Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Mark Reynolds, group executive director of the Citizens Climate Lobby, hopes this time Congress will act to implement a carbon tax, instead of letting another politically useful catastrophe slide by without meaningful climate action.
It’s time to act on climate change with a tax on carbon
By MARK REYNOLDS |
PUBLISHED: September 1, 2018 at 2:00 pm | UPDATED: September 1, 2018 at 2:01 pmThose of us who understand the existential threat posed by climate change have been waiting for the “Pearl Harbor moment” that galvanizes people and politicians alike into taking action to minimize that threat. 2018 is turning out to be a “Pearl Harbor year,” where a majority of Americans support taking action, and we’re ready for Congress to press forward.
We thought the wake-up call on climate change occurred in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina slammed and devastated New Orleans, a disaster that left 1,836 people dead and displaced tens of thousands more. Four years later, when legislation to price carbon made a run in Congress, any sense of urgency to deal with climate change was lost amid partisan squabbling and pushback from special interests.
The next opportunity for action came in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy roared up the East Coast with a storm surge that put much of New York City under water. The cover of Bloomberg Businessweek proclaimed, “It’s Global Warming, Stupid.” But again, nothing happened. Likewise, last year’s back-to-back-to-back storms — Harvey, Irma and Maria — left a swath of destruction from Houston to Puerto Rico totaling some $300 billion in damage. This, too, was not enough to spur action.
…
The terrifying vortex of fire that swept through Redding, is the latest Pearl Harbor moment for climate change in a year filled with such moments. Let us hope this year of infamy, together with the growing desire for action, will finally set the wheels in motion for Congress to enact meaningful solutions.
Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
Read more: https://www.pe.com/2018/09/01/its-time-to-act-on-climate-with-a-tax-on-carbon/
My first thought when I hear about a weather disaster is usually “I hope those people are receiving the help they need”. But perhaps not everyone shares my sense of priorities.
Mark Reynolds seems to be a waste of skin ….
unfortunately , he has a lot of company .
I think it would be very educational for the scope and number belonging to this Citizens Lobby to be known.
Are you referencing the rear skin or the fore skin?
Their vortex is the degree of hype not climate itself. Americans need to educate themselves on climate change and the architects of hype. Both are serious issues and at times threats. Where is Rahm Emanuel when you need an idiot.
Fortunately, many Americans are already saturated by advertising from all manner of people and organizations trying to sell them something by making outrageous claims, and they are not yet as gullible as some like to think .
Global warming is just one more big sell to them, and advertised rather badly at that. Which is probably why, in polls, Americans consistently put global warming at the bottom of a proffered list of things they could give a flying fuck about.
No matter what happens, the green blob will demand a carbon tax. I’m old enough to remember the global cooling scare of the 1970’s, and the same changes were demanded to “solve” that as well.
Oh, yes, I remember that well. We were going into another Ice Age and it was caused by CO2 and fossil fuel use, too. Hmmm.
Paul Earlich predicted the number one health problem, if we didn’t take immediate action and severely restrict fossil fuel use, would be mass starvation in the US by the year 2000. He wanted to put sterilants in the water to reduce births and the population so there might be enough food.
The number one health problem in the US in the year 2000 was and is still obesity, not starvation. He was just a taaad outside.
These people are scary and they never seem to change.
I am trying not to be pedantic, but what exactly is a “carbon” tax. Does this sad person mean a tax on plant food, or a tax on black carbon.
We should ridicule these people and not misuse the English language like they do.
“carbon” tax. : A tax on emitting a certain amount of Co2. Look at it a different way. A new, hidden from view, added value tax which will be included in the price of all goods and services. The money that the government receives will then be redistributed as the government see fit but also gives the EPA and the IRS more power. And, you know we can trust more power to the EPA and IRS (Sarc).
I like to refer to it as a ‘tax on hot air’.
Politicians to be hit hardest.
If that were only true! Politicians are rewarded with increasing amounts of other-peoples-money to spend (taxes). Those who will truly be hit hardest by a carbon tax will be the poor, and they will be hit very hard. Many will move into a ‘crisis’ existence and demand that the government bail them out. The politicians who caused the problem will then blame everyone else for the situation and hand out a small percentage of the proceeds from the tax, proclaiming themselves to be caring humanitarians.
