate confidence levels and been verified and substantiated saying that humans are not the primary cause of this Climate Change."

Does that mean that you have researched the skeptic's science? or that you get your info from sites that try to debunk the skeptic's science?

The number of well credentialed skeptics keep growing and are becoming more vocal, we are not talking about lay people who don't know the science, we are talking about climatologists who know the science as well as anyone else.

So you may be able to claim that I don't understand and am miss-reading the numbers but not them.

Moysant: "I never said renewable energy was a socialist left-wing plot (?!!). Don't know why you've put me in the same camp as Keith."

My apologies for not being clear. I certainly did not mean to put you in any kind of category with Keith. I was just addressing you, Keith and Sam to take a look at the article I linked. Sorry for not being clear on this!!!

Thanks for all you're doing. I'm doing comparable stuff. I agree that in addition to all we can do as individuals, government is going to have to change the rules by which corporations operate. Indeed, many corporations are pushing for this (because they don't want each state to set its own regs). Of course, another reason many corporations are pushing for it is because many see the opportunity to make money. So despite Keith's apparent socialism paranoia, renewable energy is an industry ripe for profits.

Dan: "I could buy RECs but I'm still kinda undecided on them right now, seems to me that by buying RECs we dilute the environmentally friendly energy source that provided them and allow polluters to continue to pollute."

Well, I kind of understand your objection to RECs, but I think they're better than doing nothing. If you're buying RECs AND reducing your energy use through the kind of measures that Moysant mentions above, then I think they're valid. Of course, you're only responsible for your own behavior. The major benefit is to encourage growth in renewable energy industry.

You can also write your congressman/senators and encourage their support of renewables, particularly subsidies and tax breaks that have been lavished on the fossil fuel industries be switched to renewables. If you don't favor this, then maybe you should favor the fossil fuel industries repaying taxpayers for decades of favoritism toward the fossil fuel industry.

No, Dan... I've actually looked at the studies ... digested them for myself, weighed them against what I've seen on the other side, and have followed up on what the scientific community has found regarding the validity of those studies...

If you know of any studies as I pointed out before, I'd be happy to look over it, I certainly don't claim to have read "everything" ... I do feel I have a pretty good handle on what's out there...
Best...

No David,
If you've familiar with the skepctics info then I doubt there is much I could provide that you haven't already viewed.
Dan

Of course it is a socialist plot, the only solutuions I keep hearing from the is to increase taxes....The left tries to shout down any other opinion, shout down any research that points to the causes of our planeet's cyclic climate's wether patterns.
No they gp to knewe jerk "We got to tax and spend...."
I want to see cheap plentiful energy that is clean just like everbody else, but I'm not being fooled by out of work communists hiding in th egreen movement.

Steve B - Thank God for that. Just wondered if my rave was so unclear you thought I was agreeing with Keith. Thanks for the article (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf) - a nice summary of things. I've book marked it.

David. Thanks for this link:

http://environment.newscientist.com/climatemyths

It's a concise summary of skeptics' arguements against climate change and the scientific responses to skeptical protests.

More often these days, I find skeptical arguements consisting mostly of distortions. For example:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977035510

How high does everyone think that a tax on greenhouse emissions should be? Al Gore porposes a $30-per-US-ton tax on carbon dioxide, which would translate to 25c per gal. of gasoline or 2c per kW-h of electricity. I propose a 10% tax on the supply of fossil fuel-based energy. The electricity grid will have to pay that tax if it sources its electricity from oil, gas or coal-fired plants, while fuel stations would similarly have to pay the 10% tax if they buy fossil fuel. For more details, see the discussion at:
http://groups.google.com/group/greenhouseeffect/msg/471355920b4f1c66
I'd love to get comments on this!
Cheers!
Sam Carana

Sam,
R&D and new technology will be the key to reducing Green house gas emissions, NOT stifling the economy with taxes.
I would suggest the opposite, reward those using alternatives to fossil fuel and companies developing responsible alternatives.

Steve,
You're welcome. The thanks for that link I pasted actually go to Sam (I re-pasted it from his comment) and from Quintessence who posted a link to the site first. It is a good site.

Dan, I think that taxes can be counter intuitive in cases, don't you? I don't think you can just throw a blanket Taxes = 'Stifling the Economy' blanket on everything. Think of our current High tech Market (or even the Hardware market (like Lowes or HomeDepot) ... Most of that technology came out of Defense Industry Research and Development (and by default the Space industry)which were paid in bulk for by Taxes. Communications, Electronics, High Tensile Metals, Super Conductors, the microchip (Texas Instruments here in Dallas, a major Defense Industry contractor developed the first electronic transistor board or something like that), Duct Tape, Super slick lubricants (I'm talking about WD-40... not AstroGlide ;) ), etc., etc., etc., ... Paid primarily by ... Taxes. Paid for by Taxes... Brought into the public sector at some point... and creating the economy we now know for the most part... for better or worse.
So taxing to pay and to stimulate the generation of new and needed technologies for the benefit of that nation as a whole and to allow future economies to flourish makes sense doesn't it? It's what a free nation of people does...

I always get kick (and groan) when I see discussions of the dangers to the economy thrown in at the same time with denial of global warming danger or culpability... Economists have a grasp on Future Economy???? REALLY???? Is that why in Chicago they had Mr. Monk (an actual Chimpanzee) help determine market trends (because hem-lines was just too "cliché" by this time ?!?!?). Economists have determined much about the mechanics of economies... But Futures Prediction is still in the relm of voodoo at this point... Have models REALLY been created that take into account Human Behavior in a highly multi dimensional arena of possibilities? ;)

sorry... I didn't mean to make that last one so long, but that 'Economy as Science' thing really gets me worked up...
Peace...

