The Public Policy
What’s the Benefit?
The alarmists never can explain what good will come of greenhouse gas reduction.
Global warming realists (that is, those who don’t buy the Al Gore-like catastrophism because they see the earth is no warmer than it was 12 years ago) often argue against various forms of energy taxes, but too many stop short of asking alarmists, “What’s the benefit?”
The costs demand attention. President Obama’s economic advisers admit that their boss’s proposed cap-and-trade scheme — which will indirectly tax greenhouse gas emissions (mostly from electrical utilities’ coal-fired power plants) that exceed a yet-to-be-determined limit — will hit Americans up for an additional $1.9 trillion over the next eight years. A more straightforward carbon tax would lead to similar pain. These consequences should be highlighted often, and they are.
But many who make these points — like those in conservative talk radio and punditry — often don’t go far enough, because telling the cost side tells only half. Listeners and readers are left with the impression that “yeah, it costs a fortune.” But then you can hear their Gore-pressed consciences wonder, “but don’t we still have to do something?”
This leads to the next (should be) obvious question — one the alarmists never have to answer — which is, “If we do what you are proposing we should do, what will we (or the Earth) get in exchange for what we spend?”
It’s the completion of basic economics. Every financial transaction an individual makes takes into account two questions: What is the cost, and what is the benefit derived from that potential expenditure? We’ve seen the huge financial hit discussed. Whether it’s taxing carbon fuels directly; or subsidizing cleaner energy substitutes like wind, solar or biofuels; or subsidizing not-yet-ready technologies like carbon capture and storage, the costs are steep.
But it leaves the alarmists off the hook for the other side of the ledger: What are the benefits? And do the benefits outweigh the costs, even with their heavy price?
To answer these questions means alarmists must back up their science, because their wished-for “solutions” imply that something will change in the atmosphere — and thus affect global warming — because of their proposed carbon-constraining policies. But instead of boldly proclaiming the great thermostatic results their policies will produce, they run away from the science they so adamantly claim that they stand behind.
How? Because they cannot explain how much greenhouse gas reduction — in whatever quantities they propose — will cause global temperatures to change. For all their jargon-filled technological conversations about how to “solve the problem,” they only measure their goals in terms of emissions averted or reduced — usually quantified in “million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,” or MMtCO2e. How’s that for an absurd acronym?
Their beside-the-point planet-saving discussions have been held in more than half the states in the country, among bureaucrat- and lobbyist-laden government study panels, all purportedly to avert global warming. Yet these climate commission members never ask climate scientists or economists what they think.
So it’s easy to stump the alarmists when you ask: What will the climate do when we lower MMtCO2e’s? Can you doomsayers who so haughtily and demandingly chant “Science! Science! Science!” tell us how your plans will lower temps, save sea levels, and spare species?
They never answer in terms of degrees, so you can conclude that the “benefit” side of the ledger is zero. Sound like a deal you’d want in on?
About the Author
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/14/whats-the-benefit
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 4.14.09 @ 6:43AM
The rich folks will not have nice cars; the poor folks will not have kids. Thats what the benefits will be.
Aaron| 4.14.09 @ 7:04AM
Answers you will likely not hear:
"because if we lower the MMtCO2e's God will be happy and reward us with an Al Goretopia."
"By lowering the MMtCO2e's, the temperature will cool causing women to cover up in compliance with sharia law"
"uh...the temperature...mmmm...will lower by 300ppm by, uh uh at a 6% rate for mmmm.. uh every $1 trillion that is ... uh... spent by only the... mmm.. uhhh... western hemisphere... wait that was the French PMs speech."
stu.b.con| 4.14.09 @ 8:30AM
let me condense li'l davey matthews post to its essence: "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
my apologies to chicken little
tool!
Bram| 4.14.09 @ 8:33AM
The benefits question can be taken one step further. If you believe that the Earth is becoming warmer (it isn't), and you believe it is because of human activity (I don't), and we can change the climate through legislative action (we can’t), then what is the benefit of a cooler world?
The last extended period of global cooling was the Little Ice Age. It was a nightmare of famine, plague, and natural destruction. Ancient Swiss villages were crushed by glaciers. The Norse colony in Greenland ended in famine. The Black Plague spread through the weakened population of Europe. Harbors were frozen shut throughout Europe and North America.
This is the benefit the “environmentalists” are trying to achieve?
MikeM| 4.14.09 @ 8:58AM
If David Mathews is back, I am not going to waste my time reading this blog.
Skippy| 4.14.09 @ 9:01AM
I knew it, you do live in your mothers basement. I'm with the great Ted Turner who recently claimed we are all going to be "cannibals" in 40 years if we don't stop global warming, or climate change, or global freezing or whatever it is today.
We need to support Acorn Boy and his efforts to shoot pollutants into the earths atmosphere to deflect the life giving sun back into space. Sounds sensible to me and how can we argue with a group that thinks Al Franken is fit for office?
Dave| 4.14.09 @ 9:02AM
Mr Mathews, we share a first name but little else. It's too bad that your doom and gloom scenario isn't backed up reliable science.
If you do a little research on the web you will discover that (1) Global temperatures have been DROPPING for about the last 12 years; (2) global concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have been HIGHER than they are now several times in the past - it appears to by cyclical; (3) the sun is behaving rather strangely these days and we appear to be entering uncharted territory in solar behavior (BTW, the sun is a VARIABLE STAR and changes its output in a variety of cyclical manners not well understood by modern science).
But most importantly, if your goal is to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere there is an easy and comparatively cheap way to do it. Plant trees. Planting the right trees locks up vast quantities of carbon for hundreds of years and they provide shade reducing your energy costs for summertime cooling. And if anybody needs to cool down, it's you.
