Another carbon tax domino falls – South Korea goes cold on ETS

South Korea announces delay the day after Australia’s carbon tax repeal

Story submitted by Eric Worrall

In a sign that rejection of climate alarm is gathering momentum, South Korea has thrown doubt on its carbon plans. Significantly, the announcement was made the day after Australia abolished the carbon tax. According to the report;

“July 18 (Reuters) – South Korea’s finance minister has called its impending emissions trading market “flawed in many ways”, hinting that he would pressure other ministries to delay the planned 2015 launch, a local newspaper reported.
Choi Kyung-hwan, who is also deputy prime minister, said problems had been found with the scheme, which is due to start in January, and that the government would review them before deciding whether to delay it, modify it or implement it as planned, The Korea Times reported on Friday.”

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6N0PT3CZ20140718

(h/t to WUWT reader Pat)

South Korea’s courageous stand against carbon madness raises hope that Australia’s rejection of carbon pricing will be the domino which topples any chance of global cooperation on CO2

About these ads

218 thoughts on “Another carbon tax domino falls – South Korea goes cold on ETS

  1. Watch the international dominos fall in the coming weeks. Prime Minister Abbott has demonstrated unswerving leadership on this, and deserves credit for doing so.

  2. Concluding sentence of the above piece: “South Korea’s courageous stand against carbon madness raises hope that Australia’s rejection of carbon pricing will be the domino which topples any chance of global cooperation on CO2.”

    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to not address the radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere, that, still growing at geologically breakneck speed, has collectively changed – increased – the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years?

    Is it possible that the issue is not being looked at objectively, but instead in a manner focused on finding ways to discredit the idea of climate change, not consider but simply find ways to attack or dismiss any points that don’t serve to discredit the great bulk of climate science, but yet is being confused with objectivity?

    Here’s a perfect, but routine example, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689228 with comment response. (The original comment that was being responded to, is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689130

    Is it possible that there is a desire to avoid perceived economic harm, which is the real fear here, possibly among other things, and that is powerfully driving a predetermined resistance to the basic science of climate change, and shaping it into a fealty toward any argument or study or idea, regardless of its logical application, that discredits the idea of climate change, while simultaneously finding ways to attack of dismiss any points that don’t serve to discredit the great bulk of climate science?

  3. ‘…….. from over 400 of the country’s largest polluters such as power generators and manufacturers, with the aim of cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) output by 30 percent by 2020 from business-as-usual level’
    “Largest polluters”? Perhaps they should begin by using the less emotive “emitters” rather than “polluters” to introduce a measure of reality into the discussion.

  4. ETS is actually more insidious than a carbon tax. In Australia, 10% of the ETS money went to the UN-the very ones who created the scare in the first place.

  5. john carter ,please do not worry about carbon dioxide .someone has been pulling your leg , it is no more a pollutant than oxygen . now the world has entered a slight cooling phase after a slight warming phase people can put cagw out of their minds for good . the notion a trace gas required for life on earth was going to fry us all was perhaps one of the greatest con tricks the world has ever seen.

  6. John Carter: If it’s intent is good it’s not fascism? Seriously? You have a lot to learn about intent. You first need to understand what science is vs what politics is. Great intent is no excuse for raiding people’s right to truth. That you consider climate science as a whole to be something positive –and use plenty of run on sentences to show you do not understand both sides of the debate is telling.

  7. CO2 is no more a pollutant than water vapor, the other output of the carbon combustion equation.
    The Climate Change-Global Warming Alarmism meme is approaching collapse with each colder winter.

  8. Well, well. The UN secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and UN’s World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, no longer convince even their own compatriot.

  9. John Carter: Carbon dioxide is incapable of “trapping heat”.

    I’m afraid that in the UK, the domino is set in concrete. It will take more than a neighbouring domino to topple it – the madness is deep-rooted in the UK political system and the hangers-on (commonly known as the troughers).

  10. Mario Lento says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:19 am
    John Carter: If it’s intent is good it’s not fascism? Seriously?

    It’s a pretty bold move to read only the short first sentence of a piece, and then comment on it as if you know what the piece was actually saying.

    You should go back and at least read the second sentence.

    Or here, I’ll save you the trouble:

    “If the Intent is good, it’s not Fascism.”

    The above statement is not true, as, unfortunately, Fascism ultimately doesn’t have to have anything to do with intent, and much of it’s formation, often, doesn’t.” http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/fascism.html

    I do recommend reading it of course.

  11. “Well, well. The UN secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and UN’s World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, no longer convince even their own compatriot.”

    My initial thought on this was that S Korea is where the $100 BILLION per year , every year U.N. climate slush fund was to be based. ( Any similarity with the home country of the current UN secretary General being purely conincidental, obviously. It’s just the most appropriate choice ).

  12. John Carter, the issue is that a monstrous scam has been simply revealed over time. As generality is thrust at us under the guise of some preponderance of evidence, the actual details of each point continue to fall apart under inspection. This suggests that not only is it a scam but that the hypothesis of massive water vapor amplification of the old school boring and beneficial greenhouse effect is now proven false. Are you even yet aware that the very basis of climate alarm pivots on this highly speculative positive feedback, hidden in supercomputer climate models? I’ll post this yet again today, for it makes a mockery of your armchair pop psychology outlook on climate alarm skepticism, since you know, you are helping promote a fraud and likely by now you damn well know it’s a fraud too:

    After this fact of fraud is witnessed, you are clearly on the wrong side of civil debate, for you are cheerleading for Enron, basically. How embarrassing do you want to live your life is now the main question here.

  13. John Carter says: July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to not address the radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere, that, still growing at geologically breakneck speed, has collectively changed – increased – the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years?

    I wonder, 120,000 years from now, when the apes drill down the ice cores to check the CO2 levels at the very end of the Holocene, whether they will find this 400ppm spike, or it will have blended out to 270ppm as other ice core spikes have.

  14. phillipbratby says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:39 am
    John Carter: Carbon dioxide is incapable of “trapping heat”.

    I’m gonna refer you to my first comment above, and this from it

    and shaping it into a fealty toward any argument or study or idea, regardless of its logical application, that discredits the idea of climate change, while simultaneously finding ways to attack of dismiss any points that don’t serve to discredit the great bulk of climate science?

    Why else would you post that carbon dioxide is incapable of trapping heat in direct response – yet without a more detailed explanation of the actual air chemistry and physics involved. (Which, speaking in the vernacular, could be reasonably summarized as trapping heat inside the atmosphere, by thermal radiation (heat, from earth’s surface) absorption and re radiation in all directions, ultimately lessening the amount emitted back into space.)

    I mean, I don’t see any other point of your post.

    :

  15. It’s wonderful to see Korea reconsider its proposed destructive and unnecessary CO2 tax, especially just days after Australia repealed its destructive and unnecessary CO2 tax; it’s likely these two events are connected.

    The evidence against the dire scaremongering projections propagandized by leftists is becoming overwhelming, and grows with each passing month of flat/falling global temperature trends. At the current pace, within 5 years, this absurd CAGW hypothesis will have to be abandoned because the empirical evidence will exceed the 95% confidence intervals of virtually all of CAGW’s hypothetical projections for: global warming trends, severe weather trends, sea level rise, OHC, animal extinctions, ocean pH, etc., etc., etc.,

    Governments must immediately abandon their incredibly wasteful spending on inefficient, diffuse, expensive, intermittent and unreliable solar/wind alternative energy debacles and allow the private sector to develop cheap, safe, reliable, abundant and sustainable Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs). All stupid governments need to do is spend a few $10’s of millions in establishing rules/regs/permit/inspection/safety/building code/oversight/etc. legislation to allow the private sector to freely develop LFTR technology and allow the private sector to build them.

    Especially with the growing Shia/Sunni chaos in the Middle East (which has been ongoing since 656 AD) and Russia’s wars of aggression, it’s incumbent upon countries to implement non-petroleum based energy independence for national security reasons.

    Fossil fuels also have adverse REAL pollution impacts (SO2, O3, NO2, Hg, PM2.5, etc) which need to be addressed, although huge reductions of these pollutants have already been accomplished in most Western countries (Google: “EPA air quality trends”).

  16. My Real Science comment regarding Australia axing the Carbon Tax:

    From now on, it’s going backwards for the fear mongering deceivers.

    Arguably the leftist Chicken Littles had reached their high point at the end of 2008. At that point the USA had a president determined to push through a draconian cap & trade system that would cause energy prices to “skyrocket.” And they had super majorities in congress to boot. The meeting in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 would certainly create a rigid global system of strict controls on CO2 emissions and lifestyle. The future never looked so bright for the elitist Prophets of Doom.

    But then…

    Around 2009 people started to recognize that temperatures had been flat for over a decade. That wasn’t what their models had said would happen. And more and more people heard about the CO2 lag and the fact that the ipcc claim that it was proven that CO2 causes temperature change… was absolutely not true.

    Then Climategate hit like a thousands tons of bricks.

    Hide the Decline. “It’s a travesty that we can’t account for missing heat.” Tell Mike to delete all our emails… “Make sure we keep skeptics from getting published.” Etc etc, Climategate hit a month before Copenhagen, and derailed that. Cap & trade, that had just passed the US House and called for hellish 83% cuts in CO2, was also… dead in the water. While many duped conservatives had started to drift into the leftist camp, by a year after Climategate nearly all conservatives had seen the light. (Yeah, with big exceptions like Chris Christie.) And now more and more independents, and even Democrats, are starting to join us.

    It’s true that the Carbon Tax passed after Climategate, and Obama has dictated painful CO2 controls through the EPA. But now any more progress for the doomers is going to be rare. Ultimately Obama’s EPA controls will be stricken down. And more and more people will see the temperature.. dropping, the ice… growing, the sea level… remaining the same, the data manipulations, the media’s bullsh!t, and the nutcase predictions of doom and runaway warming not coming true. Oh, and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

    It’s over folks. The warmists might as well start seriously thinking about abandoning this global warming climate change fiasco, and finding another scam to get their dream of de-industrialization foisted upon an unwilling public.

  17. John Carter,

    CO2 does not ‘trap heat’. It slows it down via re-radiation, like an insulating blanket.

    But that is simply a 3rd-order forcing, which is swamped by second-order forcings. Those in turn are swamped by first-order forcings, thus, CO2 has such a minuscule effect at current concentrations that it cannot even be measured.

    The proof: there are no empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2. AGW may well exist, but it is still an evidence-free conjecture.

    You are getting yourself worried over something so minor that it can’t even be measured. Better to spend your time on something constructive.

    BTW, I note that you are repeatedly linking to your own blog as your ‘authority’. Bad form, John. You are no authority.

  18. South Korea’s courageous stand against carbon madness raises hope that Australia’s rejection of carbon pricing will be the domino which topples any chance of global cooperation on CO2

    I applaud both South Korea and Australia and their recent actions on this CO2 matter. Every little bit helps as they say. But I would not get too rambunctious in celebration, after all it is Europe and the U.S. that has spearheaded this madness from the 80’s until today. The U.S. empire can put a lot of pressure on other countries to vote “correctly” or to enact laws that the empire favors. Hence, getting the truth out there where the public can see it remains very important — the war on the lies of the alarmists continues.

    To continue to “get the truth out there”, I think that many should read the latest post and comment thread on CO2 by “the best European weblog” of 2012 and 2014. The arguments by the physicists are a little hard to follow perhaps, but they were trying to keep it in plain English. Even I was able to gain a lot of insight, so I know most here would benefit.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/what-back-radiation-does-and-doesnt-do/

    As a final note, I grew up in a southern city were almost all homes were heated by burning coal in a furnace. After a snowfall the white snow would turn black from the pollution falling to the ground. We have cleaned up the environment a hell of a lot since the 60s and darn few people ever mention the many, many successes of the conservation movement in its early days before the madmen “environmentalists” took over with their wars on imaginary problems. Once upon a time the biggest problem in the south was all the cities putting untreated sewage water into the rivers that downstream cities had to clean up to use for their citizens. It is a darn sight better now!

  19. South Korea is in competition with Australia. If Australia has withdrawn its carbon tax, it would be an economic folly for South Korea to impose one, since it will make it less competitive.

    The future is in the East, I don’t see South korea going ahead with its plans now that Australia has kicked the habit. The coffee is slowly being smelt. Wake up brave new world.

  20. CAGW is a monstrous lie,that amoral academics and politicians have been gleefully supporting because for them it means unbridled tax-salary-expenses possibilities,

    Taxing free air – what a concept.

    Except now, not only did Climategate expose the academic fraudsters, next their glorious projection models have all failed completely to support their fraud.

    As for politicians they will like S Korea has done, obfuscate and mollify over time rather than tell the truth and cut BS NOW.

    Domino’s? you bet, but more akin to rats and the sinking ship – of fools.

  21. Hey John Carter, how come you reckon you are right and Tony Abbott, and now Choi Kyung-hwan have got it wrong ?

    I’ll tell you the difference here, Tony Abbott was the first to have the guts to call out loud, “The Emperor Has No Clothes”.

    Just you watch the rest follow.

  22. The problems as mentioned by the deputy prime minister are that Korean industry is complaining that it will hurt their competitiveness and it will be a burden to the companies.

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/07/133_161055.html

    The Federation of Korean Industries has estimated that the tax would cost Korean industry 26.6 billion US$ between 2015 and 2017.

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2014/07/123_161284.html

    Yvo de Boer, currently director-general of the Global Green Growth Institute located in Seoul, thinks that Korea should not postpone this system. However, he agrees with another flaw: current CO2 emission BAU levels are not accurate. A reasonable baseline is necesarry.

    http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2014/07/15/88/0302000000AEN20140715007600320F.html

  23. to eric worrall & Peter –

    thank you both for putting up the links to this story. i have a strong feeling South Korea has now seen the light, & will not go down this route following the repeal of the carbon tax/ETS in Australia.

    sanity must prevail.

  24. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
    ////////////////
    John

    There are some who consider that rising levles of CO2 is a cause for concern.

    There are others who consider (and in my opinion correctly) that “…CO2 has such a minuscule effect at current concentrations that it cannot even be measured. The proof: there are no empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2. AGW may well exist, but it is still an evidence-free conjecture.” (see dbstealey says:July 19, 2014 at 2:21 am). I myself would slightly qualify that so that it read “…CO2, if it has any effect at all, has such a miniscule effect…..”

    But leaving aside the issue as to whether Co2 is or is not acause for concern, the issue here is the response. And that is what I take issue with.

    A Carbon Trading Scheme and tax, does not reduce CO2 emissions one iota. At most, it redistributes where those emissions come from, without on a global level reducing the emissions. But for the main part, it does not even do that. It merely means that an additional cost is incurred (the carbon tax) which additional expense is past onto the consumer. It merely means that the cost of goods and services goes up, and everyone (well apart from the fundmangers trading in those schemes) are poorer. Hit its the poorest the hardest since they have the least disposable income.

    Accordingly, the policy is a FAIL, if its purpose is to reduce CO2 emissions. Proof of this is that we have had such schem for years and global emissions have continued to rise.

    The same is true of reneawable energy (wind and solar). They do not result in the reduction of CO2 emissions, because of the need for conventional backup. Given the vagrancies and unreliable nature of wind and solar such that at times it produces NO repeat NO net energy, 100% backup is required. Evidence suggests that windfarms are about 25% efficient (may be longer term it will be less pehaps falling to 20/21%) and that means that on average conventional backup is required for 75% of the time. One might think that would result in a 25% saving in CO2 emissions in line with the 25% realtime contribution by wind. But that is not the case, since the backup has to be operated in ramp up/ramp down mode. This is like the start stop motoring in a car, In urban driving (where the average speed can be 12 mph or less, London is often said to be about 5mph), the fuel economy of all petrol and diesel cars is significantly worse than when driving on the motorway/freway at speeds of 60 to 70mph. accordinly, although the conventionally fossil fueled backup is only called upon on average to produce energy for 75% of the time, the amount of fuel used and hence CO2 emitted, is as much as if it had been used 100% of the time as conventional baseload generation.

    Accordingly, the policy is a FAIL, if its purpose is to reduce CO2 emissions. It simply does not achieve any reduction in CO2 emissions.

    The position is simple. If one is concerned about CO2 emissions, then the only viable policy is to go nuclear. Presently, that is the only technology that will achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions.

    So two issues arise. One is the science. This will out in the end. May be in 10 years or 20 or 30 years we will know the answer as to whether CO2 causes any significant and measurable warming. It is just a question of time.

    The second issue, is the political response. May be it is folly to respond to an issue that we do not know is a problem. I have my views on that. However leaving that aside, for the sake of argument, lets accept that it is sensible to respond to a percieved ‘threat’ . Well if that is the case, then the policy must result in curbing the devil at the heart of the threat, ie. to achieve a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions. The Carbon tTrading Scheme and tax does not achieve that result. Nor does the drive towards renewables. Both are policy FAILS on a grand scale.

    Should the cAGW theory come crumbling down, the backlash will be substantial. Not because the uncertainties of the science were covered up, but rather because it is obvious that the policies which have been conducted as huge expense, never did and never could result in a significant reduction of CO2 on a global basis. Even a 12 year school child on analysing the date can see that this is a reality, and it is for this reason that there will be such a huge public backlash.

  25. “John Carter says:

    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am

    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to not address the radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere,…”

    Fails right off the bat!

  26. Greg wrote about the UN Green Climate Fund. Last time I read about it, the Secretariat had been happily established in South Korea, and had spent the money already allocated to this purpose on, well, establishing a Secretariat. But maybe more fresh money has arrived lately.

    The 100 billion dollar goal must however be way over the horizon, remember, the plan is to dole out this sum EVERY YEAR, which means that the bank account must be replenished with this amount annually, as it is hardly likely that this gigantic sum could come from interest rates?

    And half of it is supposed to be “given” by private business, which should give governments a great opportunity to hold back their part, if the companies don’t play the greenie game.

    I suspect that the fund so far only has a rather measly amount of money, judging by the silence from MSM on the subject.

  27. “Under South Korea’s scheme, which could be the world’s second-largest if launched, emissions will be capped at around 547 million tonnes per year between 2015-2017, according to the environment ministry. Firms will be given free allowances based on their historical CO2 output levels but must buy more in the market if their emissions exceed allocated levels….

    But some analysts have warned that the market’s emissions cap will be too low and have forecast that the South Korean carbon price could rocket towards $98, which is the penalty firms have to pay per tonne if they don’t meet their targets.”

    Well perhaps they can purchase extra indulgences from North Korea. Apparently, Cuba and North Korea are on “sustainable” diets already and may have some credits they can sell to South Korea.

  28. ON the EPA and the U.S I suspect that the EPA is facing quite a legal battle on it’s regulations,if it intends to try to enforce them as law. I wonder if it knows the extent of the battle it faces,as I suspect each and every one of them will be challenged.

  29. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am

    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to not address the radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere

    Usually I just ignore John Carter’s posts since he just seems to be trolling for clicks to his blog, but this jumped at me. By greenhouse gases, I have to assume he means CO2, since I haven’t heard of anyone advocating limits to water vapor emissions. To make a long story short…

    Increase of CO2 content in the atmosphere for the past 50 years as measured at Mauna Loa:

    Sure, that looks like a radical change. Not.

  30. richard verney says: July 19, 2014 at 2:43 am, “South Korea is in competition with Australia.”

    Bingo, Competition will kill the carbon tax schemes. China is not going along with the CO2 scam and no one can afford to let them get more of a financial edge.

  31. John Carter asks, “Is it possible…?”

    If the past is prologue

    then I’d say it’s very, very, very, very, very (did I say very?) unlikely.

  32. Economic self-interest to the rescue. “Why should I chop my foot off if you aren’t going to chop yours off”? The more valid question of why anyone should chop their foot off can come later.

  33. Howard Baker recently passed away in the US. He was a powerful player in the global warming scam for many decades. Political mentor to Al Gore and arch pro nuclear politician being just two lines on his long resume. He was a driving force in federal funding for dodgey climate science used to baffle a clueless public. Active to his last days we have seen the passing of a founding grifter of the big scam. RIP

  34. John Carter, one word – logarithmic.

    Which of course leads directly to another – asymptotic.

    Which means you can throw away your rubber sheet.

  35. John Carter (July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am) “…the great bulk of climate science…the great bulk of climate science…”

    The great bulk of climate science says global temperatures should be warming at 0.2C per decade right now and accelerating, but instead we see 0.1 or less and decelerating. Some bloggers (although not the great bulk of climate science) now suggest that the heat is disappearing into the deep ocean. But the models model the ocean including the deep ocean. So on the one hand we are supposed to believe that 17 years of warming at 0.1C per decade is a mere weather fluke of ocean warming that somehow cannot be modeled even though it is allegedly caused by CO2 warming the atmosphere and somehow transferring into the ocean. While on the other hand we are supposed to believe that the models will be vindicated by 2050 or 2100 and the atmosphere will suddenly start heating instead of that warming being sequestered in the ocean?