David,
"So taxing to pay and to stimulate the generation of new and needed technologies for the benefit of that nation as a whole and to allow future economies to flourish makes sense doesn't it? It's what a free nation of people does…"

In a word NO!

First off no matter how you feel about it, taxes slow down the economy. And in what government research lab were all of these great advances you speak about developed?
I think if we look a little closer we will find most of those advances were developed in the research labs of private companies.
And we all know how efficient our government has been at handling our tax dollars up till now, so we should give them more?

I say give free Americans an incentive to invest in companies developing new technology that will lead to lower GH gas emissions.

"Have models REALLY been created that take into account Human Behavior in a highly multi dimensional arena of possibilities?"

No I don't think so either, just like there has not been any models created to accurately predict climate change.

Sam: "How high does everyone think that a tax on greenhouse emissions should be?"

Gore has suggested replacing income tax with a carbon tax. This should not be a tax increase, he stated before congress during his testimony. Since it isn't a tax increase, I don't know why Dan would object to it.

Or maybe we should just pay the real cost of using fossil fuels in the price we pay for them. As Gore stated in his testimony, the fossil fuel industry externalizes much of the cost of using those fuels. Adverse effects on air quality, water quality, and public health are externalized to taxpayers. If we had to pay for these consequences in the price of the products, renewables would be more than competitive.

http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/
Companies/RenewableEnergy/News/FossilFuels1110,03.asp

So, in addition to stopping the obvious subsidies to fossil fuel industries, we should also stop the hidden subsidies that we pay primarily in health care premiums and medicare.

Dan: "I say give free Americans an incentive to invest in companies developing new technology that will lead to lower GH gas emissions."

What incentives would you give them? Where would they come from?

Steve B.
"What incentives would you give them? Where would they come from?"

Tax incentives for companies developing promising alternative energies and tax incentives to individuals investing in those companies.

I agree with Steve. Many of the costs associated with burning fossil fuel are currently not included in the price of fossil fuel. Apart from the cost of pollution, we can also look at the cost of fights over oil in the Middle East and what oil imports do to the national debt. Instead of being dependent on oil imports, which is a depleting resource, we could use renewable energy that doesn't need to be imported. This would not slow down the economy, but instead open up a world of energy that is cheap, will not deplete and does not have to be imported. The savings on health cost alone would pay for the tax, but perhaps the word tax should be replaced by "compensation" to make it clear that this is a cost we have to pay anyway and the sooner we start to "compensate and replace", the cheaper it will turn out to be.

David: "Have models REALLY been created that take into account Human Behavior in a highly multi dimensional arena of possibilities? ;)"

Yes, good point, David! A huge amount of research has gone into diagnoses of global warming, but very little thought has gone into prescriptions, i.e. what should be done about it. The obvious conclusion is that we should reduce all this burning of fossil fuel and if we want to keep using energy, we'll have to look at replacements such as solar, geothermal and wind power. Therefore, the answer is similarly obvious: tax fossil fuel and use the proceeds to subsidize local clean and renewable energy. This is my main proposal, but I'm always keen improve and complement it, or to hear about alternative solutions. I do actually mention a few studies into alternative solutions at my geo-engineering blog, at
http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/

Sam
"but very little thought has gone into prescriptions, i.e. what should be done about it."
I'm glad you agree that Kyoto was ill thought out. ;-)

"The obvious conclusion is that we should reduce all this burning of fossil fuel and if we want to keep using energy, we'll have to look at replacements such as solar, geothermal and wind power.'
I can't disagree with that.
"Therefore, the answer is similarly obvious: tax fossil fuel and use the proceeds to subsidize local clean and renewable energy."
It is obvious only if you believe man is the direct cause of global warming, which the science does not support.

Government R&D Labs??? It was called the 'Cold War' and the 'Space Race' (Also World War II in the case of airplane design and advancement and the development of nuclear energy (Atoms for Peace) regardless of what you think of nuclear energy). What paid for Internet develpment and implementation? What paid for and communication satellites? Etc. Etc. ... Was it Taxes??? the bulk of work going to Government Contracts with private companies... Who Runs JPL??? Who worked on the concept of the Computer, Internet, and the technology so that folks like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates could create Tech Empires???

The Key is "Taxes for the Necessity" of the nation as a whole...

The Science Does support man as the Primary 'catalyst' of this current warming, but we could back and forth all day and say: " uh huh" vs. " nuh uh" ... and it would be a waste of time.

Models regarding climate change have much better resolution on getting a handle on the earth climate model than those regarding "human eoconmic behavior" models, and climate models are getting better. The important factor is that THEY are not the sole or pivotal item in the global warming research, they are a supporting tool.

Another positive action has been the use of previous subsidies to oil companies now going to alterantives research and a re-examination of the profits of the oil companies themselves...

Sam: "Apart from the cost of pollution, we can also look at the cost of fights over oil in the Middle East and what oil imports do to the national debt."

Absolutely! Thanks for mentioning this. We should be paying for the Iraq war at the gas pump. Then you'd see an immediate end to the war!

Sam: "...perhaps the word tax should be replaced by "compensation" to make it clear that this is a cost we have to pay anyway and the sooner we start to "compensate and replace", the cheaper it will turn out to be."

Frank Luntz would be proud! Seriously, it is somewhat amazing that some argue that acting to reduce pollution (the supreme court has ruled that with the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 emissions constitute "pollution" - that is a legal definition) will cost too much. As you profoundly point out, we are already paying the price. It's just a hidden cost, not associated with price of the pollution products we buy. This is by design, no doubt.