Skippy| 4.14.09 @ 9:09AM
Here you go dope:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
Dave| 4.14.09 @ 9:32AM
Lets see if I have this straight:
"Scientifically illiterate conservatives sound like the shills on CNBC who called "market bottom" every single day while the market was tanking from 14,000 to 7,000. "
This is obviously the scientifically literate response to the FACT that global temperatures are currently dropping. Yup, I can see how you came by your PhD.
"Humans have actually paid close attention to the sun for centuries. " Yup again, if you count lighting fires, beating gongs and sacrificing the odd virgin on mid winter's night to bring the sun back.
"Humankind is currently destroying forests at a horrendous and accelerating pace and you are going to offer "plant trees" as a solution to global warming? " Yes, and why not. If deforestation is a large problem, lets start a campaign of re-forestation. Work far better than some stupid, ill conceived and pointless carbon tax.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.14.09 @ 9:47AM
I see that someone has finally admitted that Obama does not know what he is doing on the economy. That stock market illustration paints it out perfectly. When George Bush was President the DJIA hit over 14,000. Now that Obama's President it is struggling to hit 8,000.
Could not the same comparision be made to the Obama economic policies to his cap and trade, i.e., Obama is following the mantras of the left and doing what the left wants on the environment and the economy and that's not necessarily good for the environment.
It's an interesting comparison and I'm glad it was bought up here.
cnc| 4.14.09 @ 9:48AM
Global warming is a secondary concern to energy efficiency. Sure a lot of the green/renewable ideas (ethanol, energy subsdies) are just plain goofy, other ideas (grid 2.0, insulation, high mpg vehicles) reduce the cost of fuel used and therefore increase the productivity/$.
And as a side beifit reduced fuel demand decreases the profit margins of Iran, Russia and Venuzuala; while increased productivty cuts china's competitive advantage..
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.14.09 @ 9:51AM
As further back-up to that stock market comparison someone made here is a slew of references showing how cap and trade will destroy the American economy, all in the pursuit of pseudo-marlarkey, it's not even science.
http://www.heartland.org/article/23049/CapandTrade.html
As the scientific community becomes increasingly skeptical of claims that global warming is manmade and portends a crisis, government calls for carbon dioxide (CO2) cap-and-trade systems are premature at best and economically disastrous at worst.
Far from being a dangerous pollutant, carbon is a basic component of all living cells, and life on Earth actually depends on carbon dioxide. In fact, increased CO2 concentrations make plants grow faster and bigger and provide improved food chain conditions for humans and animals. It would be criminal to classify such an essential and beneficial resource as a pollutant.
Besides being based on bad science, CO2 cap-and-trade systems threaten the nation's economy and citizens' financial well-being. A cap on energy production amounts to a tax on all goods and services. Multiple studies have found that a modest cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions according to Kyoto Protocol measures (7 percent below 1990 levels) would reduce domestic economic growth by almost 2 percent per year, increase gasoline prices by 53 percent, and raise other energy prices by 86 percent.
If the nation were to adopt Al Gore's desired 90 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, the resulting energy scarcity and price inflation would simply destroy the economy.
All that sacrifice would likely be for nothing. When a cap-and-trade system was implemented in the European Union, emissions actually rose by a greater percentage than in the United States. Cap-and-trade systems are notoriously difficult to enforce, and many politically connected companies in Europe have been found to be fudging the numbers and selling "unused" credits without actually reducing emissions. Europe's carbon cap-and-trade systems are permeated by fraud.
In a cap-and-trade system, government essentially takes ownership of all CO2 emissions and distributes "carbon credits" to the private sector. Politicizing energy distribution and usage through cap-and-trade systems is a great way to reward politically connected energy producers at the expense of the general population, the energy consumers.
The following articles will help you gain an understanding of the environmental and economic consequences of proposed cap-and-trade systems, and the global warming alarmism that is behind such proposals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22835
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change provides an independent examination of the evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change in the published, peer-reviewed literature, viewed without bias or selectivity.
Fact and Comment: Brrr!
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0310/019.html
Steve Forbes comments on reasons to doubt that there is a manmade global warming crisis, and considers the lack of benefits from adopting such a system and the problems Europe has encountered with its program.
NBC: Cap-and-Trade System Would Magically Make Unaffordable Energy Affordable
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080314091551.aspx
The Business and Media Institute reports on an NBC ‘Nightly News’ report praising a carbon-free solar energy plant. But electricity from solar energy costs four times as much as energy from natural gas or coal-fired plants.
Cap-and-Trade Would Stifle Economy, Delay Transition to Cleaner Fuels
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22944
The George C. Marshall Institute outlines the numerous practical difficulties in implementing a cap-and-trade system, as well as its negative effects.
Crackerjack Joe| 4.14.09 @ 9:53AM
Ad Hominem attacks never fed a cap and trade policy.
Jack | 4.14.09 @ 9:56AM
Tax us for a made up catastrophe to "spread the wealth" for healthcare. And its not "all about the money"?
Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 10:04AM
In the News | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Anthony| 4.14.09 @ 10:21AM
Mr. Chesser, It's always a bit difficult to tell people to believe in a complete and utter hoax and explain to them that the only benefits to said hoax is the financial largess to the proponents of said hoax, as well as the enslavement of the followers by the new and improved American Enviro-Marxists.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.14.09 @ 10:47AM
An ad hominem attack never saved an ice shelf.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.14.09 @ 10:47AM
An ad hominem attack never saved an ice shelf.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.14.09 @ 10:49AM
Bringing you information that's valid, no personal attacks needed to prove a point, superior to name calling, it's called information.
