GOP Plans Investigation Into Climate Change

Nice going, Guys: one step forward and three steps back; welcome to the dark ages. What's next, burning O'Donnell at the stake?

And so begins the scientific witch hunt. Anyone remember the McCarthy hearings? The scientists are coming! The scientists are coming!

Give me a break.

This will just give scientists a broad platform to make their case. This seems like a big win for scientists.

(Also, I prefer when PopSci keeps its speculation to science and technology, rather than politics, when the sources are so weak. (E.g., "Some analaysts are already predicting...".))

The "climate" doesn't care if the GOP thinks the changes are real or not...any more than the "Sun" cared that the Church claimed it was heresy if someone said the Earth revolved around it.

The Earth will adapt to the changes. Species unfit to live in the new climate will die off. Those that can adapt will rise and thrive.

It won't be the first time or the last.

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com
"We Entertain When It Rains"

Lol Chuck seriously? What did you expect? Obama inherited ALOT of problems since the year 2000. Do you really expect him to fix everything in one term? No president can. If McCain got elected he'd be in the same boat that Obama is now. Fixing our economy, creating job growth, establishing a really good healthcare system, etc, takes time. It's not going to happen in 4 years, and if you think it will, then you're kidding yourself. Give it another 10 years, and we might be where we should be.

And regarding the skin tone comment, well that's the problem with the world, people see differences as negatives...they can't just simply understand or accept people or cultures that are different. We are all the same species here, humans, but apparently us humans are still little babies bickering and killing each other over stupid petty issues. I find it shameful that our species still discriminates against people who are different.....skin color....sexual orientation....etc...I wonder what's going to happen when beings from another planet decide to come down and land on our planet in public. I wonder how we'll react. Perhaps we do deserve to be enslaved, or partially destroyed. Maybe we do need a huge global natural disaster to happen, so people like you wake up and realize that all humans are equals...because this discrimination crap is getting old....how many more years must pass before people respect and understand their fellow human.

It's time for Humanity to grow up.

Amen.

Chuck, what does skin tone have to do with anything? The new speaker of the house is orange. Cookiees453, you've got it together. What a pity you're a member of an intellectual minority.

paulcrosoft: correction - this will give *carefully selected "experts"* a broad platform to make their case, which is unlikely to be good news for science or reality-based policy making.

Seriously, just the though of having Joe Barton heading Energy & Commerce Committee is giving me the shivers. Given his track record, the man is an absolute moron when it comes to science (and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt, per Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)

Just a quick word! Look up Climate Gate and its related news stories! Global Warming is a scam.

If they cherry-pick experts, the Democrats on the panel will make strawmen out of them. Again, a win for science.

Also, I'm disturbed by this sentiment that the public is too dumb to figure things out and that the truth will fail in the market of ideas. We've got to get past the notion that everyone who disagrees with us is an idiot, while we are the lone defenders of the intellectual minority.

@paulcrosoft "...I'm disturbed by this sentiment that the public is too dumb to figure things out..."

The "public" IS too dumb to figure things out. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need scientists.

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com
"We Entertain When It Rains"

@RainyDayPromoter

So I'm clear, your evidence that the public is dumb is that we have scientists?

We're all just pawns of political parties. Whichever political party is in office is blamed for everything regardless of whose fault it is and the other is seen as heroes that deserve power. You'd think after 200+ years we'd learn to go away from a political party system. Here's a recent example of how politics works. This is gonna make me sound like a liberal, even though I'm a moderate. But I had to choose an example and I only have republicans and democrats to choose from so here goes:

Bush put us to war in 2 places, which cost a lot of money. We've had a deficit every year since the beginning of those wars. In some of Bush's economic reports, there is a surplus, but that's because he didn't include money spent on the wars - which shouldn't be excluded from economic figures for obvious reasons. Then, Bush signed a 1 Trillion dollar budget for fiscal year 2009 before Obama was sworn in. That money was spent by Bush but blamed on Obama. Obama was in favor of much of the spending, but so was McCain. Both voted for the bill. Obama took office and it was the immediate expectation for him to bring us out of the recession. Now even though Bush signed the bill that McCain and Obama voted for that included spending on infrastructure, the far right politicians have been chanting "jobs, jobs, jobs" while denying those federal grants in their states that would have brought them those jobs they had been chanting for. They called it wasteful spending even though infrastructure spending is a guaranteed way to provide jobs. The income brought by those jobs would provide taxes for the local, state and federal governments. It would also be spent on merchandise and keep many homes from going into foreclosure, which funnels back into the economy in so many ways. The right played their cards very well. The democrats look impotent. And they are, really. (Like I said, I'm a moderate) But the bigger picture of what *actually* happened over the past few years has been lost to most.