Dan: "Tax incentives for companies developing promising alternative energies and tax incentives to individuals investing in those companies."

I agree! Where would the revenue for the incentives come from? Would you discontinue incentives to fossil fuel industries, or would you continue to provide them with a competitive edge with subsidies and incentives? They have a many decade head start on renewables, you know.

Dan: "I'm glad you (to Sam) agree that Kyoto was ill thought out.

The only "ill though out" aspect to Kyoto was that it didn't come close to reducing emissions in a manner such as needed to make a real difference. Politicians argue that the reason Kyoto failed was due to China and India not being required to participate. I think this is a valid criticism, but the solution to pull out of the negotiations was irresponsible and has helped isolate the U.S. in the world's eye. Unfortunately, China has now overtaken the U.S. as the world's CO2 emission champ. I don't know how this will affect the U.S. ability to lead on this issue from now on.

Dan: "...if you believe man is the direct cause of global warming, which the science does not support."

Correction: which "skeptic science" does not support. I quote from the IPCC Report: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (i.e., 90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." (my comment)

See page 10 @ this link:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf

David: "...use of previous subsidies to oil companies now going to alterantives research and a re-examination of the profits of the oil companies themselves...."

This would be great news, if it were in fact happening. All I've heard on a redirection of subsidies is a few proposed bills in congress. Nothing has passed yet. If you have other information, I'd be very happy to hear about it. Also, every time there is a spike in gas prices, some congressman or senator grandstands the issue, but nothing substantially changes. The only way gas prices are going to come down is competition from renewables. Again, if you have information to correct me, I'm very interested.

David,
"Government R&D Labs???"
whats with you and the questions, no answers?

"The Key is "Taxes for the Necessity" of the nation as a whole...
" So you are a believer that the government takes your money and efficiently doles it out for the benefit of all society.

"The Science Does support man as the Primary 'catalyst' of this current warming, but we could back and forth all day and say: " uh huh" vs. " nuh uh" ... and it would be a waste of time."

No David,
Even the science you believe in appears to show mans contribution is minimal, I have provided some facts and you have said "nuh uh".


"The important factor is that THEY are not the sole or pivotal item in the global warming research, they are a supporting tool."

What is the "sole or pivotal" item in the global warming research?

"Another positive action has been the use of previous subsidies to oil companies now going to alterantives research and a re-examination of the profits of the oil companies themselves…"

Hmmm, seems the oil companies didn't lose as much as some would have liked and the alternatives didn't receive as much as some would have liked.
Ethanol won big but that's nothing more than a political farce (hey look what we are doing for the environment).

Dan,
I was answering your qestion "in what government research lab ...?"
You are saying satellite communications, the internet, computer technology, nuclear energy, jet engines etc. would have been developed without tax monies??? What private Labs? You mean like like Texas Instruments, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. ???
I worked for a private environmental consulting company... our biggest client was the government... It doesn't take 'Government Labs' for Tax money to be spent ... and for the benefits of that work to be used in the Economy... What it takes is the Political Will to put the Tax money to use in the places its needed most...

Steve... I appologize, I suppose I was being hopeful. I indeed mis-spoke ... it is not current, it is proposed in congress. It was un-collected oil revenue taxes that were being directed to renewables ... probably a relatively small amount... And investigations into oil profits? I thought it was in the schedule. Maybe not. I appologize for that as well if it is not...

What is the "sole or pivotal" item in the global warming research?
It is the perponderance of evidence. Not a single 'Model' or even the concepts of models. It is the scientific prediction that the carbon dioxide molecule could cause problems if amounts increased in the atmosphere (this being predicted 100 years before anyone talked about "Global Warming"). It is the matching of temperatures with human activities on the earth. It is the lack of other suitable 'culprits' despite having looked for them. It is in the story of ice cores and oceanic isotopes of Oxygen. It is in the story of nighttime pictures looking down at the earth from orbit, lit across the continents like the stars once shone in the sky. It is in the IPCC reports and supporting studies...

So you think a nation gets by without taxes? so you think that a nation gets by on the good nature of its citizens to 'tithe' when a pothole needs to get filled??? This is not the wild west anymore. Even they relied on the cavalry and the mail... paid for how??? hmmm even the laying and development of cross nation rail and canals paid for and encouraged by whom??? the Federal Government??? and what??? Taxes??? Say it ain't so Joe.... It comes in handy when it comes in handy, but other wise its the scourge of the earth.... It's a lament as old cities...
Only, in a Nation of the People... There is Representation when discussing taxes... And what are the issues of the day that these "representatives of the people" are discussing as vital???

Will the "No Tax" banner of the conservative be this nation's Grave Marker??? Are you willing to stick by the slogan for the sake of ideological identity as the ship goes down???

How did we "win" the cold war??? was it the good will of our folks here doing "pro bono" work to build our nuclear war heads? to put up all those satellites? To get to the Moon first? How was the perceived threat met and how was it paid for???

Dan E.: "It is obvious only if you believe man is the direct cause of global warming, which the science does not support."

All it takes to understand why it's obvious is the fact that human activity is a major contributor to global warming. As Steve already responded, quoting the IPCC Report: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (i.e., 90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Furthermore, human activity is a contributor that can be changed, but we should also look at other alternatives, such as geo-engineering. As I said, we spent much efforts into diagnosing the problem, now we should spend more effort on looking at the various prescriptions. But feel free to keep diagnosing, Dan, as long as you don't stop us from taking the steps that are most effective.

Dan E.: "Tax incentives for companies developing promising alternative energies and tax incentives to individuals investing in those companies."