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pressroom/pressreleases/WesternClimateInitiative09.html
Seattle — Specific proposals that several Western states would implement to comply with a proposed cap-and-trade carbon emissions control pact would destroy jobs and erode income, according to a report co-released by a national economics institute and the Washington Policy Center.
In a thorough review of the claims made by the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) at Suffolk University identified several flaws made by the seven state consortium, calling into question so-called cost savings ranging between $11.4 billion and $23.5 billion. These flaws render WCI’s projections useless in determining the WCI’s cost to state economies.
The authors of the report write, “Using the Western Climate Initiative’s own projections of increases in fuel costs, BHI finds that the policies will decrease employment, investment, personal income and disposable income. While WCI claims the ‘design is also intended to mitigate economic impacts, including impacts on consumers, income, and employment,’ they fail to quantify the impacts.”
Seven states are full participants in WCI: Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Beacon Hill Institute found that WCI’s policy recommendations “would have substantial negative effects” on the economies of its member states. The WCI has recommended three different cap-and-trade scenarios that consider “narrow” and “broad” market coverage and the use of offsets. Under a scenario in which 25 percent of greenhouse gas emission permits would be auctioned off to emitters in a cap-and-trade scheme, BHI, using their STAMP® (State Tax Analysis Modeling Program) model, determined that the seven states:
• Would lose between 35,177 to 165,397 private sector jobs, while the permit revenue would allow the states to hire up to 19,710 state employees
• Would put investment by firms at serious risk by slowing investment in the region by $1.6 billion to $4.5 billion
• Would diminish total personal income, which would fall by $10.2 billion to $47.71 billion per year
The proposals’ negative economic effects stem from the price and tax increases the states would impose on the energy and transportation sectors. Because a cap on carbon emissions is effectively a tax on energy production that is passed to industry, businesses and consumers, the effect is likely to drive commerce and jobs to other states or countries.
“The cap-and-trade program would increase input costs for producers located within WCI states, placing them at a competitive disadvantage to those outside the areas,” BHI noted. “The pressure would be especially acute for producers that utilize large amounts of energy in the production process, such as manufacturers.”
Beacon Hill found that none of the seven WCI states would escape economic harm should cap-and-trade be imposed. Washington State could lose:
• 18,292 net jobs
• $5.71 billion in personal income
• $302.54 in per capita disposable income
If Washington were to adopt the WCI cap-and-trade proposal based on an auction of 25 percent of emission allowances. The environmental community in Washington have advocated for 100 percent auction of emission allowances.
“Past studies claiming to show cap-and-trade creates new ‘green’ jobs have ignored the costs of those policies,” said Todd Myers, environmental director at the Washington Policy Center in Seattle. “This study shows that increasing taxes and regulations will likely kill jobs and prosperity at a time when we can least afford it.”
The complete study is available online here.
Dave McWilliams| 4.14.09 @ 10:54AM
I'm not sure why Dave Matthews has hijacked this comments section, but certainly he presents wildely discredited theories of global warming which are not backed up by any credible science. The conclusions of reputable scientists around the world including thousands in the United States show little if any connection between CO2 and global warming, on the other hand, politicians and those with political agendas spend a great deal of time trying to convince us that their very narrow interpretation of limited data is the absolutely the only view point allowed. No computer model yet has been able to forecast next weeks weather , let alone 50 years in the future. I would suggest Mr. Matthews view point is neither correct no backed up any scientific evidence. Certainly Mr. Matthews has sources for his outlandish concepts-why don't you list them so we can all have a good laugh?
Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 10:55AM
=>"What's the Benefit?"
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
That's my speculation.
Ever since seeing the combination of the combination of sensationalization of "Foreign Oil Dependence” Crisis, E-85 (Ethanol production), Global Warming Crisis, and the creme of the crop, euphemisms wise, "cellulose-base ethanol," “carbon-free coal” (geez). . . the redesignation of massive amounts of public lands into wilderness and wetlands, the sharp increase in mining American minerals by the Brits, and the Alliance between the Federal Government, Multi-National Corporations, and Environmental NGOs. . .
Actually EOR is only one element, but a major one in R&D for about 50 years.
The benefit will be:
A highly centrally directed and regulated development and production of ALL American minerals resources, particularly energy minerals (petroleum and coal) and electrical power production.
Otherwise, none of this makes sense.
All these combined, the new associated technologies, pilot plants, modernization projects, mining, processing, and power generation projects in the works, and re-regulation, and then all of this makes perfect sense.
But what a helluva way to go about it. Pretense, dissembling, bald lying, panic, sensationalizations. . . It's the way things are done now.
WilliMc| 4.14.09 @ 11:13AM
Interesting comments from Dave. He assumes everyone who is not a proponet of AGW Theory is a political "conservative," and as a consequence, ignorant. Science knows no political position, Dave.
Surly| 4.14.09 @ 11:16AM
To Chris Mathew's Brother David: I tried to read some of your long-winded baloney but I didn't see a single fact in any of it ... just a lot of fear-mongering blather. I suppose, you think that if you keep posting you'll drive everybody out and you'll win ... what you'll win I have no idea. As a typical liberal you have come to understand some simple truth that every one knows already yet you think you are the only that's one to it ... I always find that hilarious, Dave. So Dave, it's like this: everything must end some day. We're mortal, we are born, we live, and we die. Species come and species go. The earth gets warmer, the earth gets colder. Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you. I know it's hard for somebody like you to think that your tenured position as professor of Communications at the Community College will end some day, but you're going to have to deal with it because ... that's life Dave.
Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 11:27AM
Made in the U.S.A.