    As others have suggested, you need a new hobby. Alarmism is so mid-2000’s.

  36. “since I haven’t heard of anyone advocating limits to water vapor emissions. To make a long story short…”

    Give them time

  37. One country ending carbon tax, and another proposing to, is not “a sign that rejection of climate alarm is gathering momentum”
    Get some gorm please.
    …_

  38. The true progressives are those standing up against the social madness of climate obsession.

  39. John Carter,
    If one takes the time to review the climate assumptions in your first post, the results are that many of your questions become irrelevant.
    You do outline in your economic summary, Pielke’s iron law rather well however. People are not going to inflict on themselves an actual injury today to avoid a poorly demonstrated dubious problem tomorrow. And when those proposing the self-injury are increasingly seen clearly as less than credible, it is even less likely that this will willingly happen.
    Which sheds some light on the frequent calls by the climate obsessed to abandon civil society and democratic means to facilitate imposition of the climate obsessed agenda.

  40. Mike McMillan says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:47 am

    I wonder, 120,000 years from now, when the apes drill down the ice cores to check the CO2 levels at the very end of the Holocene, whether they will find this 400ppm spike

    No problem for the ice cores. The current increase over the past 160 years will be seen is a spike of 325 ppmv in the worst resolution (560/600 years) ice cores over a span of 800,000 years. But there are 40 year resolution ice cores which span 140,000 years, thus these will show a spike of around 375 ppmv over the past 40 years. But as the emissions/increase still is growing…

  41. Global warming is a huge hoax so that Obama can set his cronies up in “green” businesses paid for by our tax dollars! We are being lied to and stolen from on a daily basis. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING. Say it. Believe it. Live it!

  42. catweazle666 says:
    July 19, 2014 at 4:43 am

    John Carter, one word –logarithmic.

    Which of course leads directly to another – asymptotic.

    Which means you can throw away your rubber sheet.

    Perhaps wearing it is a better option. As a warning to the rest.

  43. John Carter, I have condensed your remarks to the following, for ease of following your logic:

    We should be in panic mode about carbon dioxide being different than some level in the past. People who refuse to go into panic mode are trying to use science incorrectly to justify their position, and are doing it from a simple-minded view of having it cost more to mitigate than it would cost to just adapt.

  44. hunter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 5:21 am

    John Carter,
    If one takes the time to review the climate assumptions in your first post, the results are that many of your questions become irrelevant.
    You do outline in your economic summary, Pielke’s iron law rather well however. People are not going to inflict on themselves an actual injury today to avoid a poorly demonstrated dubious problem tomorrow. And when those proposing the self-injury are increasingly seen clearly as less than credible and proposing schemes that only lead to their own enrichment and not worldwide reductions in CO2, it is even less likely that this will willingly happen.
    Which sheds some light on the frequent calls by the climate obsessed to abandon civil society and democratic means to facilitate imposition of the climate obsessed agenda.

    I would add the above bolded change to what you wrote..

  45. John Carter–
    I appreciate your politely stated and earnest concern. Certainly, CO2 will cause some warming, but the actual data, rather than the models, demonstrate that the magnitude of this warming is more on the order of academic trivia than catastrophic climate change. It is hard to support massive public action, akin to swatting a fly with a sledge hammer.

  46. “Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to characterize what is happening as a radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere, that, still growing at geologically breakneck speed, has collectively changed – increased – the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years?

    Bold mine.

    Makes more sense now.

    And, yes, it is possible that it is madness or at least extraordinarily counter productive, although I’m leaning toward a combination of both.

  47. Would someone please remotely disable “John Carter”‘s comma key? On the other hand, if we wait long enough it’ll likely wear out all by itself.

  48. John Carter: Aren’t you even a little bit suspicious that every civilization-level crisis that comes along (over-population, resource depletion, AGW etc) ALWAYS results in the same solution being advanced: Higher taxes and more government control. If not, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn 97 percent of my friends say is for sale.

  49. “In a sign that rejection of climate alarm is gathering momentum, South Korea has thrown doubt on its carbon plans.”

    That is the big take-away here:

    another country is expressing doubt about the rationality of its “carbon plan”.

    Even a little more sanity is comforting.

  50. Sunshine +H2O +CO2 = Food(sugars) +O2

    Just add some minerals(usually from the soil) and you get the irrefutable law we were all taught in elementary school…………….photosynthesis.

    If any of those 3 key elements is deficient, photosynthetic output is reduced.
    If we receive only 1/3 the ideal amount of rain needed, we call it a drought and its obviously a limiting factor.

    If only 1/3 the ideal amount of sunshine is present, it’s also a limiting factor.

    With CO2, we’ve gone from 280 ppm(which was less than 1/3 the ideal amount) to 400ppm, which is still far short of ideal. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently a limiting factor. It should be boosted by another 400 ppm to get close to ideal.

    Give plants what they need to maximize photosynthesis!

    All animals eat plants or something that ate plants.

  51. So all I need to know following the eventual collapse of the greatest deception of the 20th century
    re the miss selling of CO2 as a tax lie by Govt., is which firm of Lawyers will be first to represent us ‘plebs’, say for example reclaiming the substantial amount of yearly vehicle excise duty I’ve been wrongly forced to pay for quite a number of years now.
    ( I wont hold my CO2 in for too long on this one as I think I already know the answer)

  52. Is it possible that John Carter is an Alarmist troll, attempting to appear to look objective, and asking agenda-driven comments based solely on his illogical and irrational Belief system, which he mistakenly bases on what he terms the “science of climate change”, which is itself an illogical argument known as circular reasoning?

  53. John Carter~ It is possible, and completely obvious, that there is a desire to address economic harm, but you have it the wrong way around. The economic harm is being caused by the flattening of energy production rates. AGW is the political vehicle being utilized to scare, ideologically inspire, and eventually legally mandate that the general population use less energy, or in some cases to entirely prevent some people from developing fossil fuel energy infrastructure. AGW is the chosen method for the mitigation of what some call ‘peak oil’. It is the sort of mitigation method one should expect from the oligarchs that pull the strings. Some of those oligarchs represent Big Oil, and they know better than anyone else what happens when extraction rates go flat while population increases~ energy per capita must go down. They cannot simply inform the general populace of the true problem. That would throw markets into chaos. They don’t want chaos~ they want to stay on top while the ship inevitably goes down. That is why Big Oil funds climate alarmism (RD Shell gives money to the University of East Anglia as one example). Currently, coal is the chosen victim of AGW alarmism, which makes perfect sense, because coal is an energy competitor with oil/natural gas. We are moving into a zero-sum game with energy market share. Politically, collectivist neo-feudalism is the best way forward for them. They will fail, and the AGW nonsense will fail (due in no small part to the true scientists and bloggers that fight falsehood). Unfortunately, we will still be left with the reality of diminishing fossil fuel energy. The ship is indeed going down, and nothing can prevent it, but WE will be the ones who decide the path foreword, not THEM.

  54. NikFromNYC says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:47 am
    John Carter, the issue is that a monstrous scam has been simply revealed over time

    I don’t think it’s a scam at all. And I think (In the rest of your comment) your assertion that it is a fraud, and that I know it is a fraud, borders on …….

    To accuse someone of that for having ideas, let alone ideas and opinions that are grounded in science (but even when they aren’t, people, including everyone on here, have the right to be wrong) is moving toward this: http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/fascism.html In other words, the angrily expressed sentiment that someone else is not entitled to their opinions or their advocacy of what they believe to be right, just as you and others have that right (wrong or right, though I believe here wrong, though you maybe), is one step removed from what that piece,in part, talks about.

    As for the issue, it may be a mistake. but I certainly don’t think so. This comment back to Lord Monckton I think helps somewhat to illustrate why
    I could be wrong. (Actually I’m just saying that to be diplomatic. The basics, the same thing you are calling a fraud, is incontrovertible. And while the basics don’t guarantee a radical level of ultimate change, they do guarantee ranges that strongly suggest that ignoring the issue is extremely counter productive, and unfair to our kids theirs.)

    hunter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 5:21 am

    John Carter,
    And when those proposing the self-injury are increasingly seen clearly as less than credible, it is even less likely that this will willingly happen.
    Which sheds some light on the frequent calls by the climate obsessed to abandon civil society and democratic means to facilitate imposition of the climate obsessed agenda.

    Is there any connection between the “increasing non credibility” of climate scientists and the very points I made in my first post above? That is, is powerfully driving a predetermined resistance to the basic science of climate change, and shaping it into a fealty toward any argument or study or idea, regardless of its logical application, that discredits the idea of climate change, as well as climate scientists along with their credibility? I mean it’s an advertising and repetition and exposure world, so the constant often unwarranted public attacks on climate scientists, and the constant pattern of clinging to and then constantly and publicly re asserting any argument or study or claim that finds ways to dismiss attack or discredit climate scientists, their credibility, or any points that support the great bulk of climate science, would seem to likely result in a lower public perception of climate science credibility than is perhaps warranted.

    You mention Pielke. I had one question for Pielke, as even he applies a vastly different (higher) standard to climate scientists,than he does to climate scientist detractors. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mistake-to-lie.html?showComment=1405497774336#c2474801445524985291 No answer yet.

    Regarding civil society, I think the first half of this first comment here, from NikinNY who said advancing climate change concern was a fraud, and that I “damn well know” it (see original comment, i didnt reprint it) speaks directly to this. And that the lack of civility only seems to be recognized when a “side” one doesn’t agree with, engages in it. (Though note that while I think climate change is a huge problem, and that there has been excessive misinformation and in particular industry backed “iffy” information campaigns, yesterday printed a piece saying that a professor who in a notable magazine op ed was frustratingly calling for criminalization of industry misinformation on climate change, was ultimately suggesting something akin to a key part of Fascism.) But I see absolutely outrageous and near constant calls for climate scientists to be jailed, for really just doing what they are supposed to do or mistakes therein, by a standard that would have most of the scientists supporting climate change denialism,by their level of mistakes (never seemingly recognized by the climate denialists who instead tend to support them) hanged 10x hanged over. It is remarkable. It’s not just a double standard. There is no standard.

    I’ve love to see that exact same lack of any standard applied to much of the incorrect information and mistakes (not that are realized here, perhaps, but I can tell you it’s otherwise pretty visible) on the part of scientists and affiliated groups who provide similar incorrect or misleading information or assertions in favor of discrediting the bulk of climate science. It’s be wild. (Such as the standard that was applied, and still is today, toward some private emails that refercened trying to get a chart properly aligned between data sets in a pretty normal routine, and said that they needed to keep misinformation out of scientific journals (since misinformation is leading to a lot of misunderstanding on this issue) being turned into the “science scandal of the decade or century,” when the real scandal was the lack of objective judgment on it, and that it was one more thing, and a big one, to cling a hold of and use to discredit climate scientists, and climate science.

    Hence why – this pattern – such credibility is seen as low. A campaign of misinformation and attack, as another way to discredit climate science.

  55. Mike McMillan says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:47 am
    I wonder, 120,000 years from now, when the apes drill down the ice cores

    You think it will be apes? Same pattern all over again?

    To answer your question for me, no, I don’t think they will find something that different than what the current levels are. Unless they are really bad at ice core sampling. Yes, I acknowledge stuff from the past is hard to accurately fathom. But it seems to me finding ways to now discredit ice core sampling is another way,another angle, by which to attack and discredit the bulk of climate science. I think the current levels are pretty high, because it took hundreds of millions of years to get a lot of carbon out of the air through plant matter buildup, radically dropping the levels from times way past (in general,I know it’s fluctuated). And we’re taking a lot of that stuff and re releasing it back into the atmosphere.

    dbstealey says:
    July 19, 2014 at 2:21 am
    John Carter,

    CO2 does not ‘trap heat’. It slows it down via re-radiation, like an insulating blanket.

    Obviously. Trapping heat is a simple term to use to reflect that it keeps some heat from escaping the earth/atmosphere system that otherwise would. See my comment in response to the first educator also pointing this out. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/another-carbon-tax-domino-falls-south-korea-goes-cold-on-ets/#comment-1689515 You posting it is fine, but out of the blue trying to immediately undermine the credibility of someone who posts something that is not in line with discrediting the bulk of professional climate science, is consistent with original point. Plus, more importantly, you at least gave info, so makes it a helpful comment to others.

    richard verney says:
    July 19, 2014 at 3:14 am

    John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
    ////////////////
    John

    There are some who consider that rising levles of CO2 is a cause for concern.

    There are others who consider (and in my opinion correctly) that “…CO2 has such a minuscule effect at current concentrations that it cannot even be measured. The proof: there are no empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2.

    Richard, that’s an illogical conclusion you just drew. The absence of empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2 does not have anything to do with the issue of the role that gg gases play. We cant do it I(If we can’t) because we don’t otherwise know exactly what the climate would be in the absence of any external radiative forcing (i.e, what we’ve added) That is the nature of climate. It doesn’t mean that on the other hand, we know nothing, or can’t draw general conclusions. Otherwise this is just a tautology and means that because we can’t know some specific knowledge, we can’t know anything else. It also is irrelevant. Climate normally is pretty stable in so far as our recent evolution goes. The issue is the likely radical change to whatever it was going to be. Not the exact “base,” whatever that was. A) we can’t change that B) it is, probability wise, going to have been pretty stable (maybe even get a little colder slowly, irony of ironies. Depends where we draw the line at additive changes though> Pre European deforestation? Pre industrial? Pre mid-industrial? Etc.)

    Re the “minuscule effect” presumption, in another comment (here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689618 ), I suggested: There is nothing to support that idea. And an excessive amount of presumption reflected that man can’t, or wouldn’t inadvertently be able at this point to have a massive effect on the ecology (and ultimate climate) of the world in which we live, or that we are not deeply in the process right now.

    It also doesn’t really jive with our general knowledge. GGs are not trapping anywhere near the total heat being radiated back out by the earth. Yet levels of CO2 around ~250 up or down a bit along with a few other lesser long lived GGs, traps enough heat to keep the earth around 59F, average, and not around 0F average. Add more and they are going to trap (“absorb > re radiate, bla bla) more heat. The amount that has been added of CO2 alone (CH4 N20 and the man made CFCs and HCFCs,etc, also up) is a 43% increase or something over pre industrial levels. It’s a HUGE increase. And it’s a huge increase in geologic terms – again, at least on the order of reaching a two million or more year high.

    Also, the issue is not the warming of the atmosphere, or what temperatures we can measure now (but they have been going up, http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world. and not insignificantly http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/

    It’s longer term stases changes to otherwise relatively stabilizing (and stable) systems, that are slowly trying to change, and the ocean, which directly drives climate, as well as plays a huge role in affecting all the ice stases conditions. And the oceans have been accumulating a lot of heat energy, which is where much of the increased “trapped” radiation energy has gone.
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/ocean-heat.html http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/where-global-warming-going-ocean-20140205

  56. John Carter: If it’s intent is good it’s not fascism? Intent is a matter of opinion, isn’t it? I’m pretty sure the Nazi’s ‘intent’ was good from their point of view. So was Stalin’s ‘intent’ good when he shipped those folks to the Gulag.

    “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” or the original “L’enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs” (hell is full of good wishes and desires) Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

  57. John Carter:

    CO2 is still increasing, probably due to release of CO2 sequestered in the oceans as a result of the natural interglacial warming we have been experiencing for about 16,000 years, but temperature has not increased for about the last 18 years in spite of this. Other natural climate variables are obviously overwhelming the very minor effects of this trace gas, which also happens to be necessary for life on this planet. Ever heard of photosynthesis? You should be much more concerned about the glaciers returning, which they most likely eventually will, as that has been the natural condition of our planet for a couple of million years now. This warming is a brief respite from the real killer which is cold. Cold brings famine, disease and war. On the other hand, warm might cost some folks their beach houses. Take your pick.

  58. Folks, please remember that the goal of fanatical “Climate Science” (as embodied by Mr. Carter’s comments above) has NEVER been about understanding the climate. In fact, it has ALWAYS been about controlling people’s lives through taxation and use of force, and thereby destroying the liberty and freedoms we presently enjoy.

  59. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
    ………….
    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to not address the radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere, that, still growing at geologically breakneck speed, has collectively changed – increased – the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years?

    So what? The greening biosphere is bad? You talk of the rapid increase in co2, but where has the warming gone? Global warming has stopped; climate sensitivity is not so sensitive.

    Here is unprecedented climate change in the last 15,000 years.

    IPCC – TAR – 2001
    The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/074.htm

    —————–

    Abstract
    Richard B. Alley
    Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes
    …..As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades…….

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

    —————–

    Abstract
    Pierre Deschamps et al
    …Controversy about the amplitude and timing of this meltwater pulse (MWP-1A) has, however, led to uncertainty about the source of the melt water and its temporal and causal relationships with the abrupt climate changes of the deglaciation. Here we show that MWP-1A started no earlier than 14,650 years ago and ended before 14,310 years ago, making it coeval with the Bølling warming. Our results, based on corals drilled offshore from Tahiti during Integrated Ocean Drilling Project Expedition 310, reveal that the increase in sea level at Tahiti was between 12 and 22 metres, with a most probable value between 14 and 18 metres, establishing a significant meltwater contribution from the Southern Hemisphere. This implies that the rate of eustatic sea-level rise exceeded 40 millimetres per year during MWP-1A.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/nature10902.html

    —————–
    Abstract
    Reef drowning during the last deglaciation: Evidence for catastrophic sea-level rise and ice-sheet collapse
    Elevations and ages of drowned Acropora palmata reefs from the Caribbean-Atlanticregion document three catastrophic, metre-scale sea-level-rise events during the last deglaciation…..

    [paper]
    …. Such drowning eventsmust have been truly catastrophic, involv-ing—to our knowledge—the fastest rates of glacio-eustatic sea-level rise yet reported…..The exact duration of the CREs is unknown but, given that the mini-mum rate of sea-level rise was >45 mm/yr,the duration of the 14.2 ka event must have been…..

    http://www.academia.edu/200254/Reef_drowning_during_the_last_deglaciation_Evidence_for_catastrophic_sea-level_rise_and_ice-sheet_collapse

  60. Carter says:

    The absence of empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2 does not have anything to do with the issue of the role that gg gases play.

    But it has everything to do with the global warming debate. Since there is no real world evidence showing that human activity is the cause of global warming, that leaves you with True Belief. You are desperate to believe, so you cherry-pick, and you presume, and you baselessy assert, and you appeal to your corrupt authorities, and you do anything else you can to feed your confirmation bias. That is not science.

    Carter says:

    …trying to immediately undermine the credibility of someone who posts something that is not in line with discrediting the bulk of professional climate science…

    Earth to Carter: it is the duty of scientific skeptics to try and find holes in conjectures. The fact that there are so many holes in the cAGW conjecture makes it very easy for us to deconstruct it.

    I understand that you don’t like the result. It contradicts your belief. But the fact is, there is no real world evidence supporting your belief. It is clear from your incessant arguing that you will never abandon your belief based on the complete lack of empirical evidence. That is because you don’t have what it takes to be a skeptic. Being a True Believer is very easy; being a skeptic is hard. You’ve taken the easy way out, but the downside is that your conclusions are flat wrong.

    There is no measurable evidence for AGW. Nothing happening now is either unusual or unprecedented. It has all happened before, and to a greater degree. Once you accept those facts, the only logical conclusion is that AGW is a non-issue. It just does not matter. At all.

  61. Carter, i am sure if I give the government more money they will solve the “problem” after all their track record is so great.
    Isn’t it funny how the government gets larger and the middle class keeps getting poorer, the rich get richer and less likely to fall out of the rich class. All government and taxes do is control the masses so the rich don’t have to compete to stay on top.

    Even if you’re right about climate change your solutions are ridiculous, lucky for us you are just as wrong on the science.
    BTW you writing style is nearly as incomprensible as your logic. But you are good at annoying people so kudos on that.

    Could you please explain the increase in UFO sightings with the rise in CO2 this is what really worries me. Maybe we should get the UN to start working on our planetary defense system. I bet you’ll be happy to pay more taxes for that, I know I am.

  62. One important South Korean still needs to be turned around. His name is Ban Ki Moon.

  63. Roderick Rbe Schuller says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:15 am
    […] The monetary system being the biggest fraud of all!! Central Banking is what needs to go!!

    Correction: the monetary system is misunderstood by 99% of the population, which allows those that do (banks) to game it to the 99%’s detriment and continue the decimation of the middle class. The US federal monetary system is 100% different–and opposite–from the monetary system that state/local govts, businesses, households and foreign banks/govts must function and operate under with respect to the US dollar.