It's important to make sure that tax on emissions is not avoided by allowing tax deductions for (perhaps empty) promises. The tax must be paid to discourage people to keep burning fossil fuel. The proceeds should be used to subsidize local SUPPLY of clean and renewable energy, not R&D.

Steve B."...to pull out of the (Kyoto) negotiations was irresponsible and has helped isolate the U.S. in the world's eye."

I agree! Note also that Kyoto didn't look beyond 2012. In my article I say: Sign the Kyoto Treaty and make a firm commitment to reduce emissions by a lot more. Work on a new global Treaty beyond Kyoto, using these ten points as a basis.

David,
"What it takes is the Political Will to put the Tax money to use in the places its needed most…"
You mean like the hugh governmental push towards ethanol? I don't have the faith in the government to do what's best for me like you do.

"So you think a nation gets by without taxes?" Of course I don't think that.

"Are you willing to stick by the slogan for the sake of ideological identity as the ship goes down???"
You have to prove the ship is even in danger of going down in the first place.


Wednesday, March 14, 2007 a debate was held in New York City, the debate statement was "Global warming is not a crisis" there were three panelists in support of the statement and three panelists who disagreed with the statement.

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12

What I found to be interesting about this debate was that the audience was polled before and after the debate as to whether they agreed or disagreed with the debate statement "Global warming is not a crisis".
The numbers coming into the debate were;
Agreed with statement 29.88 %
Disagreed with the statement 57.32 %
Undecided 12.80 %

The numbers at the end of the debate;
Agreed with statement 46.22 %
Disagreed with the statement 42.22 %
Undecided 11.56 %

The numbers change when you give people both sides of the story.

Steve B.,
"I quote from the IPCC Report:"
Please show me where the IPCC takes into consideration H20 as a green house gas.

Sam,
"But feel free to keep diagnosing, Dan, as long as you don't stop us from taking the steps that are most effective."
The problem is that your solution will be a hindrance to your own hopes and desires.
In actuality I'm trying to save you from yourself. ;- ))

"The proceeds should be used to subsidize local SUPPLY of clean and renewable energy, not R&D."

No R&D? Why no R&D?

Dan (to David): "I don't have the faith in the government to do what's best for me like you do.

So do you have faith in Exxon?

Dan: "...there were three panelists in support of the statement and three panelists who disagreed with the statement."

The old illusion of parity trick.

Dan: "The numbers change when you give people both sides of the story..."

...and don't disclose skeptics' ties to fossil fuel industries, which many try to hide. Here is the description of the foundation that sponsored your "debate" from its own website.

"The Rosenkranz Foundation was established by Robert Rosenkranz in 1985. Its focus is on public policy research, higher education, and the arts, with an emphasis on Asian art. In public policy, it has initiated the Intelligence Squared US (IQ2 US) series of debates in the United States, launching in September 2006, and has supported such think tanks as the Manhattan Institute and the American Enterprise Institute. In higher education, it has made several grants to Yale University, funding the creation of 20 new courses in scientific method and quantitative reasoning, endowing the Rosenkranz Writer-in-Residence program there, and underwriting the renovation of Rosenkranz Court in Pierson College. It also provides support for The Federalist Society and other initiatives to promote intellectual diversity in legal education. In Asian art, it has sponsored a major traveling exhibition and scholarly catalogue on the artist and writer Mu Xin, donated a substantial collection of modern Chinese art to the Harvard University Art Museums and has helped fund the production of a series of books on the culture and civilization of China published by Yale University Press. The Rosenkranz Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation."

http://rosenkranzfdn.org/aboutus.html

It is obviously an ultra-right "think tank". If you presented a "debate" sponsored by a scientific organization, that might have some credibility. You are presenting ideology as science, and dismissing science as ideology. That's the skeptics' way!

Dan: "Please show me where the IPCC takes into consideration H20 as a green house gas."

I won't show you where the IPCC does this, but I will give you a scientist's response. You won't accept it, of course, but it is the scientific (not skeptic) response to this old skeptic "objection".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

I gave you the direct quote re: how the IPCC attributes climate change. It's your choice to dismiss the conclusion of approximately 2500 scientists worldwide, who actually do the research and peer review it. I don't think there is anything that is going to convince you re: climate change, and you certainly are not going to convince me that there are valid skeptic objections. I've read too many explanations to these old and tired objections.

All that said, it appears that we CAN agree on the need for a substantial shift to renewable energy sources, and the question (at least in part) that Sam presents in this article is how best to bring about that transition. You have said we should give incentives to individuals and companies to develop and deploy renewable energy technology. I asked how you would give these incentives, but I don't think you answered.

Dan (to Sam): "No R&D? Why no R&D?"

Sam: "It's important to make sure that tax on emissions is not avoided by allowing tax deductions for (perhaps empty) promises. The tax must be paid to discourage people to keep burning fossil fuel. The proceeds should be used to subsidize local SUPPLY of clean and renewable energy, not R&D."

In the first segment of this PBS video...

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm

...a fellow, demonstrating a hydrogen car for host, Alan Alda, says that the hydrogen hybrid car that's featured is made from conventional technology. He notes that if the fuel were available, these cars would be on the road in very little time.

In the second segment of the video, you see a hydrogen production system in Iceland. It is said that one of the advantages of hydrogen is that it does not have to be transported by tankers across of miles and miles of supply line. It can be produced on-site, using a kind of reverse fuel cell powered by solar energy (or geothermal in Iceland).

I personally watched Exxon stations, a few years ago, totally disassemble every filling station and minimart in this area - and then rebuild them from the ground up. I do not think it is impossible for every filling station to install a hydrogen pump, and they could be incented to do so by giving them a tax break from carbon taxes in order to do it - if that is what the tax break is used for.