The problem isn't republicans or democrats. If the republicans had power and the democrats wanted it, we'd see the exact same game being played, just replace the word 'right' with 'left' in the paragraph above and there you go. The problem is the greed of individual politicians, political parties and corporations (special interest). Political parties are inherently flawed because of the way they can be manipulated by special interest groups. To fix the system, you either overhaul the way political parties are organized and funded, or just do away with them altogether. In the early days of US history, you used to see 15 or so political parties represented in elections. Now, it's usually 3 at most, but 2 in most cases.

Political parties are the problem.

@Cookiees, “give it another 10 years” So what you're saying is that we should give Obama 10 more years? He has only 6 years left if and only if he gets reelected, so to get 10 years he would have to be elected for a 3rd term; which is against our constitution.

Obama promised change and to fix the country, he knew exactly what he was getting himself into, no one forced him to run for president. Hence, maybe in 2 years he should say “sorry I couldn't fix it during my first term, I'll let someone else try therefore I will not run for reelection”. That would be a sentence from a messiah, however since Obama won't say that, therefore he must be neither a messiah nor the chosen one.

Yes, it was wrong for Chuck to reference the skin color. But you must be a fool to think that no blacks hate whites (blackpanther being an example)

And if Obama worries so much about global warming, then maybe he should stop making so many flying trips.

This is just me, but maybe if publications like Popular Science managed to not over-politicise science from their standpoint, politicians would have a much harder time having ideological issues with scientific concepts.

The Right's opposition to "problems" like anthropogenic global warming have a lot to do with the fact that the "consensus" of scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming being primarily funded, supported and publicised by the Left. The fact that politics and scientific issues have often been conflated by politicians who primarily use them for short-term personal political gain (i.e. liberals and global warming) is why you have a vast swath of people who call shenanigans on an alleged consensus like anthropogenic global warming.

It isn't that the public is stupid, they are just very uneducated when it comes to how life and the environment interact. They look to their leaders to guide them through the tough decisions, but those leaders are uneducated in the realms of science and are not sure of who to trust. Like it or not science and politics are not separate. I just read a good article that pointed out that our country was a "great experiment" that is still being conducted. It is time to bring the science back to that experiment.

What truly disturbs me is some of the discussion that I read here. I would hope that all of us a scientific community could put aside prejudices and begin civil discussions. Take time to educate someone using your unbiased information and maybe, just maybe, we can change the world for the better. Whether global warming is reality or scam, eventually we will run out of oil, fight the wrong war over it, or majorly destroy the environment trying to get at it. Lets change for those reasons and to make sure that the world is better off than it is today.

Worst case scenario is that we are slowly but surely changing the environment around us (like all other evasive species). Species will be destroyed and species will survive. Unfortunately one of those species that doesn't survive could be the human race; independent of race, religion, or political affiliation.

"Also, I'm disturbed by this sentiment that the public is too dumb to figure things out and that the truth will fail in the market of ideas."

Sentiment? No, that's scientifically proven, too. Something like 18% of Americans think the Sun moves around a stationary Earth. Rise above it, shake it off, join the conversation, and start asking questions we *don't* have answers to.

Science isn't a partisan debate based on anyone's agenda. Decisions are based on facts, not the other way around! If a political group organizes an opposition to a scientific consensus, which of those groups do you seriously think is *biased* toward social ends over pure knowledge?

It's disgusting to see politicians appeal to public ignorance to bolster their own popularities, and I don't understand how anyone can feel anything but betrayed by that.