    Correction: central banks, properly administered and regulated, prevent panics and runs on banks. Why? Because they, the central banks, maintain the reserves that individual banks would otherwise have to maintain within their four walls, which a bank panic can deplete in a few days. Central banks (except the ECB, by design) are the ‘lenders of last resort’. 19th C America was nothing but one long panic/bank run after another, destroying the wealth and property of farmers, ranchers, and small businesses for a century. In the US, the regional Federal Reserve banks, owned by the banks in the region, maintain their reserves at the regional Federal Reserve bank. US banks only need to maintain ‘vault cash’ to service the walking-around money their customers require on a daily basis.

    In the US, it is the duty and legal requirement of Congress to regulate the Federal Reserve.

  64. The climate dogmatists denounce anyone who disagrees as “deniers” or worse, but Australia’s vote shows that the real obstacle to their dreams of controlling more of the world’s economy is democratic consent.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/australias-carbon-tax-message-1405616207

    Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

    “But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”
    Obama State of the Union speech

  65. John Carter says:

    I see absolutely outrageous and near constant calls for climate scientists to be jailed, for really just doing what they are supposed to do or mistakes therein, by a standard that would have most of the scientists supporting climate change denialism,by their level of mistakes (never seemingly recognized by the climate denialists who instead tend to support them)…

    What planet are you from, Carter? Because here on Earth, the calls to jail scientists come from the alarmist crowd. Skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist] have lost their jobs for simply expressing a different point of view. Scientists are routinely ostracized by the alarmist cult, which allows no dissent from the Party line. Apostates are viciously attacked by mindless numbskulls who label them ‘denialists’. But that’s here on Earth. Maybe on your planet it’s different.

    Are you proud to be a part of that intolerant crowd? You certainly condone those actions: you label people who have a different scientific point of view as “denialists” — a disgusting pejorative that only reflects on you. Anyone using that stupid term is automatically self-labeled a jerk. They cannot think of a rational response, so they label their opponents with that mindless term. It reflects very badly on you, John. Stop it.

    As a religious fanatic with no reasonable arguments, it is clear that we will never be able to convince you by using facts and logic. Your mind is made up, and closed tight. AGW is your religion. You will never give it up.

    But the world is moving away from your scientific lilliteracy; witness Australia’s rejection of their stupid “carbon” tax. It has taken a long time, but the fools are finally being marginalized. It is a pleasure to watch.

  66. John Carter

    I am trying to help you here. You can be on the cutting edge of the next major crisis, you can be the one that saves the world and gets the cash. The link between co2 and temperature is unraveling but the link between co2 and an increase in the greening of the planet is undeniable. Even all the Deniers here will agree with that.

    Since there is a documentable increase in UFO sightings at the same time the answer must be obvious to even you. Whether its man made or natural, co2 is the enemy because it is causing our planet to be more attractive to Aliens. We either need the UN to force a decrease in co2 or we need to beef up our planetary defenses.

    You could be the voice; the one that saves the world. I personally would go with beefing up our planetary defenses. Lowering co2 will be harder and you have to find away to feed all the people that will be starving from the decrease in harvest yield, but I leave it you to decide. You are, after all, the expert.

  67. “19th C America was nothing but one long panic/bank run after another, destroying the wealth and property of farmers, ranchers, and small businesses for a century.”

    Whereas, in a century of the money supply being controlled by the Glorious People’s Fed, the value of the dollar has fallen by around 95%. Which is clearly better. Or something.

  68. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to not address the radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere, that, still growing at geologically breakneck speed, has collectively changed – increased – the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years?

    Greenhouse gases absorb in the infrared. Your comment shows you don’t understand that.

  69. “Whether its man made or natural, co2 is the enemy because it is causing our planet to be more attractive to Aliens. We either need the UN to force a decrease in co2 or we need to beef up our planetary defenses.”

    No, you have it the wrong way round. The aliens are here to save us from Global Warming. Remember how they fly around the world mutilating cattle? That’s part of a desperate attempt to stop the cattle farts that are going to kill us if we don’t DO SOMETHING NOW!

  70. In the US, it is the duty and legal requirement of Congress to regulate the Federal Reserve.
    ====================
    “Just as Congress and the president control fiscal policy, the Federal Reserve System dominates monetary policy, the control of the supply and cost of money. Since monetary policy affects every sector of the economy, the Fed has to be considered coequal with the president and Congress in macroeconomic decision making.”

    http://www.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/fed.html

    A surprising number of Americans are not aware that the Federal Reserve is privately owned, and the implications of this ownership. It is the Federal Reserve (private), not the US Treasury (public) that creates US currency. The Treasury then borrows money from the Fed to run the country. As a result, the US government cannot simply print more money when it needs it.

  71. Policycritic

    There were also huge booms during the 19th century that created huge increases in the standard of living that we enjoy today. Boom and bust are what create a healthy well adjusted economy.

    I can buy into the lender of last resort bit to keep the financial system from collapsing, but that is not the primary function of the fed today. It’s primary function today is to monitise government debt. This has totally frozen growth in this country and created a perminet upper class and all but destroyed the ability of the poor or middle class to increase their own wealth. It has also nearly destroyed are ability to compete globally.

    Like everything else with government and quasi governmental system the work best when they are limited most.

  72. John Carter says:…
    The absence of empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2 does not have anything to do with the issue of the role that gg gases play.

    Yet you also say: (my bold)

    To accuse someone of that for having ideas, let alone ideas and opinions that are grounded in science

    Do you see your contradiction? In science experiment and observations are everything. They are king. Observations tell us there is no need to panic, and that the CAGW hypothesis is garbage. Sure the world will warm this century, but OBSERVATIONS today tell as it will be mild and geological time tells us it will be net beneficial. Here is one of the hottest periods in the last 100 million years – the PETM. The biosphere thrived, biodiversity increased et al.

  73. Mark G
    Thank you
    You have given me a little, I am not sure that you are right but a least you have given me a reason to put on pants today and go out side.

  74. @bit chilly at 1:06 am
    john carter, please do not worry about carbon dioxide. someone has been pulling your leg, it is no more a pollutant than oxygen.

    Indeed, from the point of view of the bulk of biomass on this planet, oxygen is a most dangerous pollutant. It is because of oxygen that forests are threatened by fire.

  75. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
    the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years
    ================
    About the same time as the Ice Ages started. Co-incidence? Hardly.

    for zillions of years CO2 levels were higher than today, and life did OK. They the Ice Ages came, and CO2 levels dropped (CO2 follows temp). And for a couple of million years we have had (on average) low levels of CO2. Barely enough to support photosynthesis.

    Now things are warming up, and CO2 levels are rising. Back to where they were a couple of million years ago. About where they were before the Ice Ages. Similar to conditions when humans first appeared on the planet. And the problem is?

    John, the first lesson in global warming is to stand outside naked, overnight. Bask in the warm of all the CO2 back radiation. Unless you live in a tropical jungle, you will be hugely uncomfortable and at risk of dying of exposure. The simple fact is that virtually everywhere on the surface of the earth, virtually every ocean on earth, is much too cold for an unprotected human to survive long term.

    The first Humans appeared 4+ million years ago. At a time when the earth was much warmer, when CO2 levels were much higher. If we had not learned to domesticate fire, it is highly unlikely we would be here today. CO2 is a by-product of the domestication of fire. The fundamental discovery of human existence.

  76. Mark G

    You know it could be that the Aliens are reading John Carter’s posts and have determined that the cows are the only real threat to their take over.
    I think I will put my PJ,s back on

    Thanks for trying

  77. Katherine says:
    July 19, 2014 at 4:18 am

    John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am

    Usually I just ignore John Carter’s posts since he just seems to be trolling for clicks to his blog, but this jumped at me. By greenhouse gases, I have to assume he means CO2, since I haven’t heard of anyone advocating limits to water vapor emissions. To make a long story short…

    Increase of CO2 content in the atmosphere for the past 50 years as measured at Mauna Loa:

    Sure, that looks like a radical change. Not.

    Interesting idea re the blog, but no, unless you know, you could write some comments or want to go back to it. But I would think here there wouldn’t be much interest in posts that don’t specifically serve to try to discredit actual climate science, as, for example, this comment here by you does. Ridiculously.

    What is the point of that chart? The discovery that the entire world has it wrong, and CO2 hasn’t risen, nor that the moon really revolves around the earth? Or, about as similarly, the fact that CO2 isn’t relevant because most of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen – you know, Science God Michelle Bachmann’s point, right behind the idea that balance isn’t what matters in science, only absolute numbers or amounts.(Which is right in front of the idea that the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it.) Point being, atmospheric [CO2] is low, low is all that is needed to have a profound affect. This is not in dispute. So the chart > pointless, and misinforming for those who don’t know how pointless it is.

    By the way, you should read my posts here, that’s why I write them. I know the official belief is that the purpose is to just get a better understanding of the climate change issue. And, well, since I’m pretty knowledgeable on them (and sometimes kind of funny), how valuable! Particularly since there doesn’t seem to be um, “a lot” of posts putting forth well, most of the story. And to get a more accurate feel for the story – again, the purpose, right? – you would want to read those.

    By the way, speaking of my blog and your wry water vapor comment, what is natural (sunlight) or a response (water vapor) is out of our control, Thus not at issue in terms of addressing what we might be doing that is harmful to our own interests. Water vapor is short lived, and likely changes in water vapor levels are one of the affects of a change in something else that would drive climate (such as a forcing – radically increased long lived GG molecules, and what is going on right now, for instance, at a level reflecting a multi million year change.) It’s also the most interesting in some ways, because it has warming (more = more re radiation as a GG) and cooling (more = higher albedo which reflects more solar radiation back outward) and interesting precipitation implications in both directions.

  78. Ferdbereple

    Funny but I thought congress votes to increase the debt. I don’t remember the last time the Fed told the government that they wouldn’t create money to finance its debt, so much for its independence. The only question left is is it the government that controls the Fed or the other way around. I leave that to you to decide, but either way its not a country of the people.

    Individual liberty with all its risks is the only out of this ridiculous mess that we are in.

  79. Bob Boder says:

    John Carter

    I am trying to help you here.

    John Carter cannot be helped. His mind is made up, and closed tighter than a submarine hatch. If he admitted to the many verified, empirical facts posted here, his head would explode from cognitive dissonance.

    Carter says:

    And, well, since I’m pretty knowledgeable…

    Cherry-picking and confirmation bias do not equate to knowledge. Skepticism is essential to scientific knowledge, but Carter is about as far from being a scientifc skeptic as it is possible to be. He is a religious True Believer, who never responds to questions.

    Carter argues incessantly over nitpicking points, while avoiding the central issue: global warming has stopped, despite endless predictions to the contrary by the alarmist crowd. How does Carter explain that?

    He doesn’t.

  80. I am more of a philosopher than scientist~ well, actually I’m zero percent scientist, because I don’t engage in physical experiments. Equally so, any supposed scientist that draws conclusions or hypothesizes from computer models isn’t a scientist. Computer models can ‘flesh out’ a situation, provided that the inputs are sound. For example~ aircraft can be entirely and reliably designed within a virtual environment driven by computers, and that is because the science of aerodynamics is very robust and makes for good input into the computer models. No one modeling a new aircraft in the cyber realm could make a new, as of yet unknown, discovery about aerodynamics. It would be dismissed as an artifact of the model, and would lead to a correction of the model. Modeling isn’t science. Modeling is applied science. The foundation for the inputs must be strong. A computer model cannot be an experiment. Philosophers of science (such as myself) are not scientists, but they have a value to science, in that they can point in which direction to look, and propose experiments that true scientists haven’t thought of. CO2 may have absorption frequencies in the infrared, but when that absorbed radiation is emitted, it favors no direction. The Green House Gas hypothesis generally seems accurate, because absorbed radiation from the surface of earth by gasses that can absorb it, re-emit it in random directions, and nearer the surface, where densities of such gasses are higher, the higher the probability that other nearby molecules will absorb the emissions. Heat is stored near the surface of the earth by gasses. That cannot be disputed. Hansen’s claim of the contribution of the gasses is in error, because he treated the surface of earth as an ideal black body emitter, which obviously couldn’t be true. Why does no one do experiments? They should be relatively easy. All gases in the atmosphere are heated by sunlight heating the ground. They rise in response, which is what creates wind. CO2 isn’t somehow special in that regard. CO2 doesn’t cause warming, it is liberated from the oceans as they warm.

  81. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:27 am
    ///////////////////
    John

    There is nothing illogical about my statement.

    As far as the science is concerned, there are 2 issues. First, there is the theoretical issue of the properties of CO2 (and other so called GHGs) in laboratory conditions. This can be ascertained by experimentation.

    Second there is the issue as to how doees CO2 behave in real life conditions, ie., the environs of planet earth, and what effect does an increase in CO2 have in those real life conditions. This is not a theortetical issue, but rather a practical one. We cannot replicate Earth’s environ in the laboratory. Accordingly, all we can do is to observe what is happening, ie., each day we conduct experiments that collect data on CO2, and every day we collect data on temperatures.

    Now we know that since the late 1950s, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, however, we also know that there is no correlation in any temperature data set and CO2 levels.

    There may be many reasons as to why that is the case, but it is a fact. Presently, we cannot detect, within the margins of error of our best measuring devices, the signal of CO2 on temperature. Such signal as there may be, is drowned by natural variation. That does not mean that there is no signal; there may be, but our measuring equipment is not sophisticated (and/or accurate) enough to detect it. That suggests (but does not prove) that the signal is rather small (since we would expect to be able to measure it), and/or the effects of natural variation are rather large (and far larger than was accepted in TAR and subsequent issues of the IPCC reports) .

    As I say, I am not concerned by the science. It will come out, it just a question of time.

    The thrust of my comment, and upon which did not respond, was the policy response. IF it is though desirable to curb, or cut CO2 emissions then Carbon Trading/Carbon Taxes do not achieve that result. Likewise renewable energies such as solar or wind.

    IF one desired to curb or reduce CO2 emissions then a different policy response is required, eg., to switch from coal to gas. To not use fossil fuels for baseload energy production, but instead use nuclear. Perhaps to create additional sinks, eg., to vegatate or forest land which is presently scrub land, or to seed the oceans (something I very much do not favour). It is that type of policy response that will achieve the goal of curbing CO2.

    Frequently, it is overlooked that the USA which was much criticised for not signing up to the Kyoto Protocol, has reduced its CO2 emissions the mosts amongst the developed nations, The USA has manged to achive this by exploiting its shale reserves and switching from coal to gas. So we know that a policy of switching from coal to gas does lead to real measurable results in cutting CO2.

    I for one am not concened either by CO2 levels which are historically (on a geological time scale) at the low end of the spectrum, and significantly lower when life (and plants in particular) first took hold, nor by temperatures which are also at the low end of the spectrum on a historical basis. Every thing we know about life on planet Earth suggests that cold and arid, is bad, warm and wet is good for life. Planet Earth is far too cold for us as a species, the only inhabitable places are the tropical rain forests etc (ie., places where we can survive without clothes and without adapting the nevironment. Tropical rainforests are the most bio diverse areas on planet earth because life, of all types, loves warmth and moisture. The history of civilisation shows that man reached his zeniths in warm periods, eg Minoan, Roman, Viking, Present Day. I see no deamons should planet Earth warm by 3 or 4 degC, only net benefits. But that is a different issue, and one which Climate Scioentists have failed to properly research.

  82. ‘John Carter’ also forgets that we’ve seen years of governments and other alarmists claiming that we’ve reached a ‘tipping point’ and we have only two years/months/days/milliseconds to act, and we must DO SOMETHING NOW! to SAVE THE WORLD! or WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

    And we do nothing, and the world doesn’t end, and soon after they’re back telling us that we have ‘TWO DAYS TO SAVE THE WORLD!’ even though it’s two years after they last told us we have ‘TWO DAYS TO SAVE THE WORLD!’ and they act like we’re all so stupid that we won’t even notice that they were utterly wrong the last time.

    Before long, no-one can take anything the alarmists say seriously, because they have such a long and widely-publicised history of being utterly wrong and never admitting to it. Particularly when we’re having one of the coldest summers I remember.

    Besides which, even if WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE! from BABY-KILLING CAMEL FARTS, what South Korea may or may not do will make no measurable difference. They’re a small nation whose output of both CO2 and camel farts is insignificant compared to China.

    Personally, I think I’m going to have to buy the turbo version of my new SUV instead of the non-turbo to try to get some Global Warming up here in the Frozen North, because we could sure do with some this year. Or maybe I should buy a couple of camels instead?

  83. I don’t remember the last time the Fed told the government that they wouldn’t create money to finance its debt
    =================
    the Fed is happy to create money and lend it to the US government. it isn’t like they are playing with their own money. the Feds funds remain safe as capital reserves, which are guaranteed a 6% return.

  84. Mark G

    That’s why I am trying to get John C to get the Alien problem some attention. It’s the only true issue of our time

    After you buy the Turbo SUV and puff your cigs don’t come crying to me when the Aliens come after you first.

    John C could you step in here and talk to this denier nut case for me, no one can stand up to you when you wax logical

  85. John Carter;
    And, well, since I’m pretty knowledgeable on them (and sometimes kind of funny), how valuable!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    As our conversation on the Australia thread reveals, you aren’t conversant in the very basics of the science. When confronted with an explanation using terms like “transient” and “equilibrium” and “Stefan-Boltzmann” and “heat capacity” and “energy flux” you accused me of “gobbeldy gook” and complained that I was deliberately writing in a manner that you couldn’t follow. If you believe those terms are “gobbeldy gook” you had best call up the United Nations and tell them that they have to revise all their vaunted reports because you, John Carter, have determined that they are “gobbledy gook”. You had best advise all the climate scientists you purport to explain to us that THEIR papers are similarly “gobbledy gook”.

    As I said in the other thread, learn the terminology, learn how it is applied, read the papers yourself instead of quoting what some news organization supposedly says what the paper supposedly says, read the IPCC reports, learn what they say, learn what the science says.

    Otherwise you are just a garden variety troll who claims expertise that he demonstrably doesn’t have.

  86. Ferdperple

    Your idea of safe and mine are apparently different, but the point is the Fed concern is keeping the government afloat and the rich, rich nothing else. They have all but bought the government by devaluing the dollar and enslaving me and you.
    I have no problem with wealth I only have a problem when it is institutionalized which is what is happening now.
    Both the Fed and the government need to be dialed way back they are both out of control.

  87. MarkG says:
    July 19, 2014 at 9:35 am
    Whereas, in a century of the money supply being controlled by the Glorious People’s Fed, the value of the dollar has fallen by around 95%. Which is clearly better. Or something.

    From a macroeconomic POV, the standard of living has risen in last century, not fallen, and the value of the assets those dollars bought has exploded exponentially. You need to look at both sides of the ledger to make a reasoned assessment. The value of what a dollar bought may have fallen individually, but not collectively. We are far, far, far better off today as a society than we were in 1900. You can’t just look at one thing.

  88. ferdberple says:

    July 19, 2014 at 9:42 am
    “Just as Congress and the president control fiscal policy, the Federal Reserve System dominates monetary policy

    Correct. When was the last time you saw the Prez and Congress exercise fiscal policy? (Fiscal policy trumps monetary policy. The purpose of monetary policy is to maintain fiscal policy goals.) Example of fiscal policy: when the economy is ice cold, cut taxes and increase spending. Economy running hot (everyone employed and earning money), increase taxes and cut spending. Taxes are the thermostat, not a source of revenue.

    A surprising number of Americans are not aware that the Federal Reserve is privately owned, and the implications of this ownership. It is the Federal Reserve (private), not the US Treasury (public) that creates US currency. The Treasury then borrows money from the Fed to run the country. As a result, the US government cannot simply print more money when it needs it.

    The 12 regional Federal Reserve district banks are owned by the banks in the district. It is not a private corporation like a regular private corp. Shares can’t be sold or traded. Value of shares remain strictly at basis of original capital (6% of operating capital) no matter how much the individual bank may profit over the decades. Dividends paid by the Federal Reserve Board to regional Federal Reserve banks is around 1.56% each annually (see Fed annual report).

    The US Treasury creates US currency every day, and sells them at auction to the world once a month. They are called treasury securities. Only 11.5%-12% of all US currency is cash and coin. The rest is treasury securities, which everyone laps up because the FDIC only insures bank accounts to $250,000, and treasury securities are safest financial instrument in the world at present. Only the US Treasury can issue treasury securities. The US Treasury does not ‘borrow’ from the Fed, although they use that ridiculous term. The US Treasury spends first, after Congress appropriates, then issues treasury securities in same amount to rebalance the money supply (mop up extra dollars in the system), and because a gold standard-era law still stands that the US Treasury cannot have an overdraft in its General Account at the Fed.

    The US government can spend when it needs or wants to, with no debt accruing to children or grandchildren. President Obama and his insane lawyer Sec of Treas don’t know this, and we are going down the tubes—suffering–as a result.