Dan (to Sam): "No R&D? Why no R&D?"

Sorry I didn't answer this above, in my last comment. My answer is that there is always going to be R&D, but on balance, what is needed now is deployment of a renewable infrastructure.

Steve B.
"So do you have faith in Exxon?"
If I were to give my money to Exxon I have no doubt it would be used much more efficiently than my tax dollars are being used by the government.

"It is obviously an ultra-right "think tank"."
Please Steve don't let your ultra left wing biases cloud your thinking, unless you can show they provided the talking points for all of the panelists involved in the debate your insinuation that the debate was rigged is not valid.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Read it and its declaration that H20 is the most abundant of the greenhouse gases.

"It's your choice to dismiss the conclusion of approximately 2500 scientists worldwide, who actually do the research and peer review it."

Ah Yes, I was waiting for some one to bring up the, but we have more people on our side argument.
One interesting thing about that list is that once your put on it they will never take you off and the scientists that have contributed work or research on global warming are forever labeled as a supporter even though many have changed sides in this debate.

"what is needed now is deployment of a renewable infrastructure."
So you believe we know everything we need to know to fix this problem, and whatever we may learn in the future won't help any better?

I guess the point is... do you believe that the taxes that Sam speaks of can achieve the necessary goals: reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by development and proliferation of use of alternatives and renewables. ???
Would it create the dis-insentives to using fossil fules? Would it provide revenue to help achieve those goals?

I think the key thing to remember is that the taxes are not being used to Shrink the eocomy. They are being used to create a new, more sustainable, avenue for the economy. I suppose that is where looking at the benefits of R&D and technology implementation in an economy comes into the discussion. I'd say there is ample proof that economies take advantage and grow from those benefits.

Given what Taxes have accomplished in the past when faced with a situation, real or perceived to any given degree, Is there any basis to the fears that Taxes spell doom to an economy in the long run, given the benifits that are produced by those taxes? Is there validity to that? or do we accept it for what it is: a fear.

I do believe that it is the will of the people that really matters in the end.

Dan: "If I were to give my money to Exxon I have no doubt it would be used much more efficiently than my tax dollars are being used by the government."

Your original statement was (to David): "I don't have the faith in the government to do what's best for me like you do." You may be right that if you were an investor in Exxon, your investment would grow and you would still own it. However, if you pretend that Exxon has anything other than investor interest in mind when it makes decisions, you're kidding yourself. Exxon wouldn't even claim more than that. So the question becomes if you think there is any interest other than financial to be considered, and if not, then you should clearly say so.

Dan: "...unless you can show they provided the talking points for all of the panelists involved in the debate your insinuation that the debate was rigged is not valid.

Really? What's your basis for saying so when you so readily and categorically dismiss the IPCC findings? It is an interesting irony that those with obvious political interests accuse scientists of playing politics. Of course, you won't deny that the organization sponsoring your "debate" is linked with some of the most right-wing think tanks, and that these think tanks are sponsored, in part, by Exxon. That much is clear. And as far as my being a lefty, this is not political. I haven't posted any left-wing think tanks' claims and tried to call it science. The only political aspect of this for me is that Dems support policies that I think are the right ones. But if Reps did, then it would be a wash, politically speaking, for me. But many Reps are coming around. Inhofe is not the Rep spokesman on this issue for the whole party.

Dan: "Read it and its declaration that H20 is the most abundant of the greenhouse gases."

You have to read the whole article to get the point. Your assertion that H2O somehow is more responsible than CO2 for warming is refuted. Picking out isolated comments seems to be the MO of warming skeptics. See this skeptic article and comments.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977035510

Dan: "So you believe we know everything we need to know to fix this problem, and whatever we may learn in the future won't help any better?'

Do you know what "strawman" means? It is an informal logical fallacy. You should stop using it as a rhetorical technique.

I don't "believe" anything. I have linked sources that say technology already exists, and I have also suggested that renovations and expenditures have taken place that have been at least as costly as those required to limit additional warming to less than an additional 2 degree celsius, which is stated by science as the goal. You would study it further only to preclude any action. I never stated that R&D should not go forward. In fact, R&D would probably increase if and when serious infrastructure investments were taking place.

You have at least agreed that national security is a reason to change how we deal energy. So I am interested in how you would incent companies/individuals to deal with this urgent issue (urgent from a national security perspective). You haven't answered that yet.

David: "I think the key thing to remember is that the taxes are not being used to Shrink the eocomy. They are being used to create a new, more sustainable, avenue for the economy."

I don't disagree with the claim that taxes "shrink" the economy - at least in the short run. You are correct that ultimately, economic growth ensues, and you have cited many examples. Critics of this process call it "public investment, private profit," and it exists in industry after industry, from energy to pharmaceuticals.

We have squandered half a trillion dollars on another mideast war "to protect our vital national interests in the region." Has that had an adverse effect on the economy?

I think the point you're trying to make, and with which I agree, is that long-term interest a better focal point than a short-term "hit". Short-term thinking is, by definition, "addictive" thinking, and even w. admits we are addicted to oil. He just doesn't have the leadership capabilities to address it. That is, sadly, going to have to wait until the next administration.

Dan. Here's another source that addresses your H2O issue above. It's the same answer, but easier to read. Thanks to Sam and David for providing the root link for this:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652

"However, if you pretend that Exxon has anything other than investor interest in mind when it makes decisions, you're kidding yourself. Exxon"

That's correct Steve, Exxon and other oil companies will produce what the buying public wants to purchase, even as we have this discussion they are investing in alternative energies because they are businesses that must turn a profit and they see which way the future is headed.