Let's remember that Global Warming (Climate Change, or whatever euphemism is used) is a Creation of the American government (regardless of the support by the Royal Geological Society and countless other such organizations now).
Al Gore didn't invent it (or anything else).
Come on. Al Gore is a Sock Puppet.
And what a choice. . .
What in the world in his background gives him any scientific expertise, What So Ever?
This was kicked off by NASA in the 1980s.
The same with the hole in the ozone layer.
The twist by NASA last year was to expect a cooling trend for the next 30 years, average ambient temperatures in north America will drop, growing seasons will be shorter. . .
Personally, I don’t doubt in the least that enough data has been gathered by now that they’re able to make this forcast of the general trend
BUT
NASA warns us not to let it lead us to think that Global Warming isn't still occurring, because it's actually still going to be ongoing, even though it won’t seem to be by the lower average ambient temperatures we’ll be feeling and shorter growing seasons. . .
Aren't you glad they told us?
Bob Alou| 4.14.09 @ 12:04PM
Repeat after me; I will not read, or in any way acknowledge, any comment that comes under the posting name Dave Mathews.
Crackerjack Joe| 4.14.09 @ 12:19PM
Everytime I see an article like this I go out and drive my V8 powered automobile at least 20 miles.
Marc Jeric| 4.14.09 @ 12:36PM
Bravo Bob Alou - that's what I recommended some days ago re Dave Mathews. Let us all just ignore that ignorant bloviating namecalling gasbag and so put that piece of utter s**t in his proper place - the ash heap of history where he can encounter Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Il Jong, to continue his adoration of the same.
Mark H| 4.14.09 @ 1:02PM
Hey David,
Since you can see into the future why not fill me in on some lottery numbers? Or, at least next years Superbowl winner! I'd like to win some extra cash so I can go buy a Hummer, a bible, and a gun.
Robbins Mitchell| 4.14.09 @ 1:06PM
If 'Dave Matthews' really believed the crap he was spewing about so called 'global warming',he would do the intellectually honest thing....sell his car and kill himself....but nooo...he wants to freedom to do what anAL GOREtentive does...to live ostentatiously while requiring others to do all the sacrificing.....well,not in this lifetime....since the Milankovich cycles indicate we are much closer to reglaciation than to runaway 'global warming', I intend to make as large a carbon footprint for myself as possible....and if Davey boy has a problem with that,then he can go tell his mommy what a bad boy I am and how I need to be punished for not being intimidated by his reactionary scare mongering.
Searcher| 4.14.09 @ 1:08PM
Mr. Matthews,
One may have their own opinions, but one may not have their own facts.
(Fact 1) the mean global tempertature has been falling for the past 12 years, while (Fact 2) CO2 levels as a percentage of atmosphere have continued to rise.
How do you reconcile those two facts if an increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global temperature increase?
Mark H| 4.14.09 @ 1:24PM
Hey David,
* "Conservatives sure are as stupid and uneducated as they are greedy, gluttonous and foolish. I pity poor Jesus ... who would pick this rabble as followers? "
You are a feckless idiot. You have no life, and are dumber than dirt(Your usual response).
If you had half a brain you would argue points instead of name calling. However, when you believe in an ideology that has been proven wrong on every issue throughout history, including global warming. And, you have no empirical evidence to back up your arguments, then, of course you must resort to ridicule as your only argument. How predictable and sad for you.
Mark H| 4.14.09 @ 1:31PM
Here's a typical response to a legitimate question:
Searcher's Question:
One may have their own opinions, but one may not have their own facts.
(Fact 1) the mean global tempertature has been falling for the past 12 years, while (Fact 2) CO2 levels as a percentage of atmosphere have continued to rise.
How do you reconcile those two facts if an increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global temperature increase?
A legitimate question!
Response from David Mathews:
Conservatives and science do not mix. An educated conservative has become as rare as a dodo bird. They left the Republican party, you know ... these educated conservatives were the RINOs and now they are the former Republicans.
The relationship between CO2 and temperate is established by the laws of physics. That the climate is complex is well known to everyone who happens to possess at least a rudimentary education in science.
Note how the response doesn't even attempt to answer the question, because there is no answer that fits the warped nanny-state mindset. He must resort to ridicule as his only defense. Predictable and sad.
Mark H| 4.14.09 @ 1:35PM
Hello David,
* "You must be thinking of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and the entire cast of Fox News.
The conservatives are bitter, angry, whiny, crying losers. If you people want to remain stuck in the 19th century, that is exactly how you shall remain ... politically irrelevant extremists.
Are there any educated conservatives? Where have they all gone? "
More name calling? Is that all you've got? Heard it all before from libs when they can't back-up what they say. Please get back to me when you can back-up what you say without name calling.
Mark H| 4.14.09 @ 1:58PM
Hello David,
* "I am eager to back up everything I say but the conservatives here aren't intelligent or educated enough to ask legitimate questions.
I'd have to begin with preschool science with these conservatives. They aren't advanced enough to understand even elementary school science. "
Here we go again! No substance, just name calling! No facts, just name calling! No real argument, just more ridicule.
To my fellow idiots/conservatives: This is how you can tell you've won the argument with a lib. When they start calling you names because you're too dumb to understand, you've won!
