20 thoughts on “How The GOP Should Explain Climate Change”

  1. Are you trolling your own site again? I mean, you write 57 posts about how AGW is a hoax, scam or con job, then suggest that the GOP Presidential candidate impose an across-the-board carbon tax. Color me confused.

      1. “It” (AGW) may be a problem, but that has almost nothing to do with whether a carbon tax is a “good approach”. And apart from the fact that none of the climate simulations used as a guide to policy are validated, none of them show a significant climate response to the meager changes in CO2 output that might (or might not) come from increased taxes on fossil fuels.

        Here’s a timely thought experiment: suppose that we could arrange income taxes so that people with a higher income paid a higher percentage of that income in taxes. Do you think that would decrease income inequality?

  2. There is ample evidence that global warming is happening and that human activities are the key factor causing it.

    There isn’t “ample”evidence. There is actually no “evidence” at all. We don’t know if higher CO2 leads to higher temps, or higher temps leads to higher CO2, or neither.

    Science never gives us absolute certainty, but the real uncertainties here are about the future. We do not know how fast temperatures will rise over decades, or the full effects this will have on our world. We do know that the risks are great — for example, large sections of American farmland becoming unusable, coastal cities flooding, 100-plus-degree heat waves, massive wildfires and other extreme events becoming common.

    We don’t know how fast temperatures will rise, but we do know the risks are great: Armageddon. Otherwise known as extreme events. He needs to read those emails again. More slowly maybe.

    My plan does not involve picking winners among energy companies and technologies with subsidized loans.

    We will raise taxes on carbon emissions across the board, while cutting taxes on payrolls and incomes. That means more money in people’s pockets, and more incentives for industry to develop cleaner and safer energy supplies.

    How is raising taxes on carbon emissions not picking winners between energy companies? Some use coal, some use gas, some use hydro. That is borderline incoherent. And “safer”? Safer for whom? Certainly not that poor guy in sub-saharan Africa who has an opportunity to take that better job in the next village over if he can get a used car and gasoline for it.

    This will bring greater energy security for America, including less reliance on imported oil from unfriendly parts of the world.

    Greater energy security for America would include Keystone, gulf leases, and stepping on environmentalist luddites who want to restrict fracking because… it’s icky.

    It also means less of the air pollution, strip mining and oil spills that threaten our environment even aside from global warming.

    If you want less air pollution, strip mining and oil spills, you should be encouraging natural gas exploration. This fracking thing appears to work rather well. So well in fact that Europe and Russia are already plowing into it.

    we will move forward with an American plan that not only cuts back the large U.S. share of global emissions, but also ensures that our nation will be a leader in tomorrow’s energy industries.

    It doesn’t sound like you’re interested in America being a leader in tomorrow’s energy industries at all. But I think we will be anyway. We recently saw a Canadian pipeline company complete a multi-billion dollar purchase of a controlling interest in an Oklahoma-Gulf pipeline for the sole purpose of reversing its flow. Our markets, though far from “free”, are still the most dynamic and adaptive in the world.

  3. President Obama never actually managed to bring a climate-change plan to a vote in Congress

    What’s he talking about? Waxman-Markey passed the House. Were it not for the filibuster, some sort of cap-and-trade plan would be law today.

    1. cap-and-trade is only something you should support if you think the developed world owes a duty to the developing world. To get there you have to have some concepts of “fairness” and “equality”. You need to be ok with sweeping statements like: people in third world countries deserve the same prosperity and lifestyle as people in first world countries. You need to feel guilty that you were born in a first world country instead of a third world country – like your parentage was just some sort of cosmic lottery. When you think of a world without winners or losers you have to feel warm and happy.

      Needless to say, I don’t support cap-and-trade.

      1. To get there you have to have some concepts of “fairness” and “equality”.

        No, you don’t. If it’s actually the case that CO2 emissions by rich countries kill people in developing countries, then the only concept you need is the concept that people shouldn’t have the right to kill other people. It’s no different from believing that people shouldn’t pour poison in their neighbor’s wells, or blow toxic fumes into their neighbor’s windows. If China embarked on a weather modification program that caused deadly storms to hit the US, the US would have grounds to object, grounds that have nothing to do with “fairness” and “equality”.

