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

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

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?

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.

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.

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:
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
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.

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.
:

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.
…_

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.

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!

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..

JohWho,
You are a most excellent editor.
Thanks!

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.

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.

John Carter says:
July 19, 2014 at 1:40 am
….
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

Here is something green and bitter.
The green roots of the Nazi party and modern-day eco-fascists

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

John Carter doth protest too much, methinks.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

“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.

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. 🙂
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/mauna-loa-co2-1-percent-scale.jpg
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

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.

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.

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.

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

***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

dbstealey says:
July 19, 2014 at 9:32 am
John Carter says:
============================
What planet are you from, Carter?
=================================
Fairly obvious

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.

Not as good as hoped. See the following article.
http://americanthinker.com/2014/07/australia_still_has_carbon_taxation.html

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”!

Never mind the will of the people we know what’s best for you Australians.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060003102

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.

“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.”

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.

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

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.

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

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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”.

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.

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.

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.

@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

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.

@ 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.