Jack | 4.14.09 @ 2:13PM
The cap and trade thing is dead. No moderate Democrat will support it. It's already been moved back on the calender. What's next to take more money from the ignorant populace ?(conservatives don't count :) Hahaha
Robbins Mitchell| 4.14.09 @ 2:18PM
Has anyone noticed that when 'Dave Mattews' is confronted with actual science,he studiously ignores it?....like my mention of the Milankovich cycles which do an excellent job of correlating the various things which have an actual effect on long term climate changes...like the orbit of the earth,procession of the equinoxes,solar intensity etc....that's the sort of real science that people like him can't deal with because it so clearly puts the lie to his faux scientific propaganda.....and this of course will prompt him to flame me with yet more ad hominems because I dared to use actual scientific cycles to refute him....and as everyone knows,we conservatives aren't supposed to be able to employ actual science in our arguments....foolish boy
chas| 4.14.09 @ 2:40PM
If all homo sapiens are doomed I want David Matthews to go first. However, that would assume he had some sort of life outside of littering The Spectator's comments sections with meaningless drivel. Would this assumption have any basis in science?
Rick Josey | 4.14.09 @ 2:49PM
It's all about Big Government CONTROLLING the people. Whether through green laws or something else. And when their theories are disproven, they simply switch terminology: instead of "global warming," call it "climate change." Yeah, that will cover the gamut from hotter to cooler...
These loons must be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE.
Head for a Tea Party...
www.PatriotHangout.com
Ed| 4.14.09 @ 2:55PM
The benefit is not environmental or economic, it is political. Since virtually everything we do emits CO2, cap-n-trade amounts to world wide socialism, and Al Gore is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and good friend of Soviet apparatchik Armand Hammer.
"Throughout the whole of his life, Al Gore Sr. and his family depended on pay-outs, kickbacks and subventions from Hammer," wrote Neil Lyndon, who worked for Hammer. "Like his father before him, Al Gore Jr.'s political career was lavishly sponsored by Hammer from the moment it began until Hammer died, only two years before Gore Clinton in the 1992 race for the White House."
"Who was Hammer? He was a personal friend of V.I. Lenin. He was known as Lenin's "path" to America's financial resources. He was the first of a long line of Western businessmen to participate in KGB-controlled joint ventures in the Soviet Union. He was the son of Julius Hammer, a founder of the Socialist Labor Party and later the Communist party USA and who served time in Sing Sing for performing illegal abortions. Armand Hammer was called the "Capitalist Prince" by the KGB. He dutifully served the Soviets for seven decades and became the first -- and only -- "American capitalist" to be awarded the Order of Lenin."
Stan Redmond| 4.14.09 @ 3:04PM
Mr. Matthews,
You should be thrilled we are pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere hastening the planet returning to purity by homo sapiens' self induced extinction. Your continuous misanthropic writings lead me to believe anything that will speed up our deaths will be welcome. Do you include yourself in this misonthropy or just us slack jawed neanderthal Jesus freak conservatives?
And as the science of global warming goes. It's not a scientific question. Remember Al gore declared it is a moral issue. He hath declared whatever is measured and observed with new technologies no longer matter because his carefully crafted facts proved his catastrophic predictions will happen years ago.
Jack | 4.14.09 @ 3:06PM
RM,
We have all noticed. He just wants this to be uncomfortable for all of us. That's why he uses our names. (Make it personal).
I do not think he is a bad guy-just a little presumptuous. He knows all of us very well without ever having met or spoken.
Notice he is willing to tax our children and grandchildren to solve A Gore's problem-not enough revenue to play with. But, question A Gore and you are condemning your kiddies to life on an unwholesome planet. OOOOOOO it's such a sure thing! We need to spend the money now! Only ITS NOT THEIR MONEY!!!
Just wish DM would not have jobbed such a name! Hard to listen to the good tunes now! Haha
pat| 4.14.09 @ 3:43PM
David M....I don't want to ruffle feathers, but the weather change, iceberg melts, earthquakes, volcanic activity could be traced to our planet's orbit and alignment . You can read about this on several web sites...including NASA. Apparently, they have designated 2012 as a significant event, possibly causing shifts in the magnetic pull of the planet. This alignment has not happened in over 20,000 years and they have questioned possible meteor hits.
Makes you wonder why America is working so closely with Russia in space. We've never needed them before......why now?
Oh....even the Mayans and Chinese , who studied the stars, predicted 2012 as an earthly change.
These global changes could be related to the alignment. Who knows?
Nem| 4.14.09 @ 3:49PM
Dave
You make an interesting point. To wit, human kind is not essential and that our extinction is preordained (wait a minute! I thought we conservatives were the religious nuts!) And that only when we are all dead and gone will the Earth become the utopia that enviromentalists wish for. So, given that, it seems to me that you should lead the way and swallow a 12 gauge. The rest of us are apparently doomed to follow. By killing yourself, you will take an incremental step toward healing the planet and the rest of us doomed souls will later join you!
Pat| 4.14.09 @ 4:18PM
I'd say NASA has done well enough without your help. It is quite interesting about the black hole (which there are many) they discovered within the Milky Way. It's good read if you dare to ponder the universe. Of course....it is easier to sit in a box.
Pat| 4.14.09 @ 4:21PM
Per Mat:
Combining scientific illiteracy with 2012 superstition ... wonderful! Conservatives are always eager to impress with their ignorance.
The humans are hellbent on self-destruction. God agrees, too, read the book of Revelation. God is also quite willing for humankind to go extinct, read the flood narrative.
-----------------------------------------
Now how can you believe in Revelation and not "fire from the sky"?
Tim| 4.14.09 @ 4:32PM
Here is hoping that "Dave Mathews" is the first to go away in the extinction of the human race.
Anthropogenic effects (If any) are far outstripped by the effects of the sun. Show me science to the contrary. It is a grand conceit to make the assumption that we are the cause...
ben| 4.14.09 @ 4:39PM
Dave Mathews
Your posts are filled with these doomsday scenarios that you and other environmentalist keep saying will happen if we don't do anything.