  89. Bob Boder says:

    July 19, 2014 at 9:45 am
    I can buy into the lender of last resort bit to keep the financial system from collapsing, but that is not the primary function of the fed today. It’s primary function today is to monitise government debt.

    Government ‘debt’ is government ‘equity’. It is not debt as you or I, or a business, state or local govt understand it. The federal government does not need to earn revenue. It ISSUES the currency, fercrissake. Everyone else USES the currency, and must earn income before we can spend (unless we go into debt for a limited amount of time, but not permanently). The ‘National Debt’ or “Debt Held by the Public’ as its called—that huge $17+ trillion number–is in the pension funds, university trusts, business bank accounts, and your grandmother’s savings bond TO THE PENNY. If we “pay off the national debt” everyone will not a dollar to their name.

    This has totally frozen growth in this country and created a perminet upper class and all but destroyed the ability of the poor or middle class to increase their own wealth.

    What has frozen growth in this country is the refusal of Congress to enact fiscal policy and spend for the general welfare of the population (per the Constitution). We are $3.x trillion behind in fixing infrastructure. We need improved education, telecommunications (we are a 3rd world country compared to Asian capacity), scientific research, and health care, etc etc. Congress approved $29 trillion for the banks and nothing for the citizens of the US.

  90. Policy critic
    Then why does the government bother to tax anyone? Why doesn’t it just spend, because when you create something out of nothing you end up with nothing. The value of our currency is no longer based on gold it is based on the value of everything in this country and the amount of business done in this country. You can spin it anyway you want the government only has the ability to spend if we have the ability to pay.
    As for growth I don’t remember the last time the government ever created anything growth comes from the private selector and I don’t no anyone other then the big corporation that are looking for the government to do anything other then get out of the way. Big corporation eat up the government regulation and intervention because they know they are the only ones that can afford to comply and if they can’t they just buy the government off.

  91. Here is what is happening: With the “pause” now about the same length as the warming, economies having been ignored and mismanaged during heady days of green policy, the inconvenient chain of cold winters that Hadley Centre misforecast for ‘barbeque’ winters when snow would be only on christmas cards, governments have been showing some ambivalence toward gung ho carbon dioxide prevention policies but don’t know how to proceed to get out of the mess they are in. Australia strides in, abolishes all this CAGW policy nonsense. Korea, which was anguishing over, it got the shove it needed. Now there will be a domino effect rush to do the same thing. Perhaps only in the UK will the dominos come up against Stonehenge and stop unless the new UKIP party can take over. After all, UEA and Hadley C all but invented climate alarm and they’ve just decorated their chief scientist Slingo for her contributions to the panic.

  92. “The value of what a dollar bought may have fallen individually, but not collectively.”

    You complained at first that ‘boom and bust’ destroyed the wealth of the American people in the 1800s, so they needed the Fed to save them, now you’re saying that the Fed is wonderful even though it destroyed the wealth of the American people in the 1900s. Why should I care that the total number of dollars is worth more, if my actual saved dollars are worth far less than when I saved them?

    The Fed prints money, which devalues all savings, which requires people to hand those savings to bankers to try to mantain their value against the best efforts of other bankers to destroy them, then the government taxes people on the interest paid on those savings, which further devalues them. Rather like ‘carbon taxes’ and ‘carbon trading’, it’s just a mechanism for stealing wealth from the people, and giving it to government and bankers.

    “What has frozen growth in this country is the refusal of Congress to enact fiscal policy and spend for the general welfare of the population (per the Constitution).”

    US National Debt has about doubled since the beginning of the ‘crisis’. How much more do you expect them to spend beyond their means, before admitting it’s the problem, not the solution? Japan has wasted more than twenty years trying to borrow-and-spend their way out of their own housing bubble collapse.

  93. John Carter says:
    ….What is the point of that chart? The discovery that the entire world has it wrong, and CO2 hasn’t risen, nor that the moon really revolves around the earth? Or, …

    You have to try really hard and squint your eyes to see the rise. It’s there. :-)

    Geologically we are at the low end of co2 in the atmosphere.

    Now, I’m sure the following is a mistake but figure 7 appears to show Co2 levels were ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago. Whatever the case 400 ppm to 500ppm is nothing to be worried about. We moved from 350ppm to 400ppm today. What happened? Logarithmic.

    Abstract – Margret Steinthorsdottir et. al. – 15 May 2013
    Stomatal proxy record of CO2 concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO2 at climate change transitions

    …The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher than usually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO2 evolution through the studied time period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved from interstadial to stadial state and vice versa. A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxy for temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time….

    [Fig 7]

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.02.003

  94. Bob Boder says:

    July 19, 2014 at 11:13 am

    Policy critic

    Then why does the government bother to tax anyone? Why doesn’t it just spend, because when you create something out of nothing you end up with nothing.

    Great question. It doesn’t need to tax. (What it does need to do is spend for the benefit of all the people.) But let’s suppose you and I—and everyone else in the US–have a $billion in our suitcases. What do you think the price of housing is going to be? Will we be able to conduct trade with anyone outside the country when every US citizen has $2-3 billion in their bank accounts?

    Our dollar hasn’t been based on gold domestically since 1934. You write, “I don’t remember the last time the government ever created anything.” What about WWII? Three government economists who did understand what going off the gold standard did for the American people ramped the country up for WWII, and put everyone to work producing planes for the British, produced armaments, and everything else the war effort needed. They used American dollars for American work. Yes, fiat dollars for American work, inside the country. (see military historian Jim Lacey’s book Keep from All Thoughtful Men: How U.S. Economists Won World War II, 2011, for a detailed account of this using documents misfiled in the National Archive.)

    The deficit soared during the war years, meaning the govt spent way more in each year than it was taking in in taxes. Producing things. Because of war resource limits, American workers couldn’t spend their money on anything. Savings accounts were bulging. Government economists recognized this in 1944, and made plans. When the war ended, taxes on the super rich (1%) were raised to 90% to prevent their spending or hoarding while taxes on the middle class were de minimus to encourage them to spend on houses, cars, and other necessities. It created the great middle class, and marked a complete change in the living standards of all Americans.

    To answer your question, you can’t just spend into oblivion. There is production capacity to worry about. When everyone is earning money and there is nothing to spend it on, then the price of those things that are still available for sale—from physical objects to engineering services to houses, travel, schools, landscaping, technology, science, and health care—will soar. That’s inflation. Taxes are used to control that.

    It’s a balancing act. But it starts with Congress. Paul Ryan is a financial idiot. So are Obama and Lew. We need sound fiscal policy and we need it fast. All the mortgages in this country should have been written down in 2008 to the capacity of the mortgagee to pay; this is time-honored debt-relief that goes back centuries and centuries and has the effect of rebalancing overpriced “bubble” assets immediately. (In history, sometimes it’s been called a debt jubilee, or something like that.) Instead, we gave that assistance only to the banks whose profits have increased 30% since 2008. While 45 million languish in hell.

    For example, nothing threatens Social Security or Medicare. People like Pete Peterson and Peter Schiff try to make you think there’s a problem because they want those dollars going to Wall Street. In point of fact, every senior citizen should be getting a minimum of $3,000/month—minimum!–to meet the production of the huge Millennial generation so that their output doesn’t lie idle.

    The economy should serve public purpose, not a financial index. Unfortunately, we’ve bought the latter definition since 1980.

  95. MarkG says:
    July 19, 2014 at 11:22 am

    If I start explaining it, I’ll be writing a treatise and overtaking this thread. Suffice it to say, the government doesn’t have to worry about spending beyond its means. There are no “means.” It ISSUES the currency. The damn problem is that it is not spending on the people. The deficit is waaaaay too small right now for the state of the economy.

  96. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:02 am
    I would think here there wouldn’t be much interest in posts that don’t specifically serve to try to discredit actual climate science
    Au contraire, there would be plenty of interest in rational, fact-based, non-biased information on actual climate science. Got any?
    How about a post on “why I believe manmade CO2 is a problem”. Be sure to include real-world evidence to back your claims, though. Remember, models are not evidence, nor are simple correlations. Be sure to include your excuses reasons for the warming having stopped now for nearly 18 years. It would be most entertaining enlightening.

  97. John Carter (July 19, 2014 at 8:27 am) “And the oceans have been accumulating a lot of heat energy, which is where much of the increased “trapped” radiation energy has gone.”

    The measured increase in ocean energy would amount to roughly a 0.2C per decade increase in the atmosphere if there were no ocean warming at all. My question is why don’t the models show this accumulation of energy in the ocean and thus predict 0.1C or less rise in the atmosphere rather than continuing to predict 0.2C or more rise in the atmosphere?

    Do the models not model oceanic heat transfer correctly? Or is it simply a weather fluctuation that has been going on for 17 years that the models can’t model? You have to choose an answer and then explain why we should still trust models going forward.

  98. MarkG says:
    July 19, 2014 at 11:22 am
    Japan has wasted more than twenty years trying to borrow-and-spend their way out of their own housing bubble collapse.

    Exactly. But not for the reasons you think. Japan doesn’t borrow anything. Japan, like Great Britain, Canada, the US, and Australia, issues their own currency. They have a 100% sovereign non-convertible currency with a floating exchange rate. They can never go broke. Bond vigilantes can’t touch them. They denominate their debts in their own currency, meaning they can pay for anything for sale in their own country. Anything. With no debt transferred to children or grandchildren.

    And yet, Japan has one of the strongest currencies in the world, extraordinarily high educational standards, a high standard of living, and they pay 100% for the health care costs of their senior citizens, something we don’t do because we’re mean and don’t understand how our federal monetary system works. We think the federal government is like a household that has to tighten its belt. The President says we’re broke; he’s an idiot.

  99. The growth during World War II happened because of the capacity built from the 1880 through the early 30s from private economic growth. Churchill know the war was over as soon as the us joined, Yamamoto know his war was lost as soon as he bomb Pearl Harbor. They did know what fiscal policy we would excersize during there war they didnt have too. The reason we were able to meet the needs of the war was because government finanaly got out of the way and allowed business to work. Something FDR couldn’t and prolong the depression for 4or5years.
    There was a recession after the war and it wasn,t monetary policy or fiscal policy that got us out of it. It was the demand from the rest of the world because we were they only ones with a viable economic system left. The debt was paid because we were the producer for the. If you doubt this look at our trade surplusses after the war. Fiscal policy didn’t create the middle class growth from the industrial revolution did. There was a huge a growing middle class before the war and only fiscal policy from the government during the depepression reversed the trend. This was the first depression or even the worst it was just the longest because of the government. During all other period the grew rapidly after the down turn and the middle class grew. The huge cities growing from the 1880 weren’t filled with the pitiful poor masses they were filled with a growing middle class the only real poor we’re the successive waves of imigrents. This country grew from a small backward power to the domination power in the world over the course of only 70 years long before your brilliant wwii economists. By the by 1944 the economy was already shift from a war footing and this had nothing to do with government policy it was because industry had total out produced anything the policy makers could account for.

    I don’t disagree with you when it comes to the government shifting money to the banks, but this is natural when you allow the government to control so much of the economy. It’s government over control that is the problem. I am not achampion of anyone in the government either but i am also know that nothing they do will be for the benefit of the people. This is why the government is supposed to be limited. People only look out for their own self interest and only when you and I realize the for me to have freedom to take care of my self that I have to bound with you to make sure you have the freedom to take care of your interests can we hope to have a free world. When you let the government make the decision they will invariably make descions that benifit the only the ones how have the power.

    Like AGW there is no evidence that supports governments spending helping the economy and even more importantly freedom.

    Again the value of the dollar is based in the economic output of the economy, it is not the gold standard but the effect is the same over spending and over print devalues the economy as a whole. If you don’t believe this look at the price of oil. The is no shortage and there is more production here then there has been in 40 years yet oil is still over $100 a barrel on a supply a damned basis $30 would be where it should be. Food the same, gold the same, coffee the same almost all comdities and by the way the things normal people actually buy and need. Houses, cloths it goes on and on. Yet inflation is 2 percent, right.

    We also not in a economic vacuum we are in a real world were other countries are eating are lunch because the stay out the way when it comes to business. We have every advantage here, resources, seamless environment, educated work force. The only thing we don’t have is a unobtrusive government.

  100. John Carter says:
    “Is it possible that there is a desire to avoid perceived economic harm, which is the real fear here…”
    ___

    Why would anyone in their right mind advocate for actions that will cause certain economic harm today to prevent uncertain economic harm tomorrow? For all we know, increasing CO2 may be net beneficial to the ecosystem and to the climate overall. Even if it turns out to cause more harm than good, it will be far less expensive to adapt to climate change than to try to prevent it. No matter how much a country spends to reduce CO2 emissions, it will do no good. That’s because another country, like China, will buy the coal and oil they are no longer using (probably at a reduced price) and increase their emissions. You can see that happening right now. So spending billions to reduce CO2 will harm our economy, have little effect on world-wide emissions, and leave us with less money to adapt to the future. That would turn out to be an extremely foolish move if we end up needing to adapt to a cooling climate as a new ice age begins. The 17-year pause proves that we don’t really know what changes in climate the future will bring. Making plans to adapt to whatever happens is the only sensible thing to do.

  101. Policycritic

    Its funny that the same policies you advocate brought us out of the depression during the war couldn’t achieve the same results before the war.

  102. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:40 am
    Mario Lento says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:19 am
    John Carter: If it’s intent is good it’s not fascism? Seriously?

    It’s a pretty bold move to read only the short first sentence of a piece, and then comment on it as if you know what the piece was actually saying.

    You should go back and at least read the second sentence.

    Or here, I’ll save you the trouble:

    “If the Intent is good, it’s not Fascism.”

    The above statement is not true, as, unfortunately, Fascism ultimately doesn’t have to have anything to do with intent, and much of it’s formation, often, doesn’t.” http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/fascism.html

    I do recommend reading it of course.
    +++++++++++++++
    I do not get the point of both the run on sentences and the generalization of subjective phrases.

    When people think the way you seem to think, we start losing a lot of freedom to thrive… and the majority starts taking more from the minority for a whole host of good reasons. Your thinking is not clever, and it’s dangerously naive.

  103. I see policycritic is still pushing the idea of printing money for prosperity. Inflation, he says, won’t happen because it is controlled by taxation. He says “If I start explaining it, I’ll be writing a treatise and overtaking this thread.” Don’t worry, you have already explained enough and it is socialist crap.

  104. policycritic says:
    They denominate their debts in their own currency, meaning they can pay for anything for sale in their own country. Anything. With no debt transferred to children or grandchildren.
    ___

    If there is “no debt transferred to children or grandchildren,” why are we paying interest every year? If there was no debt there would be no interest. But if a country stops paying interest on it’s debt, its currency collapses and becomes worthless for buying goods, as happened in Weimar Germany. If we follow leftist money policy, our children will have to pay a large percentage of their GDP on interest alone each year, or they will default and collapse their currency. That would all be the result of the debt transferred to them by their irresponsible parents. The U.S. is currently paying about $420.6 billion a year in interest on the debt, and that is with current low interest rates. Think of what we could do with that extra $420 billion if previous generations hadn’t transferred those debts to us. If you think we can increase the debt as much as we want without any consequences to our children, I have a perpetual-motion machine I’d like to sell to you.

  105. Hopefully it will also put an end to all those UN sponsored (but now private/secret) COP lovefests, and give the Club of Rome something serious to think about.

  106. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am

    John Carter, you are either very young, impressionable, credulous and idealistic, as are all teenagers, or you’re just an activist troll/stooge, having hijacked this thread with arrant nonsense, voodoo science and stunning faux political naivety and spin. All I really want to say is – it’s up to you to prove it, not us sceptics. Yours is not the null hypothesis. And yours is being repeatedly falsified by the patent failure of the models when faced with real data and observations. My greetings to your friends in Barsoom, they have a lot of CO2 there too, but bloody cold I hear.

    Without wishing to bore regulars (apologies):

    It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
    Richard Feynman.

    “All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.”
    I. F. Stone

  107. John Carter and his alarmist ilk never say “I hope the ‘deniaists’ are correct and we’re all quite safe.”
    Why is it alarmists would prefer a global catastrophe? So that they can be correct and save face?
    Sir, you need a sandwich board sign -The end is near,The end is near

  108. RobRoy says:
    July 19, 2014 at 3:02 pm
    John Carter and his alarmist ilk never say “I hope the ‘deniaists’ are correct and we’re all quite safe.”
    Why is it alarmists would prefer a global catastrophe? So that they can be correct and save face?
    Sir, you need a sandwich board sign -The end is near,The end is near
    +++++++++++
    Questions I would like to ask of Carter: What is wrong with a green earth? Does he hate life so much? Where does he think the “fossil fuel” came from? Think about it… where did most of that locked up carbon come from? Putting it back into the atmosphere where it can be RENWED while extracting the solar energy that put it there sounds pretty good to me. Just sayin’.

  109. ***a new member of the “trillion dollar” club:

    19 July: Billings Gazette: Mike Ferguson: Former Chevron scientist talks climate change solutions
    Linda Dismore “Diz” Swift, a former Chevron scientist and executive, told the League of Women Voters of Billings on Friday that they can lend a hand to help limit the effects of climate change.
    But it’s bound to be expensive and it might not be too popular politically, she said.
    After building her case for the human role in climate change — a proposition that some in the room of about 40 people, judging by their questions afterward, clearly weren’t buying — Swift said she favors enacting a carbon tax over such schemes as cap and trade, which the state she now lives in, California, is trying…
    She said there’s a growing consensus among economists that a carbon tax is the least expensive as well as one of the most effective ways to address global warming.
    ***“The opportunity is huge,” she said, but will require a $45 trillion investment over the next 40 or so years to “decarbonize” the U.S. energy sector by 50 percent. That investment would add millions of clean-energy jobs, she said…
    Swift has allies in unlikely places, including Hank Paulson, the former Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration. Paulson is co-chair of the Risky Business initiative, which explores the economic risks of climate change in the United States.
    Paulson is part of a political process that Swift would like to see others join…

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/former-chevron-scientist-talks-climate-change-solutions/article_f4cadbc1-343e-5aff-889c-91c8f6fff53b.html

  110. Bob Boder says:

    July 19, 2014 at 12:40 pm
    I don’t disagree with you when it comes to the government shifting money to the banks, but this is natural when you allow the government to control so much of the economy.

    Bob, the banks have taken over the public domain and are charging the citizens for what used to be free. If you think of it as two columns just for ease of understanding. On the left, the federal government and what it has (should have) dominion over. On the right, businesses, households, state and local govts, whoever has to pay interest on debt (loans) over time, and provide collateral.

    The federal government can build roads, broadband infrastructure, schools, hospitals, better education, research, health care, etc, with interest-free dollars. It does this by hiring the private sector to do it through government contracts. The government never builds this stuff, the private sector does with government money in a functioning society. JOBS. No debt to the population, and no debt to children and grandchildren.

    The banks, starting in the 1980s in California, used propaganda campaigns to convince all of us that privitization was good, and that ‘we need to get government out of our lives’ as if US dollars come from someplace else other than the monopoly entity that has the only legal right to create them on planet earth. They convinced us that credit money was better than interest-free govt money. And we fell for it. And they loaded society down with debt, with real consequences. $30,000 student loans for an education you could get $500/semester in the 50s and 60s. Convincing us that property taxes were too high so we voted those down, which meant the shortfall (because states need property tax income for revenue, and the rich can’t deduct from property taxes) was made up by higher income and sales taxes on everyone and as well as all kinds of taxes to make up the difference. BUT. Guess who benefitted from that? The banks as a result of higher asset prices: e.g the cost of real estate soared, and so did bank interest income and earnings. (The banks got really creative with mortgage bank fraud in the early 90s, because only the NY Fed regulates mortgage banks and Greenspan and Geithner ignored it.)

    I am *really* glossing over this. It’s such a far more complex issue than can be described here, and I don’t want to be accused of hijacking this thread. We have forfeited the public domain to the financial sector which now accounts for 40% of GDP, and the majority of the population is in hock to them. (Financial capitalism vs industrial capitalism.) They also now control the laws governing their own regulation and our congressmen go along with their interference because their campaign coffers are filled by their lobbyists. There has been a wholesale move of what used to belong to the people in the left column I described above, which benefitted everyone, to the right column. [This is no apologia for government. I’m just talking operationally, devoid of political stripe.] Only when people understand how the federal monetary system works will they have the wherewithal to tell our congressmen what to do and where to get off, and they won’t elect people who don’t understand it. I blame Clinton for the financial crisis of 2008 (lotsa’ reasons); god forbid we get Hillary as a president, she’ll repeat his mistakes, just as Obama is running a lot of them now with ex-Clinton staffer Jacob Lew.