        1. If it’s actually the case that CO2 emissions by rich countries kill people in developing countries

          Fortunately it’s actually the reverse. CO2 emissions by rich countries lengthen the lives of people in developing countries. Perhaps you’d like to provide some enlightenment on why you’re interested in shortening the lives of people in developing countries.

        2. Umm.. no. I started this so yes, let’s set aside all the doubt about global warming and make it a cut and dried question of what right the first world has to make life harder for the third world. Let’s.

          If it makes our lives better at the expense of yours, too bad. We have the right. We got here first. We won. You lost. Don’t go crying now.

          If you think that is unfair, I consider my first point valid.

          1. We have the right. We got here first. We won. You lost.

            So might is right, law of the jungle? That’s often how things turn out in practice, but most people don’t espouse it as an ideal.

          2. I believe the term you’re searching for is “social darwinism”. It used to be considered a given.. countries that are poor are so because they have yet to achieve wealth. The purpose of a government is to look after the interests of its citizens, and yes that includes interests that are at the expense of foreign interests. The purpose of the United Nations is to avoid wars which are not in anyone’s interest, not to be a world government or to dish out fairness.

          3. So if it advanced the interests of our citizens to kidnap Africans and put them to work as slaves, you’d see no ethical problem with that? How about using them for medical experiments? Weapons testing? Can we help ourselves to their resources? Is there anything short of war that it’s not okay for us to do to non-citizens?

          4. Slavery is essentially about refusing citizenship and sensible people tend to see the danger (to themselves) in refusing citizenship. The US tested nuclear weapons far away from the US, as did the French, and I tend to direct scorn at people who don’t see the value in that, yes. I don’t believe I said war wasn’t okay.. I said the UN is there to help prevent the outbreak of wars that serve no-one’s interests. Wars that serve the interests of the citizens of a nation are not just “okay”, they’re what the nation exists for. I tend to talk about defending the interests of citizens but I could certainly imagine the need for an offensive war to serve the interests of citizens. Ultimately, invading to get resources is not a good option – as in, it’s not very effective – so seeking peaceful avenues first is a good idea. That is, it’s pragmatic..

    2. Were it not for the filibuster, some sort of cap-and-trade plan would be law today.

      There’s a good reason to keep the filibuster right there.

  4. There is actually no “evidence” at all.

    So the National Academy of Sciences is basing its conclusions on no evidence at all?

    You may dispute the evidence, or think it’s being interpreted incorrectly, but there’s apparently enough evidence to convince nearly all the scientists working in the field.

    1. human activities are the key factor causing it.

      “interpreted incorrectly” will work. Which means it’s not really “evidence”.
      “nearly all the scientists working in the field” we went through already. Nothing new?

  5. Stuff and nonsense. I am even more deeply skeptical that a carbon tax designed in Washington will be revenue neutral than I am of AGW. And regardless of what you think the status of the “consensus science” is in the wake of Climategate and Climategate 2.0, there is virtually no evidence that a carbon tax will change temperatures on Earth in 100 years, or change the rate of sea-level rise, or mitigate the drought in Texas. This would be a massively stupid speech for any candidate to give — even Obama.

  6. Jim

    “…..but there’s apparently enough evidence to convince nearly all the scientists working in the field.”

    Twaddle

  7. Not only is Ken Silber wrong, he is lying. He says that most people believe in AGW, when polls clearly show that they do not. He is lying on the orders of his master, David Frum. The FrumForum (originally entitled the New Majority–hahahahaha) was set up as Frum’s personal instrument for moving the GOP to the left. One of his stated aims was support for cap and trade, which he said would help the GOP among independents. Now independents have rejected cap and trade, but Frum refuses to change his views and is distorting polls in order to try to push it through anyway.

    Oh by the way–Frum also is a very, very good friend (wink wink) of effeminate Iranian agent Ahmed Chalabi. I’m sure the Iranian government has much, much information about Frum’s personal life that he doesn’t want to be let out, IYKWIMAITYD.

  8. Jim

    “…..but there’s apparently enough evidence to convince nearly all the scientists working in the field that their jobs and grants should be continued”

    Fixed it for ya.

Comments are closed.