Can you name 1 prophecy that the environmentalist have been right about? Remember in the 70s they said that if we built the Alaska Oil Pipeline the Carribou would be extinct within 10 years. We built the pipeline and the Carribou's numbers have more than tripled. Now we can't drill in ANWAR because it will cause the extinction of the Carribou. If you envrions were correct in your analysis then the Carribou would already be extinct and would pose no hurdle to Drilling in ANWAR. Look back at all the dire prediction the Environs made if we don't act NOW! Not 1 has ever come true. With an accuracy rate of 0%, how can anyone put any faith into their claims?
JeffW| 4.14.09 @ 4:48PM
Correction David,
Revelation is theology, not mythology but seeing as how you view religon I can understand how you label it as such.
More importantly, I see how you trash any and every idea so I'm curious. Since you believe in :
1. Global warming
2. Mankind is a cancer to the earth.
How do you propose things be handled then? And if mankind is a cancer why even bother trying?
Kevin| 4.14.09 @ 4:54PM
Point 1: Most actual scientists do not at all believe that CO2 is driving global warming. The idea is preposterous on several simple fronts, such as the lack of any historical data indicating the effect, and the fact that CO2 absorption is already saturated at the present concentrations. Problem is, real scientists tend to avoid press conferences: they are busy doing grown up things. They let their professional societies be taken over by moonbats, and then they allow the moonbats to speak for the scientists. As a scientist, I am ashamed to be among those who has allowed this to happen.
Point 2: No government program EVER performs a cost:benefit analysis, unless it is contrived to a certain outcome. Hence Obama will "create" jobs by not counting the jobs lost by diverting capital from entrepreneurial investment. As the recent data from Spain shows, for instance, "green jobs" are created by destroying 2.2. real jobs for every green job.
Kevin | 4.14.09 @ 4:56PM
Point 3: For those new to this blog. We do not acknowledge or respond to David Matthews. He is, some think, a program on a machine somewhere. The big font with each persons name makes it nice and easy to scroll over his entries.
Kevin| 4.14.09 @ 5:00PM
Point 4: See how easy it is to skip over Matthews. A mere six inches of scrolling and you can continue to read what I have written!
Hugo Chavez-Castro| 4.15.09 @ 11:42AM
Here's ONE thing I've never understood. After watching a History Channel show on how large boulders wound up in the middle of pasture fields somewhere, the answer was it was caused by glaciers that carried the rocks from miles away before they finally melted away. So----why then are we so worried about glaciers melting away? Isn't that what glaciers do? Don't they melt away? ANSWER ME! ANSWER ME NOW!
stmichrick| 4.15.09 @ 7:46PM
Hugo; the antidote to climatology deviance is found in geology.
It tells the tale about time and space; it shows what narcissistic baby boomer Global Warmists don't get in their Algore slideshow; that is that they and their activities are a speck in space.
Paul Crowley| 4.15.09 @ 8:10PM
=>"What's the Benefit?"
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
I dismiss the pap about the Good Of Mankind, out of hand.
There's little to demonstrate that human beings are the primary concern in any policy or reform these days.
Without this crisis, then where else are the massive amounts of CO2 necessary for EOR going to come from?
EOR used for rational management of petroleum production (such as the massive petroleum reservoirs here in America that have been shut in--“Drill Baby Drill” the line taught to the “Pro-Life Feminist” rube from Wasilla, and parroted back by her, last year).
If the market system is going to be used, as it appears it is going to be, then the CO2 crisis is certainly something that can facilitate its production.
The CO2 necessary for EOR can’t be produced via a market system without specific regulation that drives the market in that direction.
Certainly none of the fantasy free markateerism of the libertarians ('Adam Smith' Laissez Faire Free Market nonsense), and their "conservative" "fellow travelers" would be capable of bringing about its production.
A couple basics first:
PHOTO SYNTHESIS.
Far and away, the largest Chemical Reaction found on planet earth (our "Home Sweet Home").
Human beings have nothing to do with inventing it.
Human beings only discovered its existence.
Without this chemical reaction, then oxygen in our atmosphere would not exist.
Without CO2 there would be no Photo-synthesis.
Thank God for CO2.
Green-house Effect.
Without it, life as we know it on planet earth, would not exist.
Temperature extremes would vary wildly.
Temperatures would not be stable, as they are.
Thank God for the Green-house effect.
“Clean Coal” (A.K.A. “Carbon-Free Coal”) Technology
“Clean Coal.”
When I first heard the term “Clean Coal” being bandied about by politicians in recent years, then the traditional meaning of term came to mind: Low-sulfur content coal (such as much of the coals mined in the west).
However, the term, as used by these people, and propagandized these days, has been given a new meaning.
“Carbon-Free Coal” Technology
“Carbon-Free Coal” technology for electrical power generation.
First: There is no such thing.
Coal that was “Carbon free” would cease to be coal.
The technology this absurd euphemism refers to is a new process (in the engineering meaning of the term) for coal-fired electrical production plants that remove the CO2 from the flue gases and then liquefy it.
The purpose, as explained by “Clean Coal” advocates (Corporate, Envirionmental activist, Government. . .), is to prevent the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The liquefied CO2 is then to be to be pumped into sub-surface reservoirs for storage.
All done so as To Save Mankind.
This is a TREMENDOUSLY Energy-Intensive process.
Hence the new technology “Carbon-Free Coal” power generation plants requiring 1/4-1/3 of the electrical power generated by them to go the process units and compressors used to separate, liquefy and pump the CO2 into the underground reservoirs.