  111. dbstealey says:

    July 19, 2014 at 9:32 am

    John Carter says:
    ============================

    What planet are you from, Carter?
    =================================
    Fairly obvious

  112. eric1skeptic says:

    July 19, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    I see policycritic is still pushing the idea of printing money for prosperity. Inflation, he says, won’t happen because it is controlled by taxation. He says “If I start explaining it, I’ll be writing a treatise and overtaking this thread.” Don’t worry, you have already explained enough and it is socialist crap.

    “Printing money” went out with the gold standard in 1934. It’s a gold standard era accounting relic. Money was printed then against gold held at the Fed. The debt limit, installed in 1917, was a belt and set of suspenders to make sure not too much was printed against supply. It, too, is another relic, like the horse and buggy.

    Our money since August 15, 1971 is electronic except for physical cash and coin (11.5%-12%) as walking around money dispensed by banks for small private transactions…or gambling. Socialism has nothing to do with it. You don’t understand monetary operations.

  113. PolicyCritic, I understand monetary operations perfectly well. By printing money, whether electronically or physically, the existing money is debased. Your proposal to give out printed money above at July 19, 2014 at 12:00 pm: “In point of fact, every senior citizen should be getting a minimum of $3,000/month—minimum!–to meet the production of the huge Millennial generation so that their output doesn’t lie idle.” is a mixture of Keynesianism and socialism.

    In point of fact, the economy is not strengthened by printing money to “meet production”, it is weakened. The reason is quite simple, investors do not invest in new production when they cannot expect money to hold purchasing power over the long run. In the same post above you say “There is production capacity to worry about. When everyone is earning money and there is nothing to spend it on, then the price of those things that are still available for sale—from physical objects to engineering services to houses, travel, schools, landscaping, technology, science, and health care—will soar. That’s inflation. Taxes are used to control that.”

    But your solution to control inflation means that producers who invest their money in new production will either see the purchasing power of money reduced, or they will get much higher taxes that are used to depress the economy and thereby control inflation. You are a tiresome Keyensian-socialist troll and you should take your nonsense elsewhere.

  114. Louis says:

    July 19, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    If there is “no debt transferred to children or grandchildren,” why are we paying interest every year? If there was no debt there would be no interest. But if a country stops paying interest on it’s debt, its currency collapses and becomes worthless for buying goods, as happened in Weimar Germany.

    Here’s how it works:

    (1) Congress “appropriates” spending for a variety of projects, only entity that can under our Constitution. Let’s say $100 billion.

    (2) US Treasury tells the Fed to mark up its General Account at the Fed by $100 billion.

    (3) The Fed, using keystrokes, marks the US General Account up by $100 billion.

    (4) The US Treasury says ‘pay all these private vendors with the $100 billion” that Congress approved.

    (5) Fed forwards the $100 billion to the checking accounts of all vendors’ banks at the Fed, and the individual banks subsequently credit the vendor’s accounts.

    (6) THEN, the US Treasury issues $100 billion in treasury securities, prints them up out of thin air. [This is what is called, erroneously, “borrowing.”]

    (7) The treasury securities are sold at auction on the Open Market on 15th of the month. The Federal Reserve cannot buy them. Only businesses, households, banks, trust funds, universities, pension funds, financial institutions, foreign banks and foreign governments. They are snapped up immediately. Money supply restored to balance.

    (8) Once a year, usually August, the US Treasury determines the coming interest owed on treasury securities outstanding. Let’s say that amount is $420.6 billion.

    (9) The US Treasury issues treasury securities in the amount of $420.6 billion to cover the coming interest payments.

    (10) No debts to children or grandchildren.

    This isn’t ‘lefty’, ‘non-lefty’, ‘socialist’, ‘communist’, uppy, downy. It’s how it works. Call the Fed and US Treasury and ask them yourselves like I did. Or read this guy from dailypaul.com, he gets it: http://www.dailypaul.com/279537/how-banking-actually-works-in-fiat-world

  115. eric1skeptic says:

    July 19, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    PolicyCritic, I understand monetary operations perfectly well. By printing money, whether electronically or physically, the existing money is debased.

    Then you don’t understand monetary operations, because the USA has been doing that—what you call ‘printing money’—for 80 years.

    Your proposal to give out printed money above at July 19, 2014 at 12:00 pm: “In point of fact, every senior citizen should be getting a minimum of $3,000/month—minimum!–to meet the production of the huge Millennial generation so that their output doesn’t lie idle.” is a mixture of Keynesianism and socialism.

    Hardly. Here is Greenspan schooling Paul Ryan on just that point in a House hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdOsybbBVEU

    PAUL RYAN: “Do you believe that personal retirement accounts can help us achieve solvency for the system and make those future retiree benefits more secure?”

    ALAN GREENSPAN: “Well, I wouldn’t say that the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure, in the sense that there’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase.”

    “The real assets” are the future production of the huge Millennial generation which those social security benefits would purchase. If that production reaches its full output, social security payment need to go up to help pay for it, or it lies idle.

    But right now, 25% of the Millennial generation are living at home with their parents with no jobs—therefore, no output in macroeconomic terms–because Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing and doesn’t understand the federal monetary system. He thinks the federal government is broke and has to tighten its belt.

  116. NZ carbon prices fall further as emitters stay away
    by Stian Reklev in BEIJING
    July 18 (Reuters) – Spot permits in New Zealand’s carbon market fell for the third consecutive week, dropping to NZ$4 ($3.47) on Friday, as traders remained hesitant to take significant positions ahead of the September general election…
    “Emitters, in particular, are not keen to step up until they get more direction from the political parties,” one broker told Reuters…
    ***Traders said Australia’s move on Wednesday to scrap its planned emissions trading scheme had no impact on the New Zealand market, as no link between the two had been planned.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/new-zealand-carbontrading-idUKL4N0PT1DS20140718

    ***not sure i believe it had “no impact”!

  117. eric1skeptic says:

    July 19, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    But your solution to control inflation means that producers who invest their money in new production will either see the purchasing power of money reduced, or they will get much higher taxes that are used to depress the economy and thereby control inflation. You are a tiresome Keyensian-socialist troll and you should take your nonsense elsewhere.

    You did not understand what I wrote and your thinking is confused. We have a capitalist system and it’s pretty simple: income drives spending, spending creates sales, sales create jobs, jobs create income, income drives spending. Rinse and repeat. No business invests in new plant and material unless there are sales to justify it. I don’t care how much money a business has in the bank. No sales, no new jobs. If a restaurant or department store is doing a roaring business, they do not let anyone go. We need sales in this country to produce jobs. The ONLY entity that can act counter-cyclically and create these sales, these new jobs, and get this economy back on track is the federal government. We have $3.x trillion in decaying infrastructure that needs to be fixed, good jobs that would hire a lot of people. We need high-speed broadband in every part of he country; it’s a disgrace that rural areas have dial-up. We need federal transfers to the states to pay for education that property and state taxes can’t pay for. No skin off the fed’s teeth.

    When the economy is clicking along and it’s too hot to handle, we can address the problem then.

  118. I am not surprised, S. Korea has massive investments in heavy industries like steel making and shipbuilding. They are not about to bin that.

  119. policycritic

    It is great how you quote Allan Greenspan schooling anyone the man who created the housing bubble in the first place.
    It also funny how you just white wash over all of the federal debt held by foreign countries. There is real interest paid there.
    You ignore the effect of monitising debt on commodities traded around the world. You ignore the effects of monitising on the basic strength of the currency with trading partners. You ignore the fact when banks have someone as large as the government to lend to there is no reason for them to lend to business. You ignore the fact that government doesn’t create wealth no matter what you do. You hang your hat on wwii but you miss what actually happened and then ignore every instance were government spending and borrowing failed. Even Keynes thought deficit spend should only be used as a temporary measure.

  120. ferdberple says @ July 19, 2014 at 9:42 am “The Federal Reserve is privately owned . . .” Yes, Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, but the Federal Reserve System is publicly controlled. The control is via the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President and confirmed by congress. The profit that owners get on their ownership is a limited and very moderate rate of return on their investment. Any remaining profit goes to the U.S. Treasury.

  121. policycritic says on July 19, 2014 at 5:52 pm:
    “The ONLY entity that can act counter-cyclically and create these sales, these new jobs, and get this economy back on track is the federal government.”

    Not so fast . . . millions of private citizens are in a better position to stimulate the economy. The efforts of government action to counter-cyclically create sales has resulted in prolonged periods of dismal performance in the economy. The times that the government has encouraged private sector solutions have been the times of prolonged robust economic performance.

    The reasons are not that obtuse. The federal government needs to get money from someplace in order to try to create sales. From wherever that # comes, that place no longer has money to create sales via private investment. The private sector creates sales and jobs when private initiatives increase productivity and add value to customers. The government has no such incentives, and government action will likely result in less productivity, less sales, less income and fewer jobs. At best, government action will be based on political considerations rather than on value added — such as $ for the Bridge to Nowhere. Far more likely, government action will also be accompanied by energy being spent to game the system. In gaming the system, individuals get spending funds without the need to add value — without the need to contribute to what consumers value. This decreases production, income and sales.

    The role of government is to force people to spend money or take action in ways that they would not do on their own — the power of the gun. There are cases where such government action is necessary to provide a basis for private investment — cases such as national defense, criminal justice system, and core infrastructure. Wise investment here will add more to productivity than if the funds stayed in private hands. But in efforts to act counter-cyclically, such wisdom is typically forgotten.

  122. policycritic says:
    “Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing and doesn’t understand the federal monetary system. He thinks the federal government is broke and has to tighten its belt.”

    Where did you get the idea that Obama wants government to tighten its belt? He has been after Congress to spend more on new stimulus plans, jobs plans, and extending unemployment since he took office. The original stimulus plan added almost a trillion dollars to government spending. Because it became part of the baseline budget, the government has been spending that extra money every year since. But what has that extra spending done for the economy? Fewer Americans are working now than at the end of last century, and many of them are having to work part-time. If you think even more government spending will magically solve all our problems, then you are living in Fantasy Land. I suppose you believe the government could put everyone in the country on its payroll, require them to do nothing productive, and then just print money to pay them a hansom salary. What a Utopia! If you can’t see what’s wrong with that picture, you only know enough about economics to be dangerous.

  123. @cynical1, I’m having trouble breathing the 20 ft of water that NYC is supposed to be under. I’m so evil that I actually believed I was shoveling snow this past winter. I was so looking forward to not having to turn the heater on. But my bad self made me, it didn’t want to freeze to death for the sake of the planet. I’m just delusional it wasn’t cold at all. I’m so bad that CAWG models fail.

    Something is wrong with your science, but your belief system is intact.

  124. “John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
    [blah blah blah]
    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to not address the radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere [blah blah blah]?
    Is it possible that the issue is not being looked at objectively, but instead in a manner focused on finding ways to discredit the idea of climate change, [blah blah blah]?
    [blah blah blah]
    Is it possible that there is a desire to avoid perceived economic harm, which is the real fear here, possibly among other things, and that is powerfully driving a predetermined resistance to the basic science of climate change, [blah blah blah]?”

    Jeff says:
    “No.”

  125. Bob Boder says:

    July 19, 2014 at 7:12 pm
    policycritic
    It is great how you quote Allan Greenspan schooling anyone the man who created the housing bubble in the first place.

    Yeah, pretty ironic, right? Every once in a while Ole’ Mumblemouth told the the truth.

    It also funny how you just white wash over all of the federal debt held by foreign countries. There is real interest paid there.

    No I didn’t. I explained somewhere up above that the coming interest on all treasury securities is computed annually (think it’s August) and the US Treasury just issues more treasury securities to cover this interest amount. Nothing more complicated than that.

    BTW. Just so you’re clear what this “foreign debt” is: When Walmart pays China $100 million for tires and tchotchkes, Walmart wires the $100 million to China’s checking account at the Fed. That’s the required settlement procedure. China then has four choices: (1) leave it in checking for almost no interest, (2) buy American goods, planes, whatever, (3) exchange it on the open market for Yuan and wire it home, or (4) buy treasury securities (bonds) and earn interest (like buying a CD). So let’s say China chooses (4). It tells the Fed to move the $100 million from its checking account to its savings account at the Fed and it buys $100 million in treasury securities at auction. When China wants to cash them in, it authorizes the Fed to move the $100 million plus interest from its savings account back to its checking account. The act of moving its money from its savings account to its checking account is called “paying off the National Debt.” “Federal debt held by foreign countries” is nothing more than a country parking its money in a savings account at the Fed, although there are fancier names for these accounts.

    You ignore the effect of monitising debt on commodities traded around the world.

    The Fed and US Treasury do not monetize commodities. Banks, however, are trading in them, and even though it is the Fed’s responsibility to supervise them, it is Congress’ responsibility to say it’s not allowed. Goldman Sachs and the other members of the vampire squid are cornering the markets because Congress allows them to hoard these physical commodities, controlling prices. How many times do I have to say that it is Congress’s JOB to establish the laws on this.

    You ignore the fact when banks have someone as large as the government to lend to there is no reason for them to lend to business.

    Banks don’t loan to the government! Why would the government need to borrow something it issues itself? The US Treasury issues treasury securities as a reserve drain, and the geniuses on TV call that ‘borrowing’. it’s not.

    You ignore the fact that government doesn’t create wealth no matter what you do. You hang your hat on wwii but you miss what actually happened and then ignore every instance were government spending and borrowing failed.

    What??? First of all, the government doesn’t borrow; it doesn’t have to. It issues the currency; it issues treasury securities, the safest financial asset in the world. Everyone who has more than $250Gs in the bank wants them because they are risk-free. The government spends every single day, and sometimes it takes on big projects like the Space Program. Where was the failure in that? The only way that the private sector increases its holdings of net financial assets without government involvement is if someone else reduces their holdings of net financial assets. That’s plain accounting. One person’s asset is another person’s liability. There’s no change in the overall money supply in the system. But if the private sector wants to increase its holdings of net financial assets overall, this desire can only be satisfied by an increase in government deficit spending. Period. Where else is the influx of new money going to come from? Some counterfeiter on Mars? The US government has the monopoly worldwide on creating new US dollars. Banks create credit money.

    You deficit spend when the economy is in trouble. You shut off the spiggot when it’s roaring.

  126. An Inquirer says:

    July 19, 2014 at 8:45 pm

    policycritic says on July 19, 2014 at 5:52 pm:
    “The ONLY entity that can act counter-cyclically and create these sales, these new jobs, and get this economy back on track is the federal government.”

    Not so fast . . . millions of private citizens are in a better position to stimulate the economy.

    How? The private sector can’t issue currency. If it could stimulate the economy, then why hasn’t it done so? Right now, the private sector is either hoarding or paying off debt, but it’s not spending.

    The reasons are not that obtuse. The federal government needs to get money from someplace in order to try to create sales. From wherever that # comes, that place no longer has money to create sales via private investment.

    The federal government, and the federal government alone, has the monopoly right to issue currency. Worldwide. What I mean by counter-cyclical is that only the federal government has the ability to spend (issue currency) when the private sector can’t.

  127. re the former Chevron scientist, Linda Dismore “Diz” Swift, in the Billings Gazette article i posted earlier.

    pity the writer didn’t include the following in the article – it explains her position:

    2 July: Billings Gazette: Former Chevron scientist to speak on climate change
    For the past four years, she (Linda Dismore “Diz” Swift) has been a guest lecturer on climate change and business at the New York University (Leonard N.) Stern Business School…

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/former-chevron-scientist-to-speak-on-climate-change/article_dd7867c2-aa33-50b5-aee7-0950b3c7e12c.html

    The Top Business Schools for Eco-Entrepreneurs
    We’ve outlined the hottest areas of opportunity in green business. Here’s where to go to get educated in how to do it.
    New York University Leonard N. Stern School of Business
    New York, N.Y.
    Tuition: $43,100
    Green Curriculum: Stern offers a specialization in Social Innovation and Impact and features classes like Corporate Branding and Corporate Social Responsibility, Introduction to Environmental and Social Sustainability and Foundations of Social Entrepreneurship…

    http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/219236

  128. Louis says:

    July 19, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    Where did you get the idea that Obama wants government to tighten its belt? He has been after Congress to spend more on new stimulus plans, jobs plans, and extending unemployment since he took office. The original stimulus plan added almost a trillion dollars to government spending.

    The President said it, “just as families have to tighten their belts in tough times, so does the government.” Then he waltzed onto C-Span and declared the US is broke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znZkxN0Ks0M The original stimulus plan was $800 billion, and he used it mainly for tax cuts. But it wasn’t enough to stimulate anything. Besides, who needs a tax cut when you’re out of work and you’re losing your home? You’re complaining about $1 trillion in government spending (which it wasn’t) when the Fed doled out $29 trillion to banks?

    None of that stimulus money was used to create a jobs program. A jobs program does NOT mean people go on the government dole. A jobs program means that the government spends to have people working for private companies (who win government contracts) to produce goods and services for public purpose, like fixing our crumbling infrastructure, which needs $3.x trillion, I might add. Designing, creating, and building a national Maglev train system. Installing high-speed broadband across every inch of the country. Improving education by making our kids learn three to four languages fluently so they can compete globally or they can’t graduate high school. Funding scientific research, instead it’s sequestered. Giving Medicare to everyone, not a windfall to the insurance companies. And on and on.

    I’m not living in Fantasy Land. The fantasy is believing that federal government accounting doesn’t follow double-entry accounting rules and failing to understand what that means in dollars and cents and operational procedures when you have a sovereign non-convertible currency with a floating exchange rate.

  129. PolicyCritic (July 20, 2014 at 2:59 am) “China then has four choices: (1) leave it in checking for almost no interest, (2) buy American goods, planes, whatever, (3) exchange it on the open market for Yuan and wire it home, or (4) buy treasury securities (bonds) and earn interest (like buying a CD). So let’s say China chooses (4). ”

    More ignorance on parade, China is selling US Treasuries. You left of (5): China buys up commodities around the world to our ultimate detriment. And (6) China buys up American real estate creating another unsustainable and ultimately detrimental bubble.

    policycritic (July 20, 2014 at 3:41 am) “…Designing, creating, and building a national Maglev train system. Installing high-speed broadband across every inch of the country. Improving education by making our kids learn three to four languages fluently so they can compete globally or they can’t graduate high school…”

    Finally PolicyCritic is correct, the government will build mass transit to our detriment. It will waste resources and raise material prices that will starve out the private sector. Mass transit is one of the touted “solutions” to global warming but in fact creates more net CO2. The answer to that is no more mass transit subsidies. Improving education means pushing more global warming propaganda in public schools. The answer to that is probably home schooling, public and private schools are too far gone at this point.

    PolicyCritic is a statist pure and simple. Global warming is also driven by statism. Two peas in a pod. Go away PolicyCritic.

  130. Policycritic

    How on earth did the us economy ever grow before the government start making investment. You are looking at things like there is a pie and its just how it cut up that matters. If this eas the case we would still be living in caves.

    The Chinese don’t have to convert anything into yuan they simple take the dollars and use them to buy goods on the open market. However the as the value of the dollar decreases do to our policy they can buy less. This causes inflation here, have you tried to buy any cloths lately. The other process is they hold on to the treasuries and buy even more to try and keep the money out of circulation this helps keep the value of the dollar up in international markets. What do you think would happen if we followed your system. You can game the system for only so long. The only reason we have been able to do it on the scale we have since the the 80 is because we have enough growth in the economy to offset the down ward pressure on the dollar and because the rest of the world was using dollars which greatly increases the need for dollars. Why in gods name do you think the BRICK countries are pushing so hard to stop using dollars as the international currency. Why do you think the value of the dollar has been shrinking over the last 25 years.

    You keep saying the government doesn’t borrow and then you say people earn 6 percent interest on from the safest invest in the world. Which is it, you says the banks don’t cut back on loan to private industries but then you say the earn from the safest investment in the world.

    Also treasuries aren’t earning 6 percent it is under 2. Yet we “don’t” pay 400 billion in interest on these non loans, what happens when the economy heats up and interest rises? That’s right we don’t pay interest because we don’t borrow money. Curious why does the interest paid vary on demand then.

    Again your view is ridiculous your playing a game in your mind whether it happens directly or indirectly you can’t create something out of nothing.

    Apparently the world started in 1940 and its only been government spending that has put us where we are. Yet when I look at the record I see the same thing the government gets out of the way and the economy grows.

    When was the last time you think the government actual had good fiscal policy and acted in our best interest and not in the best interest of large corporations and the banks.

    Out here in the business world the governments effect on us is tax policy that punishes long term investment. Tax policy that constantly changes and is always retro active. Constant change in regulation do to reactionary government pandering. Constant change in government policy to reward one type of company over another changing the competitive balance for non business reasons. Every company has many employees who’s sole purpose is to work to keep the government and the IRS and regulators happy.

    Milton Freedman said it best when in India. Looking at a government run program in India build roads he noticed that they weren’t using a lot of heave equipment and they were using shovels he asked why, he was told “it’s a works program” his reponse was “then why don’t you use spoons”

    This is the way government programs work and from your stand point it would make sense to use spoons.