ChuckLiddell you are a d o u c h e
Tygrys, you know good and well he didnt mean 10 more for obama. you KNOW he meant 10 to fix what the right has done to our country. but you do what all the righties do, try to put the focus on some non point. by the way, obama never said he could fix it in one term, and at least he admits there are problems unlike mr 2 war starting,economy destroying, crony bush.

"however since Obama won't say that, therefore he must be neither a messiah nor the chosen one"
who the hell made you the one to decide who someone is?

"Yes, it was wrong for Chuck to reference the skin color. But you must be a fool to think that no blacks hate whites (blackpanther being an example)"
so, if i may, honey, its ok i screwed your sister, because some people are child molesters. i d i o t

Americans got 2 choices, Social freedom or economic freedom. Why cant we have both? I think the perfect party would be the republican views of economic mixed with the social and scientific views of the democrates. That is why I dont vote, I dont feel one party or the other would represent me.

@cookies; face the truth, Obamas stimulus plan failed.
@republicans; Obama was right about health care plan.

Obama should just have dismiss that stimulus crap and put that money for health care for those who cant afford, it would have been a way better choice then saving dead overpaid uncompetitive jobs, just let the free market be, but for those who cant afford the basic, lets do something for them.

Frankly, that's not about politics, either. Both of those things are actions that you run a cost/benefit analysis for, not a referendum.

To be fair, I guess health care does have to do with philosophy, preferential treatment of the rich or productive, etc. The stimulus plan didn't - it was a pragmatic measure that projected, and returned, modest cushioning at a known cost.

But neither of those things has anything to do with this topic.

The Republicans, as they did during the Bush, Jr. administration, are going to push all scientific research back about 50 years and advance destructive fossil fuel extraction. Scientists, you have just became a third-class citizen again, as you did during the Bush's administrations. If you want to continue you most important research, which this world desperately needs, you are going to have to get use to living on the steps of the White House.

@Dirk Mcbratney

I think the computer models that are used to make those prediction dont take in consideration human behavior.

You cant expect people to invest in the US economy right now to creat jobs because you got a president that keeps on bashing the private sector and wall-street over and over and is only solution is increasing tax, regulation and be anti-capitalism by being protectist and saving un-competitive companies.

Just tell me now, would u invest ur own money in GM? I know I wouldnt. So if u want to invest in a car company, u have to look in other countries.

PS: dont forget, these models always work that way ''if everything else stays equal'', well thats just bull... and you got the proof of it, if only democrates opened there eyes and see whats happening in EU and the rest of the world, economies are turning to more FREEDOM to be more competitive, not to 1980's ridicules of protectism.

Sigh...
Well it is clear now that the Republicans will once again put the game of politics ahead of the interests of this country. Between this report of their interest in investigating the merits of climate change, and both McConnell and Boehner making the repeal of 'Obamacare' a top priority it is obvious that the GOP is focused on keeping their 'hornets nest' buzzing until 2012.

The Republicans would do themselves and this country a HUGE favor if they looked ahead into the future instead of continually stoking fires from the past. Focus on rebuilding our infrastructure and fixing our education system, the economy will follow. That would make me (an Independent) vote Republican.

I'm so sick of politics getting in the way of scientific advancement. If it weren't for politics, we'd have stem cells growing new limbs and giant death lasers by now -___-

@chucklidell,

You sound more like lefties trying to appear as a Conservative, trying to make them look like racists that there not. The left wing media is just doing what they always did, trying to be fear mongering, "oh the Republican's will destroy science, be afraid!" Please don't let them manipulate you. There are just as many or more scientists and pro-scientific people who are on the right than on the left.

@all

NEW RULE: Before you bash someone (or the public) for being stupid, look through your post, count how many scientific arguments you actually make, count how many studies or measurments you cite, then count how many personal attacks you make, and then ask if you are what you are attacking.

Real science doesn't care who you voted for or who gave you money, it only cares about facts and inferences that can be drawn from those facts. So give up on the idea that calling someone a biased idiot will convert them to your side.

Also, as long as science wants government money, science will be politicized. And I'd rather tolerate those who disagree than cut that cord.