"Really? What's your basis for saying so when you so readily and categorically dismiss the IPCC findings?"
I have seen the science that casts doubt on the theory that man is the cause of Global warming
You on the other hand dismissed the debate as being a fraud due to the nature of the presenters. Without even taking into consideration the credentials of the panelists.

SPEAKERS AGAINST THE MOTION:
Brenda Ekwurzel works on the national climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Prior to joining UCS, she was on the faculty of the University of Arizona. Doctorate research was at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and post-doctoral research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. His publications include studies of past, present and potential future climates. Scientific American cited him as a top 50 Research Leader in 2004, and he has worked on education and outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences, among others. He is a contributing editor at RealClimate.org.

Richard C.J. Somerville is Distinguished Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He is a theoretical meteorologist and an expert on computer simulations of the atmosphere. Among many honors, Somerville is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Meteorological Society. He has received awards for both his research and his popular book, The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change.


Apparently your liberal biases outweighs rational thought.

"You have to read the whole article to get the point."
Hmm I read the whole article a couple of times over (again) but I couldn't quite get the logic, maybe you and David could walk me through it to show me where I am missing the message.

"Your assertion that H2O somehow is more responsible than CO2 for warming is refuted."
That's one of the parts you'll have to point out to me.

"I don't "believe" anything. I have linked sources that say technology already exists,"
I saw your link to the PBS program which seemed to primarily promote hydrogen which I am all for if it measures up to our expectations.
But hydrogen is not an viable existing technology (yet), what are the existing technologies that you feel will effectively allow us to dramatically reduce our carbon output?

"Here's another source that addresses your H2O issue above."
But with a bit of a spin they are obviously posting the numbers in a way to play up the importance of C02 in global warming.
From the first article,
If all GHGs are removed from the atmosphere except H20 and clouds there is still a 85% absorption of LW radiation.
"The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%,"

So David and Steve,
Exactly how much of an effect on global warming does C02 have in comparison with H20?

Dan.

Just keep asking questions and pretend that they haven't been answered. That's another clever tactic that skeptics employ. This is why I am very frustrated with skeptics. They never address responses. They just pop up somewhere else with the same BS questions.

Re: your "debate." I don't know why the scientists you list above would stoop to debate Michael Crichton. He is a science fiction writer. Richard Lindzen has a history with industry. I don't know the other guy, but the summary of his background notes that he has a history also of "deconstructing" environmental "narratives". That certainly sounds "objective". Funny, you posted the names of the scientists, but not the "skeptics".

RE: H2O, I repeat. You have to read the entire articles. Stop selectively choosing brief quotes and posting them out of context. Here's the part you apparently haven't read, or don't understand:

"Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing."

"While water vapour indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days)....

Now you do know the difference between a feedback and a forcing, don't you?

I don't know what you are referring to here: "But with a bit of a spin they are obviously posting the numbers in a way to play up the importance of C02 in global warming."

Maybe it's this:

"So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days."

"This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources)."

"The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up."

So you must think that the difference between how CO2 and H2O molecules break down in the atmosphere is "spin".

Hydrogen: You wrote: "I saw your link to the PBS program which seemed to primarily promote hydrogen which I am all for if it measures up to our expectations.
But hydrogen is not an viable existing technology (yet), what are the existing technologies that you feel will effectively allow us to dramatically reduce our carbon output?

The PBS video (if you watch the entire program) explains in pretty simple terms the technologies that are already available. The problem isn't technology. The problem is that these technologies are not yet deployed in any mass infrastructure. As a nation, we would have done a helluva lot better to invest half a trillion dollars in such infrastructure than in a horrific war in the Iraq.

If you are in favor of renewables for whatever reason, there are a number of websites that you might have some interest in.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home

http://www.ovonic.com/

are two that I find quite informative.

Steve B.,
"Just keep asking questions and pretend that they haven't been answered."
You'd have to show where you actually answered a question (as opposed to just posting a link) for that comment to be valid.

"Funny, you posted the names of the scientists, but not the "skeptics"."
Nothing funny about it except that the "scientists" couldn't hold such a large number of the people who were already believers.

"Now you do know the difference between a feedback and a forcing, don't you?"
Why don't you explain it to me.
You're sooo much smarter.

But this is what I take from the article, since man can't add water to the atmosphere and that water cycles in and out of the atmosphere it is not as important as C02, have I got that correct?
Even though at any given time there is X amount of H20 in the atmosphere acting as a heat sink to absorb L.V. radiation.

I thought I read in one of the links provided that it was thought H20 was 70%-80% responsible for GW and the other GH gasses 20%-30%.
Does that sound about right?

"The PBS video (if you watch the entire program)"
It was a very simple question Steve, I'm more interested in what you think (you can think for yourself can't you?) rather than watching the PBS program (which I've seen before).

Dan,
You do just seem to be playing games at this point.

"Just keep asking questions and pretend that they haven't been answered."

Did you understand the whole point of the car and stepping on the gas pedal analogy (or was it a metaphor... what is a metphor... oh that's right.. for cows to graze of course... (this converstaion has be come as pointless at that joke)).

Do you understand the difference between the Driver and the Power???

No one is calling you stupid...But don't act the part...

Regarding the debate you mentioned above: The primary thing it illustrates is the difficulty (or ease; depending on your view) in achieving your goal when trying to discuss this issue. That is, the experiment was more about how people (GQ Public) get swayed one way or the other than about the science itself. Was the audience made up of fellow climate scientists? No? Then the results of the 'debate' had nothing to do with the science, but Everything to do with the dynamics of swaying public opinon and which side has an easier time of it.