    Take a look at India in general, your ideas of government spending where tried there from the 50 until the late 90 with little to no benifit since then they have freed up people to keep the gains of their own efforts and you can see the growth. If it is allowed to continue with it will pull a billion people out off poverty. Growth comes from the private sector the government can have some small effect in regulating the down turn and moderating the up turns but in the end its marginal. When the government tries to be the main player the end result is always the same, gross distortion of the market place leading to down turn then stagnation. The perfect example is the housing crisis. The fed kept interest rates to low trying to stimulate the economy and the government forced banks to lend to people who didn’t have the means to pay off the loans. The end result housing prices rising at ridiculous pace especially in poor neborhoods making people borrowing that couldn’t pay it back. Banks had more and more debt that wasn’t performing so they found ridiculous ways to package the debt and pass it off to unsuspecting fools who were driven to these types of markets because they couldn’t earn enough interest on real investment because of the fed. Distortion of the market because social policy and fear of a recession for political reason. You keep saying it simple but its not the economy is a chaotic system and when the government tries to control it creates distortion some where.

    Sound familiar

  131. Weird how this thread on S. Korea’s carbon tax devolved into John Carter’s ignorance and the Federal Reserve. Oh well….

  132. Rocky roads says

    I think it’s mostly my fault and for that I apologize, but there isn’t really all that much to the story anyway so at least we aren’t waisting a good debatable story.

  133. Roderick Rbe Schuller says: July 19, 2014 at 12:15 am
    The monetary system being the biggest fraud of all!! Central Banking is what needs to go!!
    _________________________________

    Have you tried buying anything, without money? Have you tried trading without banks?

    Russia [had] a largely cash economy in the 1980s, because there were no banks as we would understand them. But buying and selling goods from different cities was almost impossible. You had to send someone with cash.

    Banks may not be perfect, they may be greedy, and they may have carved out far too large a section of the economy, but they are useful. A cash-based or barter nation, is a poor nation.

    Ralph

  134. “And while the basics don’t guarantee a radical level of ultimate change, they do guarantee ranges that strongly suggest that ignoring the issue is extremely counter productive, and unfair to our kids theirs.)” – John C.

    Why so vague? What’s going to befall The Children™ ?

    Johnny, I’m not sure that I agree with you that I’m obligated to respect anything that comes down the Pike self-labeled “science.” For example, you don’t seem the type that believes in the free enterprise system of economics.

    In the case of AGW it’s the adherents that have posited the theory and are demanding large sacrifices from me. It would seem that in the absence of ANY evidence of some extraordinary example of man made climate havoc they should be more than willing to field any question that comes their way. If AGW is such a fait accompli they should be able to handle any skeptical argument with little difficulty. Your use of the word “discredit” makes it seem like you’re taking the debate too personally.

  135. Policycritic

    By the by companies are holding and hoarding cash because of government policy and more importantly lack of consistent policy. You can not invest when someone is always changing the rules on you. This is not analysis on my part this what I do. My company only invests and takes a risk when we are left with no choice because of the market. We don’t hire or invest because the government makes the risk too great. Congress, IRS, regulators are always changing the ground rules. We have made investments that were total loses because the government changes the rules after the investments is made leaving the company nothing but waisted and energy time. This is not isolated its country wide across all industries. Companies make way too many decsions that have nothing to do economic and sound business practices because of government intervention. Almost the entire accounting industry is a waste because its only focus is on tax code. We three times as many accountants dealing with tax as we do with business accounting projection. How do you think this effects world wide competitveness.

    Why do we need thousand of new laws each year, why do we need thousands of changes in taxation regulation each year, why we need every other department in the government generate thousands of new regulations. I can’t tell how many people I know who are saying its just not woth it. Constancy is the most important thing in an economic system, with out it companies can not plan for risk. Government is about control and power it has zero interest in well being, freedom or economic success. You are delusional if you think government is anything other then the tool of last resort.

  136. “Weird how this thread on S. Korea’s carbon tax devolved into John Carter’s ignorance and the Federal Reserve. Oh well….”

    Not really. The idea that the government can pick ‘correct’ interest rates, or set the ‘correct’ level of growth in the economy by spending money is just as insane as the idea that the government can choose the ‘correct’ temperature for the planet, or control that temperature through taxation.

  137. “We don’t hire or invest because the government makes the risk too great.”

    Bingo. Politicians complain that companies only think short-term, but you can’t think long-term when the government can and does put businesses out of business overnight with the stroke of a pen. No-one can make sensible, long-term investment decisions when, next year, they might be faced with a ‘carbon tax’ or other nonsense that will make those investments unprofitable.

    The last thing the world’s economy needs is more interference from governments.

  138. John Carter says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am

    Concluding sentence of the above piece: “South Korea’s courageous stand against carbon madness raises hope that Australia’s rejection of carbon pricing will be the domino which topples any chance of global cooperation on CO2.”

    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to not address the radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere, that, still growing at geologically breakneck speed, has collectively changed – increased – the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years?

    Is it possible that the issue is not being looked at objectively, but instead in a manner focused on finding ways to discredit the idea of climate change, not consider but simply find ways to attack or dismiss any points that don’t serve to discredit the great bulk of climate science, but yet is being confused with objectivity?

    Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to fail to positively welcome and encourage the continuation the recent slight upward change to the concentration of CO2, the life-giving photosynthesis-supporting gas in the atmosphere, that, in very recent geological time, has dipped to a concentration – below 200 ppm – at which level plant growth is hindered and the fatal undermining of the entire biosphere begins from its base level – a catastrophe not seen on earth in all the history of life?

    Is it possible that the CO2 issue is not being looked at objectively, but instead in a manner focused on finding ways to demonise life-giving CO2 by grossly and fraudulently inflated fansasies about “climate change” (as if climate were not always changing, naturally, in any case, humans or no), not to consider how essential and beneficial is CO2 to all life but simply find ways to attack or dismiss any points that don’t serve the misanthropic life-hating conspiracy that goes by the name of contemporary “climate science”. Are you the one confused by objectivity?

  139. Roderick Rbe Schuller says:
    July 19, 2014 at 12:15 am

    Tax of any kind on the people is a fraud. The monetary system being the biggest fraud of all!! Central Banking is what needs to go!!

    Yes there are injustices in any monetary system.
    We humans evolved to survive, not to be moral. We have to make the best of what our evolution has made us, which is not pretty.

    Why has every human civilization always, independently, eventually started making little metal discs with images printed in them, to use as money, to facilitate trading transactions between individuals? It seems that in order to move on from stone-age hunter-gathering (unless you’re happy to settle for that) – we need money at some point.

    Money is to human relations what ATP is to the biochemistry of a cell – a currency of energy to make everything move. Money is indeed about naked self interest. This is not pretty. But the paradoxical fact is that, in human relations, allowing all sides in an interaction to serve their own self-interest is the best and most practical and durable way to get a beneficial and just outcome. In the long run, for everyone.

    Some have tried to force everyone, at the point of an AK47 gun-barrel, to be altruistic. Its easy to generate voluminous fine-sounding words about such an approach. But in practice it is a disastrous failure maximizing human misery. North Korea typifies this approach.

    See how the world goes round
    You’ve got to help yourself
    See how the world goes round
    And you’ll help someone else

    Keane, Inshin Denshin

  140. “Why has every human civilization always, independently, eventually started making little metal discs with images printed in them, to use as money, to facilitate trading transactions between individuals?”

    You don’t need a central bank to have money. You do need a central bank to allow the government to control and devalue money, so it can destroy savings and repay its debts with less than it borrowed.

    Even the Commies were quite open about this, with the Communist Manifesto proposing ‘centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly’ as one of the planks of their platform to transition backward Capitalist states to their glorious Communist future. Why do you think the ‘Progressives’ so desperately wanted the Fed?

    It’s worth noting that Economics and Global Climate Warming Distruption Change have an awful lot in common. Both feed data with poor quality control into simplistic models, believe the results are of Divine Importance, and continue to claim they’re correct even when all actual, empirical evidence shows they’re wrong. I saw a great exhibit at the Science Museum in London last year, where they have an old ‘economic model’ from the 50s or 60s, where you’d pour liquid in different parts of a machine to simulate economic inputs, and it would go through a lot of tubes and valves and somehow the end result would tell you how the economy would react. It would have been hilarious, if some people hadn’t taken that kind of clap-trap seriously.

  141. Policycritic
    You state that when Walmart buys goods from China it goes through an account at the Fed. This is also incorrect when we purchase items abroad we make direct wire transfers to the other parties account this can be done in either dollars or the currency of the host bank. There is no transfer through the fed and no purchase of tresuries.

  142. The debate about a central bank has merits on both sides but the issue is the fed is not acting like a central bank protecting the value of the dollar and easing the transfers of goods. It’s actively acquiring leverage over the government and control over all private transactions. It is not performing the roll of an independent safe guard it is positioning itself to be the dominate entity in a global market independent of the interest of the citizens of this country.

  143. policycritic

    Wow . . . I suspect you are a great example of how the education system in this country has failed to educate students on key economic principles.
    The federal government does not create money to spend — it borrows it. If the treasury department spends more money than it takes in via taxes, then the treasury does NOT print money. Rather the Treasury department borrows it, and from wherever that money comes from (the private sector), that place no longer has the funds to create value, create jobs, stimulate sales.
    There have been times that the federal government created money — such as the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. But to prevent hyperinflation, governments know that they cannot print money.
    The ability of banks to lend money is controlled by the Central Bank. Ideally, banks will lend money when an enterprise demonstrates that it will create value with the loan — more value than the sum of the loan on the interest on it. That is how productivity is enhanced; that is how jobs are created; that is how sales are boosted.
    When the national government borrows money — the private sector is not able to do these things well. Productivity, jobs, incomes, and sales will always be less when the government takes over, because the government will make decisions based on politics rather than on value created — and the government creates incentives to waste resources to get funds without adding value.

  144. I hate to be a wet blanket here, but couldn’t it just be because they are stupid, unworkable, unenforceable laws?

  145. There is no end to the arguments against policycritic view, his arguments is circular and based in a zero sum game with no external influence. It’s exactly like taking a lab experiment an assuming that the results will play out in a real world environment even when there is a thousand natural inputs that didn’t exist in the lab. It’s a mind game that he is playing and he is one of those people that thinks he is the only one smart enough to understand what is going on even though I am guessing he has never work in the business world and no nothing about policy effects business. May the gods save us from intilectual do nothing’s like him.

  146. Printing money will not fix the economic imbalances caused by investment in expensive renewables, or other political follies.

    Printing money is the ultimate stealth tax. Instead of taking actual money out of people’s hands, it leaves them with the same money they had before – but some of the value of that money has been removed.

    Like any tax, printing money doesn’t stimulate the economy, printing money depresses the economy.

    If the amount of money in circulation increases, without a matching increase in economic output, then each dollar of the money in circulation, including the newly printed money, has reduced value – it can’t buy as much.

    A good way to understand this concept is to consider an analogy – what would happen if the supply of another commodity increases. I worked in banking, they taught me a new insight, to help me work with them – money is just another commodity. You can speak of buying money with gold, in the same sense as you speak of buying gold with money, or buying silver with gold, or whatever – its all interchangeable.

    If the supply of money goes up, its like someone finding a big new deposit of gold – great news for the person who discovers the gold, bad news for everyone else who already owns a stock of gold. If the supply of gold increases, the price drops.

    Its exactly the same with money – if the supply of money increases, its value in terms of gold, in terms of things you can buy with money, decreases.

    Of course, take it too far, and things get really hairy. Money is intrinsically worthless, its a game we play – it only holds money if we all believe in it. Print too much, and that trust, that belief, fades like frost melting in the morning sun.

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=AK8JgJHYEfwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

  147. An Inquirer says:
    July 20, 2014 at 3:21 pm
    policycritic

    Wow . . . I suspect you are a great example of how the education system in this country has failed to educate students on key economic principles.
    The federal government does not create money to spend — it borrows it. If the treasury department spends more money than it takes in via taxes, then the treasury does NOT print money. Rather the Treasury department borrows it, and from wherever that money comes from (the private sector), that place no longer has the funds to create value, create jobs, stimulate sales.

    Wrong. You’ve got it all mixed up. But you don’t have to believe me. Let me direct you to the former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury, Frank N Newman. He wrote a book in April 2013 called Freedom From National Debt that explains how the US Treasury acts operationally, and how it interacts with its banker, the Fed. It’s short, 87 pages. The. Treasury. Does. Not. Borrow. Money. (Although the term ‘borrow’ is used colloquially as an accounting artifact when describing the issuing of treasury securities from the US govt’s point of view, when the correct term is ‘issue’). The US Treasury does not “crowd-out” the private sector for operating funds. Where do you think the private sector got that dollar to begin with? Pull one out now and look who signed it.

  148. Policycritic

    I don’t have to look at anything, i know the answer when we go to the banks to borrow to do our purchasing the banks don’t want to loan because they don’t need to.
    you also miss the whole point about capitalism, it is not about dollars chasing goods. it is about profits and liquidity being reinvested to create new products, markets and more efficient process. ie creating wealth, again if this isnt how it works then why dont we still live in caves, hence the word capital. you don’t have any clue how the economy really works and you keep ignore the devaluation of the dollar (inflation) and its huge effect on the capitalist system. there is a reason the dollar trades over international markets and there is a reason treasuries have to increase the interest rate to get people to buy them.

    your only good example is WWII and you fail to see how the rest of the world went broke fight the war and paying us for the arms. you fail to see the new market created ie the need to fight the war and you fail to see how the debt was really paid off ie growth in our economy providing goods to the entire world.

    I don’t doubt that some pin heads at the fed agree with your view of how money works, but you again miss the point they don’t care about the strength of the dollar or the viability of the US economy they have moved passed that. They care about gaining leverage on the government and controlling the flow of money to generate profit for them selves. They are selling you and the idiots that listen to them a bill of goods. which buy the way is a reference to selling a piece of paper and making you think it has value.

    This is no different then the AGW crowd who try to make us feel that they know things that the evidence doesn’t support. they academic pin head spew the bull so the masses panic and relinquish their freedom.

  149. Policycritic

    By the by the dollar existed before the FED. the Fed was created because there were times when the demand for physical dollars was larger the the holding of a individual regional bank. Dollars aren’t a creation of the FED the are lubricant to allow a easier transfer of goods, this is why the value of the dollar is directly tied to the output and value of the goods in the economy.
    This is why the Chinese buy dollars to take them out of circulation this keeps its relative value higher against other international currencies thus giving them a price advantage. This in effect is just a transfer of wealth from us to them.
    but they too cant do this for ever when their growth slows they wont be able to continue, this is one of the reason they are pushing to increase their consumerism in their own country and at the same time trying to push the world away from Dollars. This will allow for a secure market and purchasing power for raw materials. this is the advantage we had and are throwing away.

  150. polictcritic

    let me explain it this way, i do something that creates wealth ie build something using materials that the cost of is less the end worth of the item I created, it now has value that i have earned. i use this value to trade with some one else who has done the same thing. there is a transfer of wealth between us. we use dollars to facilitate this transfer.

    when the government creates money out of thin air and purchase the same item from someone else there is only wealth created on one side of the transaction. the some total of the value of this deal is half the total of the deal i made.

    but worse then that now I have to compete with the government to do my deal so the value of the wealth i created because less so i have to create more wealth to receive the same deal i did before.

    i assume you see the the basic point here, supply and demand might set the ultimate price of an item, But it is the work put into creating it that generates the actual wealth. It is the wealth that is the base of the economy and more importantly the willingness of people to be an active part of it.

  151. Joel O’Bryan says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:21 am
    CO2 is no more a pollutant than water vapor, the other output of the carbon combustion equation.
    The Climate Change-Global Warming Alarmism meme is approaching collapse with each colder winter.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    bit chilly says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:06 am
    john carter ,please do not worry about carbon dioxide .someone has been pulling your leg , it is no more a pollutant than oxygen . now the world has entered a slight cooling phase after a slight warming phase

    Global Climate is the compilation of weather over time, including many cold (as well as warm) winters from all different regions of the glob, over many years. One of the first understandings of CC was the increased likelihood of more weather volatility, likely increasing over time. That means unusual warm as well as unusuall cold in various regions at various times, and more unusual and intense precip. Etc.

    Pollutant is a matter of semantics. It refers to the fact that externally adding a net huge (multi million http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/hawaii-carbon-dioxide-measurement-for-may-9-passed-400-ppm.html not even counting other net gaseous additons http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/whats-really-problem-and-how-bad-and.html ) geologic spike of long lived greenhouse gases that “trap” heat is going to ultimately have longer term climate impacts, probably very significantly.

    “Slight cooling phase, slight warming phase,” volatility and weather are not climate. Climate is long term. These are not “short term cooling phases” but random volatility. Here is our current phase, showing a 100 year running trend upwards, with most of the twenty-est warmest years on modern record occurring in the past twenty five years. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world

    dbstealey says:
    July 19, 2014 at 2:21 am
    John Carter,
    CO2 does not ‘trap heat’. It slows it down via re-radiation, like an insulating blanket….
    ….The proof: there are no empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2.
    BTW, I note that you are repeatedly linking to your own blog as your ‘authority’. Bad form, John. You are no authority.

    Thanks for the lesson on “trapping” but you know it’s a common term to refer to the idea that ggs, to use your phrase, slow down via radiation, like an insulting blanket. This was specifically addressed in a comment above yours. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/another-carbon-tax-domino-falls-south-korea-goes-cold-on-ets/#comment-1689515 From my comments you also know I often use it that way, as well as often “absorb and re radiate, which is a resulting increase in gg molecules’ energy levels through vibrational transitions (and for higher wavelength IR some virbrational rotational transition), and re radiation in all directions.

    Re “proof.” The idea that a fraction rise could be proven directly attributable to CC is extremely misleading on two key counts.

    First, CC is not about just any small affect to whatever the climate today would be in the absence of our huge external multi million year gg level spike. I also reference this here, and the misleading relevance of having deep views on the issue without this awareness. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690789 The earth has huge ice sheets, caps, a vast reservoir of energy in the oceans (which has been rising now for years in response ) all of which are system stases and (relativel) stable, indirect drivers of climate, and slow to respond, and a huge spike in gg woldn’t just immediately be reflected i whatever “change” it will ultimately impact.

    Second, it would require knowledge of exactly what the climate would do each day for mutliple decades which by the enormous shorter term randomness and volatility of climate, is untenable. It is also scientifically illogical to then conclude that therefore, adding an external multi million year gg level spike wouldn’t or is unlikely to have. over time, and probably in not just volatility, but maybe even “fits and starts,” what we would consider a very unwelcome impact.

    Re authority, it’s not bad form, as the links are plainly visible (they’re not encoded into the text) so known. Also, those are articles I know, and if they capture points directly relevant, then they’re relevant. Links are for authority, support, or further clarificatiion, or access to more info with clarification and authority. (i.e, a source which itself has multiple external links for authoritative support, as several of mine do. And as has been provided directly in several comments as well.)

  152. John Carter,

    Unless you man up and admit that global warming has stopped, you have zero credibility. I would go farther: you are borderline insane.

    You write reams of prose, which amounts to exactly nothing. You are just trying to justify your anti-science belief system by posting lots of vague notions. Do you live in your grandmother’s basement? Don’t you have a real job? Why are you wasting everyones’ time with pseudoscientific nonsense that is easy to refute?

    Get a life, John.

  153. The comment above was not intended to all be in italics, which was done by typo mistake, and I apologize for. It makes it harder to read. I don’t know if it should be re posted or not. On the one hand a lot of thought and work went into the comment, it has some good points, the italics makes it a royal pain to follow, and it can be easily fixed by re posting cleanly. On the other hand, I would rather not re post the same comment.

    [Reply: are you sure you are commenting on the right thread? ~ mod.]

  154. Let’s not dismiss a guy just because he made a formatting error. We all do it. Look at his ideas not his typing.

    After all, he comes from the Silent Planet so his words are precious.

    I’m British, not American, and so are my references

  155. Bob Bolder says:
    July 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm
    John Carter of Mars?

    Sure. I noticed several commenters on here have responded to me saying “John Carter of Barsoom?”

    I didn’t really know what that meant. Then I realized it was from the Edgar Rice Burroughs book from way before most modern science fiction, and the recent flick it was made into. Which I thought was a decent enough and somewhat thoughtful flick (though most of the science fiction in it, amazing for Burroughs’ time, had since been done by other movies and was no longer novel.)

  156. To moderator, thanks for question at the bottom of the original post. Yes, this is on the right thread, all three of the comments below being addressed in response, are from above on this [thread]. I also fixed the italics problem. Which helps the readability greatly.