'HOLEs' UNDER-GROUND
Of course, just the notion of pumping these massive amounts of CO2 into subterranean reservoirs so as to Keep Mankind Safe is an absurd one itself.
If CO2 were the danger that it is presented as being, then this would be akin to the proverbial ‘planting Time Bombs.’
Potentially, one earth quake, or numerous earthquakes, or other geological disturbances, in the future and: BUUuuuuUURRrrp.
The CO2 in the reservoirs, could rise to the surface, undergo a phase change from liquid to gas and be released to the atmosphere.
Technology to guarantee the prevention on a geologic time scale doesn’t exist.
TINKERING IN THE GARAGE?
But, hey!
'Someone' found out you can use CO2 for management of petroleum production!
(Over the course of 50 years of large-scale Research & Development, I’ll add).
Wow, we can Save Mankind, and “Drill Baby Drill,” too.
‘god bless the Free Market’ (The Not-So-Invisible-Hand variety, that is) ‘god bless America.’
I won’t say “God bless” since there’s too much lying, cheating, manipulation, and human misery, going on here.
And, I’d like to know what all of this rationalization of our energy and mineral and human resources, especially bringing our shut-in petroleum production back on line, is ultimately being done for?
Again, given the vastness of Petroleum Reservoirs, then how else are the massive amounts of CO2, necessary for the management of petroleum production via Enhanced Oil Revoery (EOR) techniques developed over the past 50 years, going to be produced?
Paul Crowley| 4.15.09 @ 8:35PM
=>“Hugo; the antidote to climatology deviance is found in geology. It tells the tale about time and space; it shows what narcissistic baby boomer Global
Warmists don't get in their Algore [sic] slideshow [sic]; that is that they and their activities are a speck in space.” [stmichrick]
Hi stmichrick:
I fall into the range of those born during the so-called “Baby Boom.”
I'm an engineer. I’ve completed some basic geology courses, and worked in the oil industry (gasfields in the upstream end of it, on and offshore; refineries in the downstream end of it).
I don’t find you statement that “the antidote to climatology deviance is found in geology. It tells the tale about time and space; it shows . . . that they and their activities are a speck in space” to be especially enlightening.
In fact, your statement SAYs Nothing At All.
It sounds more like the words of a narcissistic ass, who is attempting to sound sophisticated.
So tell me, what age-group social generation do you fall into?
Greatest Gen (1911-38)
Proto-Baby Boom (1939-59)
Baby Boom (1946-59)
Generation X (1960-73)
Generation Y (1974-87)
Generation Z (1988-2001)
NCLB Gen (2001-)
If it is any that range over 1960-2001, then you are among the human beings who received formal TRAINING in narcissism (via applied pedagogical techniques: “Self Esteem”) as narcissists.
Members of this snot-nosed pack should be careful about ‘running off at the mouth’ about others being “narcissists.” Talk about the proverbial “kettle calling the pot black!”
Frankly, the majority of people today should be careful about ‘running off at the mouth’ about other people being “narcissists.”
Paul Crowley| 4.15.09 @ 8:58PM
=>"What's the Benefit?"
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
As I said, its my specuation.
Some of the broader considerations for the reason, I gave in my first post [Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 10:55AM]. Some of the more specific reasons for EOR in particular, I give in my second post [Paul Crowley| 4.15.09 @ 8:10PM].
Paul Crowley| 4.15.09 @ 10:39PM
=>“ ‘Humans have actually paid close attention to the sun for centuries. ‘ ‘Yup again, if you count lighting fires, beating gongs and sacrificing the odd virgin on mid winter's night to bring the sun back.’ [Dave| 4.14.09 @ 9:32AM]
Hi Dave:
I believe that you’ve made a lot of interesting points in your posts.
As to changes in ambient temperatures (“Climate Increase”), then some of the data that I’ve seen does demonstrate that increases in average-ambient temperatures are in fact occurring in many places around the world. And, to be blunt, the fact that this is
occurring in particular instances is quite unremarkable.
Hit Re-Set Button (one that works)
One of your points I’d like to back you up on a bit and see what you think?
This reply by you that I’ve included above to the statement about people having paid close attention to the sun throughout history, I think was too ‘knee-jerk.’
First: I dislike the popular romanticization of primitive peoples, and believe much of the ‘spiritual’ One With Nature theme to usually be garbage (at the least they certainly contain a great many elements that are). So, I have no problem at all with your dismissal of such as “lighting fires, beating gongs and sacrificing the odd virgin on mid winter's night to bring the sun back.” Plenty more could be added.
To The Issue
Your exchange brought to mind, something that I do suspect has a bearing on the “Climate Crisis:”
Urbanization, the new Metropolitan Areas, and Temperature Data.
PRIMITIVES
A good, specific, example of primitive peoples making a quite clever application of observations that were that were made related to “the sun,” is found among the predecessors to the pueblo Indians in the southwestern U.S.A. (especially in what are today New Mexico and southern Colorado). The same can be found among other primitive peoples who lived in arid regions, around the world, where ambient temperature variations, daytime to nighttime, can be quite large: up to 30 degrees differences.
Some of, or someone among, these peoples clearly recognized the phenomenon of rocks and radiant heat energy. In particular that rocks absorbed, and emitted, radiant heat energy. The observation was used to erect short rock walls around patches of land used for farming. The walls would absorb radiant heat energy during daylight hours (absorb & emit after reaching equilibrium) and emit radiant heat energy during the night. That helped in keeping temperatures constant among the vegetable patches. It’s effectively the same application as orchard growers employ when they use fuel-burning heater-pots (apples in the spring; oranges in the fall) to prevent the loss of fruit due to frosts & freezes. The primitive peoples’ application in this instance was to make use of what was readily at hand and a quite good observation, I believe. Just as I’m sure that majority of primitive peoples would never have thought of this, then I don’t believe that the majority
of modern people, if put into the same environment today, would think to do this (on their own, without having prior knowledge of the practice, or principles).