I'll quote to you from a book that discusses this exact issue. The issue involved here was the crown of thorns starfish outbreaks in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and they were destroying coral reefs. The question was "was the outbreak natural?" This is from a very good book that looked at the process that occured in the scientific and non-scientfic arenas. It really is a worthwhile book called "What is Natural" by Jan Sapp.

"... Kenchingotn argued that scientists were perpetually at a disadvantage to nonscientists in the public debate 'because they recognize that information is never complete in reality and that processes are usully complex.' Coral-reef scientists, who in the 1960s regarded themsevles as pioneer researchers working with incredibly complex systems they hardly comprehended, were suddenly asked by journalists and politicians for definite answers. Most suffered loss of face. In doing so, they appeared to the public to be uncertain and confused. On the other hand, "alarmists with more direct and unqualified approach" seemed more convincing to the public. Journalists had to rely on such 'expert testimonies. It was not easy for them to make extensive investigations themselves because access was difficult and costly, and any substantial investigation required scuba or snorkel diving. ..."

The difference with this global warming issue is of course the larger ramifications, the greater amount of research involved, and a resulting greater level of certainty of the picture they are forming. But that passage captures well the sense of the debate situation and the difficulty scientists have in getting a message out when public or private interests are opposed to accepting the picture being revealed for whatever reason.

So, I'd say Dan, before presenting your Skeptic View as grandly and as solid as you do, do you research into it and find the study that on its own merits indicates that Humans are Not Responsible for the Current Warming... Because the other side has indeed done that ground work and the preponderence of that evidence points to what we have been Indicating...

And in presenting that scientific "skeptics" evidence, understand that if it indeed is scientific, it has itself built into it a level of understood Uncertainty in its results...
The point is that the certainty of Human involvment is far greater than any certainty of Non-Human Responsibility.

The fact that there are levels of uncertainty in the process does not "prove" that the findings are invalid... It Proves that it is Science...

If you are looking for 100% validation one way or the other (you don't seem to be waiting for 100% validation on the skeptics "science" but you do seem to be waiting for it on the IPCC science... which seems a little out of whack, don't you think?)... If you are looking for 100% validation one way or the other you'll not find it ever...
What we humans do when confronted with critical situations and issues is use the best information available to us and try to make wise decisions from that basis...

Best

One of the largest producers of "greenhouse gases" is volcanoes. How excatly do you plan to tax Kilauea?

Another one - according to a rampant Freeper that I've met online is "termite farts".

Termites pay taxes? How about cows with all those methane emissions? Gonna tax them exactly how?

This is, without question, one of the STUPIDEST ideas I've ever read.

Dan: "You'd have to show where you actually answered a question (as opposed to just posting a link) for that comment to be valid."

Of course, the link contains the answer. I see you are poised to continue to deny it.

Dan: "Why don't you explain it to me. You're sooo much smarter."

Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you, but I see you've come up with something else we can at least agree on. :)

Dan: "I'm more interested in what you think."

Why should I reinvent the wheel? If there is a source that explains what I think very well, please be sure I will provide links to those sources. I also provide links to show that I am not making stuff up. Many skeptics (not you necessarily) do make stuff up and never source it. If they say it, it must be true.

David has explained the difference between forcing and feedback very well in his metaphor re: the car and stepping on the gas pedal. With re: to H2O:

Dan: "I thought I read in one of the links provided that it was thought H20 was 70%-80% responsible for GW and the other GH gasses 20%-30%."

Actually, you have it backwards. H2O is responsible for 70-80% of the greenhouse effect, without which temperature could not be evenly disbursed. This is a different issue than global warming, which is an exacerbation of the greenhouse effect, caused by increasing concentrations of CO2. I again quote from the article:

"Firstly, there is the greenhouse effect, and then there is global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases (and clouds) absorbing and re-emitting the infrared radiating from Earth's surface. It currently keeps our planet 20°C to 30°C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity.

Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect.

So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2.

The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up."

Joan D., volcanoes have been active for a long time and their activity cannot be held responsible for the current global warming. Also, it's indeed pretty hard to tax volcanoes. Hence, we should tax human activities, in particular emissions of greenhouse gases. Termites are hard to control too, but I do propose a tax on meat, partly in an effort to reduce methane produced by cows and pigs.

Regarding R&D, of course this should be encouraged. But the question is what is most effective in the light of the urgency of global warming. I propose tax on emissions with the proceeds used to subsidize local supply of clean and renewable energy. Making R&D tax-deductable could result in less reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and less tax proceeds that could be spent to subsidize supply of energy that is already now clean and renewable (without any need for years of R&D first). The prospects of such subsidies will make it financially attractive to do R&D anyway, but there is sufficient technology available now to start replacing polluting alternatives.

So, I'd say Dan,
Well then David if your going to suggest that GQ public just isn't quiet capable of understanding the science then you also have to explain why skeptical scientists who do understand the science exist.

Joan D.
Them damn termites :-)

Steve B.

I know it's much easier to be an environmental clone than to think for yourself, but what "they" suggest to be the "answer" will not achieve your goals. To sit back and rely on the PBS environmentalists to determine the course of this war on Gh gasses will result in very little progress and great damage to the environment.

Good luck to the both of you.

Sam, I do agree with that statment about R&D. It's a good point and well said. I guess I do think R&D is important (I realize you are not saying "no R&D) in that it is looking toward future benefits to the economy of taxes in the present, giving shape to the idea of a destination while going through the process of "stepping off" of fossil energy.

Dan: "...environmental clone...."