    Joel O’Bryan says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:21 am

    CO2 is no more a pollutant than water vapor, the other output of the carbon combustion equation.
    The Climate Change-Global Warming Alarmism meme is approaching collapse with each colder winter.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    bit chilly says:
    July 19, 2014 at 1:06 am

    john carter ,please do not worry about carbon dioxide .someone has been pulling your leg , it is no more a pollutant than oxygen . now the world has entered a slight cooling phase after a slight warming phase

    Global Climate is the compilation of weather over time, including many cold (as well as warm) winters from all different regions of the glob, over many years. One of the first understandings of CC was the increased likelihood of more weather volatility, likely increasing over time. That means unusual warm as well as unusuall cold in various regions at various times, and more unusual and intense precip. Etc.

    Pollutant is a matter of semantics. It refers to the fact that externally adding a net huge (multi million http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/hawaii-carbon-dioxide-measurement-for-may-9-passed-400-ppm.html not even counting other net gaseous additons geologic spike of long lived greenhouse gases that “trap” heat is going to ultimately have longer term climate impacts, probably very significantly.

    “Slight cooling phase, slight warming phase,” volatility and weather are not climate. Climate is long term. These are not “short term cooling phases” but random volatility. Here is our current phase, showing a 100 year running trend upwards, with most of the twenty-est warmest years on modern record occurring in the past twenty five years. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world

    dbstealey says:
    July 19, 2014 at 2:21 am

    John Carter,
    CO2 does not ‘trap heat’. It slows it down via re-radiation, like an insulating blanket….
    ….The proof: there are no empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2.
    BTW, I note that you are repeatedly linking to your own blog as your ‘authority’. Bad form, John. You are no authority.

    Thanks for the lesson on “trapping” but you know it’s a common term to refer to the idea that ggs, to use your phrase, slow down via radiation, like an insulting blanket. This was specifically addressed in a comment above yours. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/another-carbon-tax-domino-falls-south-korea-goes-cold-on-ets/#comment-1689515 From my comments you also know I often use it that way, as well as often “absorb and re radiate, which is a resulting increase in gg molecules’ energy levels through vibrational transitions (and for higher wavelength IR some virbrational rotational transition), and re radiation in all directions.

    Re “proof.” The idea that a fraction rise could be proven directly attributable to CC is extremely misleading on two key counts.

    First, CC is not about just any small affect to whatever the climate today would be in the absence of our huge external multi million year gg level spike. I also reference this here, and the misleading relevance of having deep views on the issue without this awareness. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690789 The earth has huge ice sheets, caps, a vast reservoir of energy in the oceans (which has been rising now for years in response ) all of which are system stases and (relativel) stable, indirect drivers of climate, and slow to respond, and a huge spike in gg woldn’t just immediately be reflected i whatever “change” it will ultimately impact.

    Second, it would require knowledge of exactly what the climate would do each day for mutliple decades which by the enormous shorter term randomness and volatility of climate, is untenable. It is also scientifically illogical to then conclude that therefore, adding an external multi million year gg level spike wouldn’t or is unlikely to have. over time, and probably in not just volatility, but maybe even “fits and starts,” what we would consider a very unwelcome impact.
    Re authority, it’s not bad form, as the links are plainly visible (they’re not encoded into the text) so known. Also, those are articles I know, and if they capture points directly relevant, then they’re relevant. Links are for authority, support, or further clarificatiion, or access to more info with clarification and authority. (i.e, a source which itself has multiple external links for authoritative support, as several of mine do. And as has been provided directly in several comments as well.)

    [Thank you for the edit. .mod]

  157. Bob

    I hadn’t seen your kind of wise-acre posts from above, kind of funny. But not that funny. It doesn’t seem like there is much of a willingness here to consider why most of the world’s leading scientists think climate change posses a significant threat.

    But maybe a lot of mistaken notions, in some parts anyway, to back it up. For example, here (July 19, 2014 at 8:55 am) is a statement by dbstealey, who is a good (if in many other comments extremely angry and beyond discourteous ) example:

    <blockquoteThere is no measurable evidence for AGW. Nothing happening now is either unusual or unprecedented. It has all happened before, and to a greater degree. Once you accept those facts, the only logical conclusion is that AGW is a non-issue. It just does not matter. At all.

    It’s both illogical, and most of the basic premises are incorrect. Just because the earth has warmed sometime in the past isn’t relevant to the question of whether or not an external forcing that is spiking total long lived [gg] to levels not seen on earth in several million years will have a significant impact upon our ultimately developing climate in response.

    To think that it does, isn’t logical. To then nevertheless not only believe it is logical, but base one’s entire case it anyway, is less logical still. And then to attack anything that doesn’t see it that way and does a decent enough job to show why (as well as several of his errors) – as stealey has repeatedly done in response (see some of his comments above) – and not even be wiling to consider the possibility that such a spike would have a significant affect (or even one quite “coincidentally” likely to have some relation to the current, and while not unprecedented, fairly unusual for any century time period – warming http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world ) – is, in a word, fanatical.

    As is, instead of responding substantively in a way that doesn’t repeat the same basic mistaken and irrelevant notions over and over ((earth has not :”warmed” in last several years, therefore global warming is not real), posting increasingly hysterical and vile comments. Such as one or two of his last ones above. Which is also another way to do the same thing that I have laid out several times that he is doing, and may be a common pattern: Anything to discredit climate science or anyone who advocates why it is a major issue.

    If my points weren’t reasonable (and also show him to be repeatedly mistaken on the central, relevant points, which he doesn’t want to change, but stick to fanatically while projecting the same outward), he wouldn’t do it; but doesn’t see that, or doesn’t see that all the terms he’s thrown out to me, religious fanatic (almost comical to an outside, objective observer, in light of my posts), experiencing cognitive dissonance, describe himself. He’s “projecting” all over the place. http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/0001251(see no. 7 specifically) He’s continued the same pattern. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689228
    And in particular http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690789 (and also http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690771 Notice the last paragraph, in light of what stealey wrote, and the actual facts, as shown right below that.)

    It’s been like that with nearly every comment. As for his critique of long comments sometimes, that is just another way to attack. A comment is based on its merit, not length. Sometimes it takes explanation and analysis to accurately cover something, not the sound bites that only further the same misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions in the first place. Particularly on an issue that is as complex as climate change is.

    Stealey, above, July 19, 2014 at 10:13 am (and yet again)
    He is a religious True Believer, who never responds to questions.
    Stealey thinks the world revolves around his comments. Here is an example of “his never responding to questions,” which he tried to turn every comment into it, when it had little to do with my original point or response,. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690757

    What stealey calls my alleged “nitpicking” (also above, July 19, 2014 at 10:13 am), are what the basics of climate change are. The furthest thing from nitpicking. Or the illustration of fervently and insistently clung to errors that go to what the basics of what climate change are; once again, very far afield, from nitpicking.

  158. John Carter Of Mars says:

    The earth has huge ice sheets, caps, a vast reservoir of energy in the oceans (which has been rising now for years in response )…

    Baseless assertion. Empirical evidence is lacking. The ARGO buoy array shows ocean cooling. There is no ‘hidden heat in the deep oceans’ that has been measured or quantified. That is a Trenberth assertion, without any basis in the real world. Only the gullible believe that the 2nd Law has been repealed. The rest of us know that heat rises.

    Next:

    …all of which are system stases and (relativel) stable, indirect drivers of climate, and slow to respond, and a huge spike in gg woldn’t just immediately be reflected i whatever “change” it will ultimately impact.

    John, you cannot have it both ways. When there was a temporary coincidental warming in global T in the late ’90’s along with the rise in CO2, the alarmist crowd jumped on it, and claimed that proved that CO2 caused global warming. There was no lag time then. But that relationship quickly broke down, and it has not happened since.

    Now you are claiming that there is a lag time, and so we can’t know. So which is it? I am tired of your cherry-picking whatever arbitrary factoid supports your belief system.

    The fact is that changes in CO2 are caused by changes in temperature; not vice versa. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 is not the causative agent of changes in global T.

    ∆T causes ∆CO2, not vice versa. That cause and effect relationship is visible on time frames from years, to hundreds of millennia. But there is no empirical evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None at all. And since the mistaken belief that CO2 causes a rise in global T is the basis of the entire “carbon” scare, your belief system has taken another fatal hit.

    Your fellow Martians might agree with you. But here at WUWT, your pseudo-science is easily debunked by scientific evidence and empirical observations.

  159. davidmhoffer says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:43 am
    John Carter;
    And, well, since I’m pretty knowledgeable on them (and sometimes kind of funny), how valuable!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    As our conversation on the Australia thread reveals, you aren’t conversant in the very basics of the science.

    It wasn’t a conversation. It was you skirting the basic points, postulating numerous things that are wildly incorrect, often in highfalutin language, that had nothing to do with my basic points, And which, to not answering, or responding to, your only argument essentially is that I’m not smart enough or knowledgeable enough.

    Which is ludicrous. It would be like “I would show how you are incorrect, but you are not smart enough to follow.” Let alone that I probably have more intelligence in my left pinky than you do in your entire brain. (Hyperbole. Obviously.)

    Here’s an example from that thread of some things you post that are wildly incorrect, where you have used some of your “advanced” seeming physics study to arrive at conclusions which you have almost no conceptual understanding of,

    But if the “missing heat” is in fact going into the oceans, the fact that they are warming faster than ever becomes meaningless for the simple fact that the amount they are heating is still minor (regardless of speed), and the fact becomes that the oceans become a gigantic buffer in which it will takes 1200 times as much energy to raise the world’s temperature by one degree as previously thought. Your point means that there is even less reason for alarm than if the oceans were not heating.

    This is scientifically ludicrous, as is, even more so,the entire comment in context. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689182

    Let’s get the world’s best physicists in here, or maybe the same ones, in another comment, you reference as (unlike me) knowing your basic physics – Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, etc. to comment on it, shall we? But again, you don’t even recognize conceptually the several errors you make, which run replete through most of your comments to me. “On” science.

    Most of the assertions you have tried to make in monumentally labored explanation, which makes them barely worth bothering to respond to, because it is almost impossible to figure out exactly what you are saying in relation to the basic point at issue, and only seem to mainly show off knowledge which must make you credible (including, most deceptively, to yourself), on a site where people already almost fervently believe your ultimate “CC concern is mostly hooey” conclusions. So how you arrive at them (using the term “arrive” very loosely) is never really deeply or objectively examined. Nice prose, uses big physics words, shows Carter up! When what you do is avoid nearly every substantive issue.

    Which is what you have to do to believe what you believe what you do when every leading atmospheric physicist disagrees with the conclusions you have made.

  160. Every time I read one of John Carter’s long posts I expect to see at the end “and, of course, the Squirrels … ”

    Whenever John Carter is asked to describe all of these ills that will befall the planet due to man emitted CO2 (He assumes effects must be bad on the whole/ Part of his world view) all we ever get is vague stuff like “unwelcome impact”.

  161. dbstealey says:
    July 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm
    John, you cannot have it both ways. When there was a temporary coincidental warming in global T in the late ’90′s along with the rise in CO2, the alarmist crowd jumped on it, and claimed that proved that CO2 caused global warming.

    I never argued it, don’t ascribe the arguments of others to me.

    As for the ocean point, I don’t know enough about the deep heat, but I would imagine the theory might be that the entire ocean has warmed a little (the deep is still extremely cold) and there’s not a lot of easy ways to measure that collectively on a global basis. Just speculation. Feel free to take this out of context now too, and somehow turn or any peripheral misstatement into the issue of whether or not CC poses a significant climatic shift or change threat. (Since you love doing that.)

    dbstealey says:
    July 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm
    John Carter Of Mars says:

    The earth has huge ice sheets, caps, a vast reservoir of energy in the oceans (which has been rising now for years in response )
    >>>>>>>
    Baseless assertion. Empirical evidence is lacking. The ARGO buoy array shows ocean cooling.

    So essentially you are now taking issue with the idea that the oceans have warmed, representing a vast accumulation of energy? And basically taking issue with what, in the world of actual scientists, isn’t really in dispute? And instead calling it baseless?

    As opposed to Davidmhoffer’s assertion that the fact that they have warmed is irrelevant.

    Stealey, what’s your name by the way, maybe I can buy you a beer (you drink beer?) when I’m out in the land of denial. (Or wherever you are.)

    On denial, you got pretty ripped about that phrase. I think this Guardian piece addresses it decently enough. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/21/nazis-climate-contrarian-credibility-gap It’s a word in the English language. Several who think CC is not a threat like the term. They deny it’s a threat. And as the phrase CC reflects that threat, they say they are deniers of it. Which is accurate.

    I deny a lot of things. I deny you are being objective, for instance, but when *(if) you do become so, your perspective on CC will shift.

  162. Justa Joe says:
    July 21, 2014 at 4:47 pm
    Every time I read one of John Carter’s long posts I expect to see at the end “and, of course, the Squirrels … ”

    Whenever John Carter is asked to describe all of these ills that will befall the planet due to man emitted CO2

    I don’t know, have I been asked to describe all the ills that will befall the planet due to what has been a multi million year external forcing affect change in the collective level of long lived [gg]?

    With increased ice melt and an increasingly rising ocean (not due to just thermal expansion as them most conservative estimates solely take into account) and a change in the overall ambient temperature of the earth by at least several degrees Celsius (9/5 more than that Fahrenheit), and probably far more intense and volatile precipitation patterns and events, what do you think the affect will on us?

    I know among other serious institutions, The U.S. Department of Defense, solely from the perspective of national security, is starting to study it pretty seriously. And that’s just for the peripheral, tertiary, very indirect (and speculative)affect. But I know that gets explained away also, as. conveniently, does everything.

  163. John Carter says:
    July 21, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    I know among other serious institutions, The U.S. Department of Defense, solely from the perspective of national security, is starting to study it pretty seriously. And that’s just for the peripheral, tertiary, very indirect (and speculative)affect. But I know that gets explained away also, as. conveniently, does everything.

    The Department of Defense is a dedicated slave to the political interests that drive it, control it, and pay its salary. Those who use that excuse – and I have read it many times from liberal writers who are themselves getting paid by govrnment money – are simply spewing lies to distract the argument behind read, write and blew flags of convenience and ignorance.

    If they had a choice, would the DOD pay 135.00 dollars for a “green energy” biofuels from democrat-party-owned fuel companies instead of 45.00 dollars for conventional fuel? Would they buy products from politically connected companies rather than get open-bid commercial products that are safer, more reliable, less expensive?

    Do NOT ever assume the DOD will oppose their political masters in the White House. They – the DOD military – regularly kill their pilots and Marines and ground troops by sending them on politically-correct flight patterns into known air defenses with explicit bombing engagements just so the White House can claim political payouts using those flight paths. …

  164. First of all The U.S. Department of Defense “studies” what the administration tells them to study., You’ll recall The U.S. Department of Defense were studying the fast approaching ice age back during the 70’s. Your attempt to invoke The U.S. Department of Defense to lend scare credence is a fail.

    All of your claims of high temperatures, melting ice caps and claims of high sea levels do not exist. They are also not approaching. Everything is the same as it was when I was young, which is about 40 years ago. All you have are wild apocalyptic predictions made by people with an agenda. You cannot speak with certainty of anything until it has occurred.

  165. John Carter

    Read the article WWUT about ocean temps three articles above this one. You have no arguments left.

    There is no feedback so there is no run away warming so there is no issue.

    Obama is directing the military perpetration concerning global warming against the advice of his military commanders

    Ocean SL rise is due to deep ocean cooling, not ocean warming

    Co2 increase is a net [benefit] because of its effect on plant life. Any small increase if there is any from it is also a benefit, milder winter, more food production, increase in the amount arable land and less severe storms.

    Your incomprehensible long winded posts, the substance of which, if any, are meaningless gobbledegook

    Again 20 something liberal arts major

  166. dbstealey says:
    July 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    But here at WUWT, your pseudo-science is easily debunked by scientific evidence and empirical observations.

    What have you “debunked.” Arguments as to why CC poses a significant climate shift threat have been ignored. You’ve incorrectly (yet repeatedly) conflated the issue with trailing temperature data, which pretty much says it all.

    And yet you’ve also relied almost solely upon the irrelevant fact that the earth “has warmed” before (and oceans have been a few dozen meters higher before, too – in fact – the last time collective gg gas concentrations were this high). And that since the last twenty years has not seen a perfectly linear year to year or even decade to decade rise in temperature (which belies any sense of what climate really is), the idea of CC, an earth system response that ultimately shifts the climate in way that would be extremely detrimental to us but absolutely “ho hum” to the planet to a geologically radical external(and still heavily ongoing) external forcing , CC can not be real.

    And taken to attacking me in nearly any way possible, and sometimes pretty outrageously, not to mention, in other contexts, unacceptably.

    Btw, assuming (unrealistically) for the moment that you really are trying to think about the issue, I can tell you this. You’re confusing our sense of time, with geologic time.

  167. John Carter From Mars says:

    …don’t ascribe the arguments of others to me.

    So you don’t think that CO2 is the cause of global warming?? You ramble on so much it’s hard to tell. Probably a Martian trait.

    Next, Carter says:

    As for the ocean point, I don’t know enough about the deep heat…

    No kidding. Apparently Carter doesn’t know about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, either. Any heat in the deep ocean would rise, and be detectable. But no such heat has been observed.

    So essentially you are now taking issue with the idea that the oceans have warmed, representing a vast accumulation of energy? And basically taking issue with what, in the world of actual scientists, isn’t really in dispute? And instead calling it baseless?

    That is exactly what I am saying. That is your conjecture, therefore, you have the onus of producing measurable, testable evidence to support your conjecture, showing rising heat in the deep ocean. So show it. Produce that evidence, if you can. If you do, you will be the first to do so. No rising heat has been measured in the deep ocean. That is Trenberth’s fantasy, but it has no real world evidence to support it. [And pay attention here: ‘evidence’ consists of raw data, and/or verifiable empirical observations. Evidence is not computer models, or pal reviewed papers.]

    Next, re: denialism, denialist, etc. Columnist Ellen Goodman first used that pejorative, directly linking scientific skeptics of the “carbon” scare to Holocaust deniers. Could she be any more despicable? Yes — if she still used that label, like others still do <–[lookin' at you, Martian].

    The Guardian nonsense you linked to is evidence that you like your propaganda. It says:

    …because that pool of contrarian climate experts is so small…

    FYI, the OISM statement was co-signed by more than 31,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. They stated unequivocally, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. I CHALLENGE YOU to produce the names of even 3,100 professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, contradicting that statement. Put up or shut up, chump. I don’t think you can come up with even 10% of the OISM numbers. So much for your mythical ‘consensus‘, which was always a load of crap.

    You ramble on senselessly, jumping from one mental free-association thought to the next. You never answer questions asked, and you act exactly like a Jehovah’s Witness whose faith has been challenged. Your entire belief system has been repeatedly debunked here, but you continue on in your religious CAGW ignorance. If you wanted to learn, there is no better place than here. Lots of knowledgeable folks would help you. But you do not want to learn, you only want to incessantly argue — a sign of immaturity. Really, it’s time for you to either grow up, or leave the science discussion to the adults.

  168. @Carter:

    Also do you think that you are using child psychology on a bunch of children? You posting that crap tells me that you’re a BS’er, a Democrat party activist, or just a gullible fool.

    “I know among other serious institutions, The U.S. Department of Defense, solely from the perspective of national security, is starting to study it pretty seriously.” J. Carter

    Starting to study what exactly? What tangible effect does the DOD have to study? What impact on “national security” is present. What is the threat? What is meant by “pretty seriously” Again wild predictions not welcome

  169. John Carter says:
    I don’t think it’s a scam at all. And I think (In the rest of your comment) your assertion that it is a fraud, and that I know it is a fraud, borders on …….

    To accuse someone of that for having ideas, let alone ideas and opinions that are grounded in science (but even when they aren’t, people, including everyone on here, have the right to be wrong) is moving toward this:
    +++++++++++++
    If you think with an open mind rather than seek “other people’s” ideas to be implanted into your ideology you’d learn something right now. Seek truth rather than seeking to confirm what you already believe. This is the ultimate endeavor of humanity – to be inquisitive. You learn something when you’re wrong. Learn nothing when you’re right –or think you’re right.

    You don’t seem to have ideas, rather you seem to perpetuate what you’ve been told. Those are not your ideas.

    Still, you claim claim your ideas are grounded in science. If you understood science, you would understand that those who claim “The science is settled” are dishonest. Because science is never settled, especially climate science, which is barely understood.

    We do know a lot about the claims being made with respect to CAGW. And the claims have been put to the test and have failed utterly. This is NOT hard to find. That you claim to have ideas grounded and science, yet have not considered what I have just written, means you have extreme bias.
    Mario

  170. John Carter

    20 something liberal arts major.
    My professor told me so.
    I read it on Msnbc.com
    John Stuart had a guy on from some country with foreign accent and he said that globerbly sourcing temperature magnetotommeter rising thermal plasticity index shows clear humidor bias indicating a likely thermal blanketsphere inversion. This indicates thermal highponics and clear proof of the theory. Don’t dis me man I know what talking about see and if you you don’t understand I will educate you using my incomprehensinator.
    .