@Dirk
I'm in your camp. I'm not the one you need to convince. But don't be so committed to your cause that you ignore that scientists aren't always honest. "Climategate" shows that you shouldn't always trusts scientists either. Only data. Which we've seen very little of in this post.

I hereby state Chuck as an unintelligent, white trash, lower class loser. Why? Because it's a UFC stereotype, and with his "skin-tone" comment, it sounds to me like he's ok with judging according to stereotypes.

Man.. Kant would be so proud of that statement.

Anyways...

Let's get down to the matter at hand here... it's not political, it's scientific. As far as stem cell goes... I can't say much about that. I haven't done any research whatsoever. I do, however, believe it's good that we are doing something about the Climate Change issue. Climategate raised a question that, I feel, were ignored. Scientists will all scoff and spit at this, because they feel as though they are being attacked. The truth of the matter here is that someone has possibly lied about something that we have changed our lifestyle, spent countless money on, and spent tons of time in research about.

Does anyone else see that? Billions of dollars could be going to a FRAUD. It could be going toward education, health care, other scientific research that isn't fraud. I don't deny that being green is good. The scientists of Climate Change need to be honest with us, and let the world in on the data and research they have closed off. To not do so would be to go against everything Science has stood for.

Why must people be idiots, who insist that if you do not agree with them, you must not only change and conform, but conform universally and eat a loaf of dog excrement as well.

If you believe in manmade global warming, why try to convert the other side to your ideological premise? You waste time and energy for your ideological purity and lose out on your goals.

You want every Republican supports legislation that moves the US greener? Then give them options that they want that do exactly that.

If it increases energy (and national) security by reducing mid-east dependance - then they are for it.

If it promotes private industry, creating jobs and competition - then they are for it.

If the benefits are tangible - cleaner air, water, and land - and the cost is fiscally responsible - then they are for it.

If it moves control from federal agencies to local powers and the choice of the people - then they are for it.

Compromise is not about warping your beliefs - but finding those things you do agree on and doing those - leaving the other stuff for another day (things like a Carbon tax, which they clearly will never support).

Hooray for accountability and intellectual honesty!!!! :D :D :D

It's been a long time coming.

It would be nice to know whether the weather is changing because of us.

so, the arguement is wait 10 years. So if 10 years started in 2008, then 10 years prior is when the problem would have started. Who was president then? Not Bush.

I hate the political system, nobody talks about the good they can do, just the bad someone else is doing.

Maybe we should start the 'Intellectual Honesty Party' and run on a platform of "DUH...!"

To those arguing AGAINST the ignorance of the American Public:

If Americans are not stupid, then WHY do a majority of them believe that the President increased their taxes? Instead of offering a one-time tax cut around IRS time, the president cut taxes real-time, so that, if you open your eyes and LOOK at your pay stub, you can see the reduced taxes. ALSO, as an added bonus, this type of tax cut is MUCH more likely to be pumped back into the economy, as opposed to a lump sum, which more Americans are likely to save. But, I mean, what do I know. I'm just an ignorant 30-year old gay man.

COME ON.

(www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/220013?RS_show_page=1)

I just don't understand why people don't do their research. Please, if you have an opinion, look up the facts, check yourself, and ONLY then, voice it.

Otherwise, do us a favor, and just zip it.

Contrary to the author's dismayed opening statement, there will be no changes coming for "science." Scientific discovery will continue as robustly as ever. Science is apolitical and has no agenda. SCIENTISTS, however, are political and do have agendas and thankfully, some of those agendas will now be curtailed.

For example, science has yet to establish the causes of global warming. It is not known why the earth has experienced glacial and interglacial periods, though there are several promising theories. Whether CO2 saturation of the atmosphere is a cause or effect of warming isn't even understood. There is no scientific basis for limiting CO2 emissions, so of course it makes sense to stop cap-and-trade legislation with its devastating economic consequences. That would be a decision firmly grounded in the current science of climate and economics instead of the firmly rooted opinions of those who believe in a "consensus."

By the way, the scientific fraud exhibited by the East Anglia e-mail leak is well established and even acknowledged with disappointment and introspection by serious climate scientists. It's not "alleged."