HISTORICAL METRO-Urban Ambient Temperature CHANGES
The new Metropolitan Areas, and Temperature Data.
The majority of the new metropolitan areas in the so-called Developed World, are post-W.W.II creations. In the U.S.A., most have grown in size rapidly since 1967-71 onward (due more to the new interstate highways, not Walmart, which itself was made possible largely due to them, by the way). Many of these have increased in size 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x and more, population and /or area wise. Much of what is now urban metropolitan area was rural farmland, 30-60 years ago.
To The Point
These are now vast regions overlaid with asphalt, concrete, steel, petroleum-base/rock roofing materials, concentrated industries, and millions of peoples. . .
It is unavoidable that, on average, ambient temperatures, in much (for some most), of the regions within the new metropolitan areas will be 5-10 degrees higher, under the same atmospheric conditions, than they were 30-60 years prior.
Like vast heaters: As a result of absorbing radiant heat energy from the sun, during daylight hours (absorbing & emitting after reaching equilibrium) and emitting radiant heat energy during the nighttime, or overcast, hours.
Much of the temperatures data that I see being used as “proof” of “Climate Change” is often historical data gathered in precisely the metropolitan areas of the world. That such data shows a 5-10 degree increase, on average, to be blunt, is quite unremarkable.
What are the average ambient temperature differences recorded on the peaks in the Himalayas or the Alps, or at the south and north poles? And has anything changed where they have been being recorded?
What is the average ambient temperature difference in the atmosphere?
(You’ve addressed this in your posts).
It’s been dropping.
Paul Crowley| 4.15.09 @ 10:52PM
=>“ ‘Humans have actually paid close attention to the sun for centuries. ‘ ‘Yup . . .” [Dave|]
Hi Dave:
Just an elaboration on the Urbanization.
Metro-Urbanization.
About half of the American population was rural ('farm & country') in 1939.
About 5 % of the American population was rural in 1971.
Less than 1 % of the American population is rural today in 2008.
The majority of the last group of native Americans who grew up when about half of the American population was rural are now dead or very aged, and the remainder are dying off rapidly.
The majority of native Americans born 1930 and before are now dead.
The overwhelming majority of native Americans are urbanized, have grown up in urban areas, are mostly clue-less about animals, animal behavior, agriculture, rural un-developed lands, or wilderness.
Most won’t have a clue about what I’ve written above (even the hikers and such), if left only to themselves, their own observations, and their own reasoning. I see no evidence that modern-day human beings are any smarter than primitive human beings were.
Point it out and many will understand it (we're not less intelligent, either).
I’ve been able to observe this directly, in multiple ways, due to having grown up when and where I did:
A one-time small town, with lots of small fields and orchards in and around it, in a river valley, about ten miles from the center of a large city nearby, in the southwest.
The one-time town has now been suburbanized and absorbed into the newly-formed a metropolitan area (especially 1967 onward), as a a so-called ‘bedroom community’ (much like Wasilla, Alaska actually is).
‘City water’ arrived by 1984.
Sewers arrived by 2004.
Even as recently as 35 years ago ambient temperature differed from the center of the nearby city ("in town"), ten miles away, by 5-8 degrees.
Today ambient temperature, where I grew up are about 5-10 degrees higher, on average, and uniform across the entire metropolitan area (now litterally hundreds of squre miles).
“Back when,” even dogs (in their VERY limited way), made ‘observations’ related to the sun:
In late spring, summer, and early autumn, when temperatures dropped at night, and it became chilly, then on some nights, while at home, I might wear a light sweater or flannel shirt.
Some dogs on those nights would sleep on the roads, to be warmed by the asphalt.
The dogs “in town” (in the nearby city) didn’t need to (there it would have been on the concrete sidewalks, which we didn't have).
On such nights, if I was “in town,” then I would be in light, short-sleeve, shirt.
Today, any dog trying to sleep in the road where I grew up would be ‘dead meat’ (all the 2-lane roads are widened to 5-lane roads and traffic, once all-but non-existent, is terribly, “24/7”).
But there’s no reason for them to any longer, or for light sweaters:
It’s all pleasant shirt-sleves temperatures now.
5-10 degrees higher ambient temps, on average.
Carbonicus| 4.18.09 @ 10:05AM
There is an answer to the question posed by the author (what's the benefit?).
The answer is, if all Annex I and II nations signed Kyoto, implemented its CO2 emissions reduction targets, met those targets, and extended theses reductions into perpetuity, the calculated difference in temperature between "business as usual" vs. meeting Kyoto targets right through 2100 is approximately .15 degrees Celsius. Don't miss the decimal.
That's right. .15 degrees Celsius is the difference these policies will make. At a cost of 2-4% of global GDP, EVERY YEAR, right through 2100.
Global GDP in 2008 was about $50 trillion. You do the math.
All for less than a quarter of a degree Celsius 91 years from now, and amount which cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability.
Source: UN IPCC itself and Yale's William Nordhaus, the world's leading economist on global warming policy.
Wake up, America.
Pingback| 4.20.09 @ 9:36AM
Cooler Heads Digest 17 April 2009 | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 2:40PM
Topics about Gampling » Archive » What’s the Benefit? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.28.09 @ 7:46AM
Topics about Gampling » Archive » The American Spectator : What's the Benefit? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Margaret | 9.4.09 @ 9:09AM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Margaret
http://lotterymegamillions.net