  171. Mario Lento says:
    July 21, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    ….
    If you think with an open mind rather than seek “other people’s” ideas to be implanted into your ideology you’d learn something right now. Seek truth rather than seeking to confirm what you already believe. This is the ultimate endeavor of humanity – to be inquisitive.

    I think it’s the ultimate endeavor of some, certainly myself. And I hope of mankind in general. Yet I think that some self kidding is going on here with respect to thinking that is what is being done. The responses to all my comments – attacking, misconstruing, sometimes mocking – when I make some pretty solid points, well illustrates this. The real inquisitive open mind would consider my posts from an objective standpoint.

    My experience here – where very few people who are not CC refuters dare to more than cursorily go, because it’s nothing but grief – has been that anything but true, actual consideration and contemplation, and a willingness to integrate any reasonable points into one’s perspective on the issue, is one of the last things being done. One of the first things being done is the perpetuation of quite the opposite belief.

    I would love to be proven wrong on that. But it seems that instead, always, with respect to any substantive point or basic observation about the climate issue, the goal is to prove me wrong, which is also the opposite of open-mindedness.

  172. John Carter shows the difference between the climate alarmist crowd and scientific skeptics. For one thing, it is the duty of skeptics to prove a conjecture wrong, by falsifying it wherever possible. Carter whines about being proven wrong, but that is how science works. Only those facts left standing pass muster.

    Like many skeptics, I was well on my way to being convinced that human CO2 emissions were the cause of global warming. That was in the mid to late 1990’s, when the big El Nino of ’97 caused a fast rise in global T.

    But as knowledge and contrary evidence mounted, I began to question the cause and effect relationship. The facts have changed, and now I am firmly on the side of the skeptics’ argument: there is no measurable, testable scientific evidence to support the cAGW argument.

    That is the difference between skeptics, and alarmists like John Carter. When the evidence deconstructs a particular conjecture — in this case, cAGW — then skeptics will change their minds. That is the Scientific Method in action.

    But alarmists are completely different. When the evidence mounts against their conjecture, rather than consider it on its merits, the alarmist crowd digs in their heels and argues incessantly. They have taken a position, and they absolutely refuse to allow any new facts or evidence to change it, no matter how persuasive. Once they take a position, nothing can alter it. They become True Believers.

    The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. But climate alarmists have no use for skepticism. Their belief is religious and political; never scientific. By being that way, they increasingly become purveyors of anti-science. Just look at Carter’s endless, nitpicking posts. His confirmation bias overrules his thinking, and he cherry-picks only those factoids that support his belief.

    That is not science, that is advocacy. As a result, people like Carter are prime targets for modern day witch doctors like Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth. Oh, and the Guardian.

  173. John Carter

    Are you serious? You have to know you make no sense at all. You don’t make any point you just spew stuff that you heard somewhere else. Most the people here actually debate issues with point and counter point, they research, graph, generate equations and develop interesting thought experiments to ponder. They get heated and bitch at each other and learn while they are doing it.

    You on the other hand are just a dopey kid trying to sound clever. Now I personally find you hilarious and my only hope is that’s what you are trying to accomplish.

    Duck everyone here comes the incomprehensinator.

  174. Justa Joe says:
    July 21, 2014 at 5:36 pm
    @Carter:

    “I know among other serious institutions, The U.S. Department of Defense, solely from the perspective of national security, is starting to study it pretty seriously.” J. Carter

    Starting to study what exactly? What tangible effect does the DOD have to study? What impact on “national security” is present. What is the threat? What is meant by “pretty seriously

    I dunno. Ask DOD. They are spending some effort looking into the national security ramifications of possible international unrest, strife and war in response to an ultimately shifting climate, one with far different precipitation patterns and intensities then what we evolved under, a likely far warmer world with intense areas of heat and drought, and rising oceans not from thermal expansion, which is trifling, but increasingly accelerating (slow in our year to year terms, not so low in geologic terms) net melt. As happens when relatively stable underlying systems stases start to shift. Which – far from being a “ridiculous” effect from a multi million year change to gg levels from a super rapid external forcing, as every comment to me here has implicitly relied upon as the ‘truth” not being sought, but to be maintained – is actually a pretty plausible scenario.

    I am not commenting on it, only on the fact that the DOD, for a possible and speculative tertiary affect of the underlying phenomenon, considers it important enough to look into and I imagine if possible integrate into our our ongoing defensive strategic development. Or something such

    That’s all that point was. Not what you made it into.

    But you also ask “What kid of tangible effect.”There is this belief that CC is simply an instantaneous response (though averaged out and integrated into overall climate) to whatever levels gg are at. Thus, if it “exists,” what we see today, is what it is. It’s nothing of the sort.

    Or that it doesn’t even exist at all. And, while the climate doesn’t normally shift as much as it has in just the last 100 years, and over the entire period(relevant climate time, not the mistaken year to year/ decade to decade misconstruction that it has been turned into) the rate of increase has overall, gone up — that that happenstance is just coincidental simply because climate “does that once a while.” Yes, it does. But the most likely explanation is not the long odds coincidental one; but the simplest one. If something would affect climate, and we might start to see early (but over time, increasing) signs of it, and it is actually what we are seeing, then that is by far the most likely explanation.

    But the idea of models the not being able to exactly predict the pattern get mistakenly used to invalidate the underlying idea, when the two really aren’t related. Models are just an attempt to further quantify it, and the fact they have been generally accurate in terms of the general direction of the climate, is if anything, more corroborative, because climate is otherwise random. Outside of the scope of a politically tinged issue, this is pretty easy to see.

    To say it was “warming anyway” is to be Nostradamus, because climate is random. And even if it was, it wasn’t before the trend actually did start warming. So, again, it could be random, but the chances are far lower. And to say that CC doesn’t exist because the earth “can” do this on it’s own, is illogical. (But all these otherwise irrelevant ideas “climate has changed before,” or illogical ideas “climate change can’t be real or significantly causing the effect we’re seeing because the earth has warmed before, are then viewed as real arguments, if one wants to believe that CC is not “real.)

    So yes, over time, with much higher [gg], we would expect to see some overall change or affect (impossible to measure, because of the underlying climate variability, though that is also mistakenly taken to mean that therefore it can not exist). But that is not the real issue. CC is not today’s (climatically integrated) response to what today’s gg levels are. At all. And the fact that there is some basic misconception of this in the media, hasn’t helped either.

  175. John Carter

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. I honestly haven’t laughed this much in years. honestly i think you are actually Anthony, Bob or Roy trying to be funny at this point, but I don’t care keep it up its great.

    I am checking your text for secret codes to win a prize or something, there has to be something in there.

  176. John Carter rambles:

    the most likely explanation… an ultimately shifting climate… likely… models predict… models have been generally accurate in terms of the general direction of the climate… And so on.

    No, John, models have not been accurate. NOT ONE GCM [climate model] was able to predict the current end to global warming that began 17+ years ago. They were all wrong.

    John Carter, your entire screed above is a complete bunch of pointless nonsense and emotional assertions with no basis in reality. Skeptics require at least some real world evidence showing that there is cause for concern. You have provided nothing. Your whole comment amounts to “But what if…”.

    If you believe there is any evidence at all to support your climate scare, then you are a lunatic. There is no evidence. I keep asking you to post any such evidence, but you always avoid doing it. You have got nothing but your emo beliefs.

    Further, you always avoid discussing that corollary to the Scientific Method, the climate Null Hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis shows conclusively that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with the climate. Everything currently observed has happened before, and to a much greater degree.

    The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Where does that leave you? That leaves you with no credible argument. But like any run of the mill lunatic, reality doesn’t matter to you. You are a religious True Believer. You Believe that there are signs and portents of runaway AGW everywhere. But when push comes to shove, you’ve got nothing.

    Run along now, back to your thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs, where the handful of like-minded lunatics head-nod in agreement at every bit of pseudo-science presented. You people are nuts. You are like the guy who knows there is a black cat under his bed. He is certain of it; he can even hear it breathing. But when he turns on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.

    Same-same with your runaway global warming fantasy. There is zero testable, measurable evidence to support that lunatic belief. But that doesn’t matter to a True Believer. You will find factoids to feed your crazy confirmation bias. Just do us a favor: take it to your alarmist blogs. Because we want facts and evidence here, not your baseless “What ifs”.

  177. John Carter writes: “I would love to be proven wrong on that. ”
    No John, you are not willing to be proven wrong. I am sure of that.
    You bring up what you call good points, and they are sleighed with fact. You could check the facts and verify, but you fail to do so. The points you bring up are sophomoric talking points designed to fool the politicians and anyone who has no understanding of how science works. You are not willing to be proven wrong. But you are able to be proven wrong. And that about chalks it up here.

  178. John Carter Says

    “So yes, over time, with much higher [gg], we would expect to see some overall change or affect (impossible to measure, because of the underlying climate variability, though that is also mistakenly taken to mean that therefore it can not exist).”

    Meaning its there because I say so but you wont be able to measure it, but its a big problem

    “But that is not the real issue. CC is not today’s (climatically integrated) response to what today’s gg levels are. At all. And the fact that there is some basic misconception of this in the media, hasn’t helped either.”

    Meaning, you know I don’t know what the hell this means. does it mean Climate Change exists irregardless of green house gas levels. Duh, climate change does exist. The only people that ever claimed there was a static climate are your friends. Does it mean that someday there might be a response to the change in Green house gas levels? OK we will wait and see, but this isn’t what your friends have said all along they have been saying the CC we are seeing know is a direct response to GG and the CC is proof that the GG is the problem, but the CC isn’t in response to the to the GGGG so now according to you we need to wait and see if the CCCC changes because of the GGGG even though we probably won’t be able to measure the CCCC because CCCC changes anyway.

    Again you are the best and I am still laughing even a day later thanks. Keep it up who ever you really are it IS Funny and should be taken on the road somewhere.

    I can wait for the next blast from the incomprehensinator.

  179. “While many duped conservatives had started to drift into the leftist camp, by a year after Climategate nearly all conservatives had seen the light. (Yeah, with big exceptions like Chris Christie.) ”

    You are of course making the point that Christie is not a conservative?

    Also, John Carter is a trollolololol.

  180. @ J. Carter

    I dunno. Ask DOD. They are spending some effort looking into the national security ramifications of possible international unrest, strife and war in response to an ultimately shifting climate, one with far different precipitation patterns and intensities then what we evolved under, a likely far warmer world with intense areas of heat and drought,

    You brought up the DOD. I asked you for some tangible aspect of AGW the DOD could possibly be studying as a national security issue. I furthermore asked you to not bother with wild predictions.

    All you laid out were wild predictions and suppositions piled on top of suppositions. None of the things you presented are occurring. Are you capable of discerning between speculation and reality? Are you capable of understanding that the DOD can be influenced to produce gobbledygook for the advancement of political agendas? A smart person even one that believes in cAGW should be able discern such things.

  181. John Carter

    I am guessing a Political Science Major, 20 years old and still living at home.
    is that close?

  182. I said

    “I can wait for the next blast from the incomprehensinator.”

    I of course meant “I CAN’T wait”.

    Please entertain us some more J Carter

  183. Gotta love this one.

    “…ultimately shifting climate, one with far different precipitation patterns and intensities then what we evolved under,”

    Every region on the globe has a “different precipitation pattern.” Man can climb Mount Everest, Invent Polio vaccines, and travel to the moon, but everything will go to hell in a hand basket if MAYBE it’s a little more or less rainy. Warmists like JC really have to reach for this stuff.

  184. Justa Joe says:
    July 22, 2014 at 8:06 am
    Gotta love this one.

    “…ultimately shifting climate, one with far different precipitation patterns and intensities then what we evolved under,”

    Every region on the globe has a “different precipitation pattern.” Man can climb Mount Everest, Invent Polio vaccines, and travel to the moon, but everything will go to hell in a hand basket if MAYBE it’s a little more or less rainy. Warmists like JC really have to reach for this stuff.
    +++++++
    And let me add, mass extinction of human species expected in Phoenix, AZ. Oh wait…

  185. Mario Lento,
    Do you remember what “precipitation pattern” you “evolved under” ? Somehow I can’t… LOL

  186. John Carter,

    Observe the Consensus. It is right here, and it says that you are wrong.

    Carter says:

    What have you “debunked.”

    By using numerous charts, graphs, and data, I debunked your belief in runaway global warming. But you still believe. That’s your problem: you refuse to accept the mountains of empirical evidence that deconstructs what you believe. Have I mentioned that you have a closed mind?

    And:

    Arguments as to why CC poses a significant climate shift threat have been ignored. You’ve incorrectly (yet repeatedly) conflated the issue with trailing temperature data, which pretty much says it all.

    ‘Says it all’? John, we use trailing temperature data because future “data” is not data at all. It is a prediction. As we know, all the wild-eyed alarmist predictions have failed, so skeptics tend to avoid predicting.

    Finally, ‘climate change’ may or may not be a threat. But all the available evidence shows that it is natural, not man-made. The climate always changes; the Sahara desert was a grassland savannah only a few thousand years ago. So was the Gobi desert, which is now encroaching on Beijing from only 60 miles away. Those are natural changes. The climate changes, and people adapt. But we don’t prepare for the Gobi desert invading New York City. That would be as crazy as ‘mitigating’ CO2 levels, because there is no evidence that either one is necessary.

    The real question is: why do you believe so strongly in something for which there is zero scientific evidence? If you truly believed in the Tooth Fairy, people would think you’re nuts. I see no difference in your CAGW beliefs, and people who believe in fairies. Neither one has any real world supporting evidence.

  187. Bob Bolder says:
    July 21, 2014 at 4:29 am

    This is no different then the AGW crowd who try to make us feel that they know things that the evidence doesn’t support. they academic pin head spew the bull so the masses panic and relinquish their freedom.

    Actually, it’s the other way around, Bob. The people who freak out about the Fed and the National Debt are like the AGW crowd. [Yaaas. I’ve read The Creature From Jekyll Island. G. Edward Griffin is an honorable and earnest man working from the info available to him, but he happens to be wrong. Long-buried documents and books have come to light since his latest 2010 edition that prove it.] This is my last word on the subject. Read Frank N Newman’s book mentioned above.

  188. dstealey says

    “The real question is: why do you believe so strongly in something for which there is zero scientific evidence? If you truly believed in the Tooth Fairy, people would think you’re nuts. I see no difference in your CAGW beliefs, and people who believe in fairies. Neither one has any real world supporting evidence.”

    That’s just it, he doesn’t believe any of it or anything else he is just being programmed by someone and is sent out to regurgitate and that’s why it is down right hilarious he can’t actually hold an argument so he tries to hit you with incomprehensible mumbo jumbo hoping someone will take him seriously. So here are my theories, he is a college kid trying to make some liberal arts loop job teacher proud or he has a girlfriend that is really into this junk and he is try to get ****** or he is just one of us trying to have some fun by tweaking everyone, if he was more coherent i would go with the latter but i don’t think anyone here could be so confusing and incomprehensible even on purpose.

  189. Policycritic

    i HAVEN’t read the creature from Jekyll island, and I WILL read your book to make you happy but it doesn’t matter how you or the fed itself thinks it works. If you make something out of thin air and use it to buy something that has sweat and effort in it your devaluing the wealth. No matter what you say the market will be distorted by these efforts and the wealth of this nation will decrease. The FED is not the economy and the government is not holder of wealth. As i said before I don’t doubt that you actually believe what you are saying and i don’t doubt that people at the FED believe what you are saying but its still BULL and the excising of this philosophy will not only diminish the economy as a whole and take away the incentive for people produce it also will diminish everyone’s freedom and liberty.
    You yourself say that they are not acting in the peoples best interest yet you buy into their manipulations of the market place and their attempt to dominate it to who end?

    You naivety is really astounding, its not about the government or the currency its about the free market place and peoples LIBERTY.

    I am not some Johnny come lately to this debate either I have been predicting and warning about fiscal policy of this government for 35 years. i have never screamed that the sky was falling but i have warned about the never ending crawl to FED and government control of the market place for the benefit of the banks and the large international corporations and to the detriment of the people and liberty as a whole. You have been hood winked, what you believe may actually function for a while but not to the benefit of the people this country was founded for. The soviet union took 80 years to implode and up until they did everyone thought their system worked and was strong if not free. The people of this country have created an astonishing amount of wealth and even following the course of vapor economics it will take a long time for that wealth to disappear but disappear it will if we don’t realize that it is the pursuit of Liberty that creates the only true incentive for people to risk and succeed.

    • @Bob Bolder,

      It is clear from the recent experiences in Europe that countries that run up enormous debt have in fact used this national debt as an excuse to persecute “tax dodgers.” So they most certainly are spending and devaluing our money/wealth, and then going after more wealth by claiming the citizens are engaging in “tax evasion.” There are even facebook pages for people to turn in Italian or Greek neighbors for taxes. I wonder if you agree that the flat tax is one simple, proactive response. I enjoyed your comments very much and thank you for taking the time to discuss this.

      At least J Car…did a wonderful service in eliciting great comments from Bob Bolder and dbstealey.

  190. Justa Joe says:
    July 22, 2014 at 9:58 am
    Mario Lento,
    Do you remember what “precipitation pattern” you “evolved under” ? Somehow I can’t… LOL
    ++++++++++
    Hold on Joe, I’m getting in touch with my DNA which holds all the answers to the questions of my origin… uhm… yes, I believe it rained sometimes. ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny –sometimes

  191. Mario Lento says:
    July 22, 2014 at 11:24 am
    ———————
    Maybe I do sense the stirrings of a racial memory from aeons on the “Geologic” Time gone by…

    Raindrops keep fallin’ on my head
    And just like the guy
    Whose feet are too big for his bed

    Nothin’ seems to fit
    Those raindrops are fallin’
    On my head, they keep fallin’

    So I just did me some talkin’ to the sun
    And I said, I didn’t like
    The way he got things done…

  192. Zeke;

    I can’t say that i am a fan of any Tax, i also do recognize that the government is unfortunately a necessity and while I wish to see it limited to the extreme i don’t see a practical alternative to taxation to generate revenue, that being said tax code should not be a tool of the government to impose policy it should be just be about generating revenue as fairly and evenly as possible. From that stand point a flat tax makes some sense to me. I also think that a certain amount of income shouldn’t be taxed at all, meaning that the first x-thousand of dollars are tax free and only dollars earned after that amount are taxed at the flat rate. Say $100,000 for a family.

    I actually though have thought a bit about a national sales tax (NOT A VAT) on finished goods sold. i would leave food, clothing and housing out of this, most people would bulk at this because it seams like the price of goods would rise, but i don’t think so all corporate and individual taxes are incorporated into the price of goods now as a cost of manufacturing and as a tax on profit so i think the net change price of goods would be zero. but i think there are huge advantages for national industry when competing with foreign entities. Since businesses would no longer be paying corporate taxes the cost of manufacturing would go down, however foreign companies who are producing in countries with little or no taxes would still have their goods sold here with the sales tax which would have the effect of evening the playing field for american companies while insuring that our government (hold my nose) generates revenue from the sale of foreign made goods. i believe this would encourage manufacturing here and benefit employers and employees across the board.

    It also has the fun part of eliminating the IRS from individuals lives. I think there is also a huge amount of waist generated in the business world because of adherence to tax code not just direct cost of adhering to the code but the cost of making decisions based on tax benefit instead of business advantage. i also think companies would have a much longer view.

    the last part would be for there to be a change to the Constitution setting a limit on how much revenue as a percentage of the GDP the government could tax. This i think is important because it is inevitable that any simple tax policy will be to easy for the government to raise the base rate of. if the economy grows the government generates more revenue so there should be no need for increasing rates, except for war or as I am sure Policycritic will jump on the need to act against down turn. This last thing we can debate over and over, I am not a huge fan of it but if the government creates debt to pay for hard assets during a downturn to “stimulate the economy” there is some small benefit, but only if all of the debt is paid off quickly there after and not allowed to grow indefinitely. the biggest problem with this is that invariably the money is spent on boondoggles or outdated or inefficient projects that distort the economy over the long run. This is why in general i am against such schemes.

    Please don’t take this as anything other the musings of free thinker i don’t pretend to have all of the answers and I am sure there are plenty of people here at WWUT that are more wise the i am and can point out the ridiculousness of what I propose.

    thank you for the kind words

  193. @Bob Bolder

    Thank you very much for your summary of a few tax reforms.

    PS I could not help but think of 501c3 organizations when you wrote:

    “I think there is also a huge amount of waist generated in the business world because of adherence to tax code not just direct cost of adhering to the code but the cost of making decisions based on tax benefit instead of business advantage. i also think companies would have a much longer view.”

Comments are closed.