As for national renewable energy standards, can you explain why we need any? Innovation continues whether the government funds it or not; in fact misguided government subsidies REDUCE the normal competition and research that lead to breakthroughs. Witness the massive corn ethanol subsidy that stifles innovation of better renewable fuel technology. Science and economics will give us renewable energy, not government mandates.

The restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research were set long ago by bipartisan Congressional legislation after much debate. It's not likely to change.

Finally, the author's rant is based on an article of faith for liberals: conservatives are ignorant, thus anti-science; liberals are intelligent, therefore pro-science. It's not only wrong, it's condescending and offensive. Stick to writing about science, technology and innovation, which is the reason we keep coming back to this site.

@laurenra7
Well said.

For myself, I see no reason climate gate should not be investigated. IF the facts and figures presented supporting global warming are in fact found to be true and not corrupted, the research will continue. IF the those facts and figures have been manipulated for monetary compensation, then by all rights the project should be scuttled and the people responsible should go to jail. As it stands now, with no investigation, climate gate puts the ENTIRE scientific community under a shadow of doubt concerning their validity.

Concerning the comment by Chuck about wanting a president with a skin color matching his own. That is exactly how liberals paint their opponents as racist. Personally, I think obama was a poor choice for our first black president. Not because he is black, but because there are much better candidates out there. I would vote today for Allen West for president for example.

The health care bill was nothing more than a huge mistake. It was voted on without a single congressman having even read it. It is my humble opinion that the biggest problem facing our country is that over 90% of the bills passed into law are done without a vote, without ever having been read, and without a layout of the budget. This is a fact. On that has been discussed on the senate floor by Sen. Jim DeMint. Link to video of the discussion posted below. This has been an issue for a long time. Both democrats and Republicans are guilty of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B751mhY-QE&feature=player_embedded

Geez Rebecca, could you be anymore of a political cheerleader?

I'm sick and tired of this whole "consensus" BS. Until something has been made a scientific LAW, not just a baseless theory created just to get grant money, with supporting data on how to fix it with certainty. Then no money should be spent on it. Articles like this are what are pushing me away from this site. There is no science here, just political cheer-leading. Also, the comments to this article are why I CHOOSE NOT to vote. My one vote will not counter the 200 million tards out there that believe anything their politicians say.

(PS, before I get hammered for being a "righty" or "conservative", this goes for both parties. So grow up. Both sides are just idiots that perpetuate a vicious cycle.)

Here are the choices:

1) You believe in global warming and accept the need of mankind needing to change their ways.

Possible outcome, you are wrong and some people get rich, you are laughed at.

2) You don't believe in global warming and refuse to accept responsibility or change.

Possible outcome, you are wrong, some people will get very rich, the planet will die and all people will die.

Hmmm.... I'm gonna put my money on change.

"Possible outcome, you are wrong, some people will get very rich, the planet will die and all people will die.
Hmmm.... I'm gonna put my money on change."

3) You are fearmongering in a pathetic attempt to have people join your pseudoscientific religion of AGW.

Sell your snake oil to someone who'll buy it.

@Seriously

"Until something has been made a scientific LAW, not just a baseless theory created just to get grant money, with supporting data on how to fix it with certainty. Then no money should be spent on it."

Very little in science is "law"--yet without investment based on the "theory" of gravity we would have never had rocketry and have never created man-made satellites.

I'm not sure I understand what people "don't believe" about the effect of greenhouse gases on planet Earth (a.k.a. "Climate Change").

Do you not believe that greenhouse gases have the effect science suggests? These are fairly simple and repeatable experiments... please cite an experiment that suggest "greenhouse gases" do NOT produce a greenhouse effect.

If you DO admit that greenhouse gases produce these "greenhouse effects"... then what is left to argue with?

Human technology emits increased greenhouse gases... again simple science that is repeatable and peer-reviewed can prove that.

In fact, the only thing one could "not believe" about climate change is that the man-made greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere. One could argue that actually all of these gases our industrialized lifestyle emits can be absorbed by the planet without any adverse side-effects.

Again... this is something which can be tested with scientific experiments. If you are making the argument that the Earth's ecosystem simply absorbs the extra man-made greenhouse gases, simply provide citations to scientific studies which provide evidence for this.