Nasty, nasty strawman you've got there, Dan. Ad hominem to boot. Can you get any more illogical?

Sam, David (and Dan, if you haven't left the building) - R&D will necessarily continue. In fact, R&D will likely increase as deployment takes place. How many, for example, improvements have been made to PCs since they have hit the market? I wonder how much innovation might have taken place if PCs had just stayed in some researchers' labs over the last couple of decades.

Also, this article is from 2000, and it supports much of what David has been saying re: the role of government in helping the establishment of a new industry.

THE GOVERNMENT CREATED THE INTERNET ... CAN'T IT HELP SOLAR POWER, TOO?
http://tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/3103.html

I'd like to point out for the record that Dan had no further response on the H2O issue, which he raised, and which was answered. I take this as his concession on the point, though he doubtless would not acknowledge that. Ten to one odds he will throw up this issue at some point and pretend that he has never heard the explanation.

Dan.. Okee Dokee then...

Of course skeptic scientists exist. Skepticism is a healthy part of science. But if you think that the mainstream view is invalid because there are skeptics you are being wishful and mis-lead. The point is you just changed the focus of what you and Steve were talking about. You were not talking about Skeptic scientists. You were talking about that particular panelist debate with GQ Public as audience. If you want to talk about skeptic scientists then you have to throw in the Global debate and Global population of climate scientists, and that's a different discussion....

Good luck there...

As I said, R&D should of course be encouraged. But if it's to be tax-deductable, then let it be deductable from income taxes, rather than from a tax on pollution. The quickest shift in pollution will be established if all the proceeds from a polluting energy tax are spent on local supply of clean and renewable energy that works now, rather than perhaps in ten years time.

Human affected global warming is to say the least, hotly contested (ice caps on Mars are also melting), so taxing Western nations for "green house" emissions is therefor not overly bright. Subsidizing alternative energies is warping the world economies right now, look at deforestation rates for European ethanol production (they import their raw material from Asia), never mind US crop price distortion. A single volcanic eruption puts out far more gases than all of mankind's various machinations, what do we do about that?

You have some great articles/ideas Sam especially the low cost solar methods to help poorer nations people cook but these other economy killers will cause far more damage than help. Costs on normal fuel/electricity can go to a certain point before wood or even coal burning will come back. Poorer people can't replace their less efficient vehicles like the more wealthy and these carbon taxes will be an additional burden. Never mind if businesses/industries close or slow so they can accommodate the carbon limits. You think job losses won't bury any "green" approach even in this country?

Lastly, this will limit growth in developing countries. Only through industrialization will those nations get wealthy enough for their people to have a decent life. Nothing "green" is going to give them that except through the classical way of capital growth. Wealthy societies are cleaner and have the capital to invest in that sort of lifestyle to a certain extent, poor ones do not.

Hi Charles, your post contains a lot of comments, so I'll reply on them one by one.

Charles: "Human affected global warming is to say the least, hotly contested (ice caps on Mars are also melting), so taxing Western nations for "green house" emissions is therefor not overly bright."

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that human activity (in particular burning fossil fuel) is responsible for global warming. Therefore, we should impose fees on fossil fuel and using the proceeds to fund local rebates on better alternatives (such as solar panels and wind turbines). Such a FeeBate policy is the most effective way to achieve the necessary change. It should be accompanied by further FeeBates, each tailored to achieve a specific shift, such as imposing fees on gasoline cars with proceeds funding local rebates on zero emission vehicles.

Charles: "Subsidizing alternative energies is warping the world economies right now, look at deforestation rates for European ethanol production (they import their raw material from Asia), never mind US crop price distortion."

I'm not a fan of biofuel. Instead, as said above, we should shift to zero-emission vehicles.

Charles: "A single volcanic eruption puts out far more gases than all of mankind's various machinations, what do we do about that?"

Over time, human activities are responsible for more emissions. There is a risk that climate change and the more extreme weather conditions caused by global warming will trigger more volcanic eruptions. So, the more reason to tackle emissions.

Charles: "You have some great articles/ideas Sam especially the low cost solar methods to help poorer nations people cook..."

Thanks, Charles!

Charles: "...but these other economy killers will cause far more damage than help.

Not taking the necessary action will do the most damage, both economically, environmental and in other respects.

Charles: "Costs on normal fuel/electricity can go to a certain point before wood or even coal burning will come back."

Solar and wind energy are already price-competitive, even when ignoring the environmental, health and economic damage inflicted by coal and oil. Fees should be imposed on wood ovens to discourage their use, with proceeds used to fund local rebates on solar cookers.

Charles: "Poorer people can't replace their less efficient vehicles like the more wealthy and these carbon taxes will be an additional burden. Never mind if businesses/industries close or slow so they can accommodate the carbon limits. You think job losses won't bury any "green" approach even in this country?"

I propose a framework of FeeBates, each tailored to achieve a specific shift. This will make it - say - 10% more expensive to burn fossil fuel, compared with current prices which don't incorporate a price for the harm that is inflicted. Proceeds will be used to fund local rebates on better alternatives, so they will get cheaper. Thus, the policy is budget-neutral. In the case of the US, it will make financial gains, as there will be less oil imports. Furthermore, there will be lots of job opportunities in industries such as electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines.

Charles: "Lastly, this will limit growth in developing countries. Only through industrialization will those nations get wealthy enough for their people to have a decent life. Nothing "green" is going to give them that except through the classical way of capital growth. Wealthy societies are cleaner and have the capital to invest in that sort of lifestyle to a certain extent, poor ones do not."

As I said, there are plenty of clean and safe technologies that are already price-competitive. With more political support, economies of scale will brown down prices even further.