Seems to me that if a scientist wanted to prove that the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions are "sustainable" by Earth's ecosystems they'd have no trouble finding funding from oil companies, coal companies, automobile manufacturers, etc.

So... please... let's see some evidence to support the claims.

@31415926535

"You are fearmongering in a pathetic attempt to have people join your pseudoscientific religion of AGW."

While I agree that the framing of Science Minded comment is a bit dualistic, I think the "fearmongering" goes both ways. ("Cap & trade will hurt the economy!!!" argument made by Reps.)

Think of it this way... If you were drinking a glass of gasoline and I walked by and said, "you know, I think maybe drinking gasoline is bad for your health," how would you respond?

1) Keep drinking the gasoline and say, "Yeah? Why don't you prove without a doubt that drinking gasoline is bad for me."

2) Stop drinking the gasoline and say, "Yeah? Okay. I'll do some research to see if drinking gasoline is safe. If it is, then I'll resume drinking it, otherwise I'll never drink gasoline again."

I see most "non-believers" of climate change taking the first mindset--the "prove it hurts me before I'll stop" mindset instead of the "prove it's safe before I do it" mindset.

It's not "fearmongering" to argue that the second option is a lot less risky.

You see non-believers screaming for evidence to prove climate change is "real"... yet you never see them screaming for evidence to prove that emitting greenhouse gases is "safe".

Thanks B.V. That was more or less my point. Either approach can be arguable from an econimic stand point. But one scenario involves improving our environment (Fail to see a down side) while the other takes a risk of at the minimum, decreased quality of environment and even possible catastrophic failure.

I find it amusing and disgusting that the ultra conservatives have the nerve to throw out the "Fear monger" label, when that has been their entire campaign the last 8 years, oh and complain but do nothing.

Sell your pathetic propoganda to the uneducated, it has no weight here.

Thanks B.V. That was more or less my point. Either approach can be arguable from an econimic stand point. But one scenario involves improving our environment (Fail to see a down side) while the other takes a risk of at the minimum, decreased quality of environment and even possible catastrophic failure.
I find it amusing and disgusting that the ultra conservatives have the nerve to throw out the "Fear monger" label, when that has been their entire campaign the last 8 years, oh and complain but do nothing.
Sell your pathetic propoganda to the uneducated, it has no weight here.
---------------------------------------------------------

Uneducated propaganda is all you are offering. It's hilarious how one is labeled a "ultra conservative" if you don't believe in the fairy tale that is Global Warming. Since CO2 is so bad maybe you could stop breathing and protect all of us from your carbon pollution. Not to mention, that you, Rebecca, and BV up there could all quit being so hypocritical and turn all your computers and other electronic devices off. That would save us a good bit on "carbon pollution". I'm not a Republican, or a conservative, as I don't think that those who use those labels even know what they mean, or even stand for. I hate every political sect that there is, from the right to the left. I term myself a classic liberal, because that is where my political beliefs most closely align. But, I am very much a freedom loving anarchist at heart. So in closing, please grow up and educate yourself on the economic consequences of this bill being passed. That is if you enjoy the ability to afford food and other life necessities.

@Seriously,

You claim all we offer is "uneducated propaganda" when in fact there are huge levels of scientific evidence to support climate change.

What exactly do you "not believe" about it?

Point out something specific. Please. And then support it with a peer-reviewed study to support your sentiment.

When you refer to "this bill being passed" what EXACTLY are you talking about? Last time I checked there was NO cap & trade bill "being passed"...

Hard to educate yourself about laws that do not exist, don't ya think?

But, since you seem to knowledgeable and educated about the economic consequences of cap & trade perhaps you could explain to us what "the tragedy of the commons" means, in economic terms, and how it applies specifically to non-regulated "commons" areas (such as the atmosphere).

I'll give you a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

First, using your own data(by your, I mean the scientific data that most agree with) we have increased in temperature by about 1.0 degree over about 120 years. There have been plenty of natural explanations for this, most notable being solar output. We were unable to measure these things 120 years ago. And we didn't even have the same calibur measurement devices 120 years ago. So how do we know beyond a shadow of doubt that this is "man made"? Because carbon output has gone up? Give me a break. We can't even accurately predict weather on a weekly basis, much less a yearly basis, or even better a century basis. There are too many factors that go into climate change that you can not accurately point to one variable and say beyond any doubt that it is what is causing GW. Then there is the issue that the IPCC has been wrong on every prediction they made 10 years ago regarding this issue. Yet they are held up as the scientific think tank on this matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

I know what the tragedy of commons is. And the bill in question died. But before you start talking crap, maybe you should look up HR 2454. Or one of the four other previous versions. So, maybe you should be the one to "educate yourself on laws been presented on the house floor". Got it? You're one of these that believes that "Pareto's improvement" is an actual improvement. But you still have to take from one person(or group) to give to another that is "being affected". I would rather people work in their own self interests. That way the market is operating in the most efficient manner possible. So, since really all the government wants to do is tax the heck out of us, it's not really going to help the issue, and it's going to cost up jobs in the long run. Because any tax causes the market to operate outside of peak efficiency. So personally I would rather be sure about something than start creating policy on a flawed theory that could very well turn out to be wrong. That way I stay employed. I mean that means more to me than possibly living 2 years shorter in the long run. It's basically a choice between living long and poor, or short and rich. (not a great analogy, but it's all I have.)I'll take the latter.

@Seriously,

Please describe your "solar output" theory (with citations).

The actual data is this:

the average temperature of the Earth’s surface has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900
- http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html

How is this "man-made?"

"During the past century humans have substantially added to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, oil and gasoline to power our cars, factories, utilities and appliances. The added gases — primarily carbon dioxide and methane — are enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, and likely contributing to an increase in global average temperature and related climate changes."
-http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html

When you say, "Because carbon output has gone up? Give me a break"

Your counter-argument to the SCIENCE which can easily show how carbon dioxide and methane create a "greenhouse effect" is "give me a break?"

Seriously, seriously???

"There are too many factors that go into climate change that you can not accurately point to one variable and say beyond any doubt that it is what is causing GW."

It's hard to prove ANYTHING beyond a doubt--especially to someone who creates a psychological block to evidence in order to justify/rationalize away their own behavior.

Not sure what the link to Wikipedia was supposed to prove...

"I would rather people work in their own self interests. That way the market is operating in the most efficient manner possible."

Hmm... that's an interesting idea. Let's consider what an "efficient" market might look like...

For one, the gov't creates market inefficiencies when it restricts the market from allowing workers from south/middle america to come to the US to work.

In a truly free market, you should compete with Latino migrant workers.

For two, the gov't creates market inefficiencies when it requires workplaces live up to OSHA standards.

In a truly free market, your employer should be free to let you work in a dark, slippery, loud, cold, hot, mold infested, asbestos/coal dust polluted environment.

For three, the gov't creates market inefficiencies when it prevents children from working.

In a truly free market, your 10 yr old should have the ability to have their arms ripped off in a dangerous factory just like you!

For four, the gov't creates market inefficiencies when it creates minimum-wage laws.

In a truly free market, a rich person should be able to buy all industries in a small town and depress wages to $0.50 a day so that everyone who can't afford to move is forced to labor 16 hours a day just to survive.

For five, the gov't creates market inefficiencies when it creates laws about pollution and dumping of toxic chemicals.

In a truly free market, a pharmaceutical company should be allowed to poison your groundwater supply so it can then sell you the anti-dote.

Oh... what a glorious world it would be to live (*cough* die a horrible death*) in a truly "efficient" market!

BTW, if you went back about 100 years, you'd find an America where pretty much everything I described is possible, legal, and happening.

It's just a lot easier (from a logistics stand-point) to stop child-labor in dangerous factories than it is to stop climate change...

The "efficiency" (or lack thereof) of the market, in economic terms, is completely irrelevant as it does not relate to quality of life... or even "wealth".

"That way I stay employed. I mean that means more to me than possibly living 2 years shorter in the long run. It's basically a choice between living long and poor, or short and rich."

1) Slaves stay employed all the time.
2) There is more to the "richness" of life than the number of 0's at the end of your paycheck.