A new word should be created to describe this kind of evil.
Jim, you are correct. The “solution” to this problem, assuming for a minute there is a problem that Mankind has any control over, is going to be far worse than the problem. Poverty is the Number One killer in the world. Putting more people into poverty will kill far more than any of the presumed ill-effects of the”evil” CO2.
“Sometimes it seems as if there are more solutions than problems. On closer scrutiny, it turns out that many of today’s problems are a result of yesterday’s solutions.” Thomas Sowell
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_sowell
My only quibble is to point out that carbon taxes are already driving people into poverty and has already resulted in 10’s of thousands of deaths.
No matter what the problem, to the left, the answer is always more government.
This is true, even when the problem was caused by government in the first place.
Normandy beach landings: Climate change caused it. Must be taxed!
The bay of pigs, Korean war, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, use them all as an example of just how the left can extort money from everyone whilst making out the West are the bad guys, everywhere, every time.
In fact I reckon WASPS must have invented war, disease, pestilence and poverty because it seems none of it existed until the white hordes brought prosperity and technology to the world, so naturally, it’s our effing fault!
This is just so funny and silly that I think Anthony shouldn’t be bothered publishing it.
But a touch of levity is good for the soul occasionally.
Disagree with Andy: Abraham Lincoln, among others, said Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
I believe that anytime the warmists say something silly, it needs to be brought to the attention of all thinking people. Make them prove themselves to be fools.
I think its important to ensure the more interesting green messages get a wider audience.
Fair and balanced. You know, like they won’t do.
You have to know your enemy to defeat him. I think Patton or Sun Tsu said that. Anyway, he was right.
The interest isn’t just the silliness, it’s the fact the left explicitly promotes using a crisis to force changes, which is what leftists have been accusing proponents of economic and social reforms and limited government of doing.
” the left explicitly promotes using a crisis to force changes”
An imagined crisis at that.
We need to reminded from time to time of the depths of depravity that the alarmists are capable of.
As Tony Heller repeatedy points out, the US has not seen any global warming, aka climate change.
Temperatures today are less than the 1930s, Extreme weather events, and fires are also down.
The chap is simply deranged if he considers that a Trump White House would go for a carbon tax. He will have to wait to at least 2025 no matter how he shouts and screams.
He’ll have to wait until 2025 or until his salary is stoped, whichever comes first.
And so what would a carbon tax accomplish? Nothing!
And where would the money go?
And who would account for it, and how would it be properly tracked?
There is never enough money for politicians to spend.
No, no, no! Within five years of a carbon tax, storms, floods, droughts, fires, famines and rained-out picnics will dwindle. We’ll go back to the good old days of 1750, when the climate was much better than it is now. Bill Nye the Science Guy said so, so it must be true.
The bigger the tax, the more storms, droughts, floods, famine, and iron-poor blood will dwindle. Just look what happened after Katrina in 2005. No more Category Three hurricanes hit the U.S. mainland for 11 years. We had carbon-hating politicians in the saddle during those years, Al Gore screaming “Fire!” in crowded theaters, and the Hansen/McKibben road shows in full flower. Chris Hayes used to throw screaming fits on MSNBC, and CNN employed several, professional, full-time doomsday prophets.
What fine times they were! The mere THREAT of a carbon tax made the gods step back from their evil schemes.
Remember, climate change is a religion, and the carbon tax (or tithe) is all about appeasing those gods, sort of like tossing virgins on bonfires to avert famine in days of yore.
Never mind that China & India don’t buy the shtick, and that’s where most of the CO2 comes from these days. If the West sacrifices enough virgins, and deindustrializes vigorously enough, Asia will see the weather get better, and they’ll come around. When the monsoon performs with ideal precision, they’ll say, “See? Wasn’t that great? Let’s tax ourselves into oblivion like those smart Westerners, and get more of the same.”
Or just get rich while the West punishes itself.
The “thinking” of Bill Nye is symmetrical in 3 diminsions: Narrow, shallow and short term.
“As Tony Heller repeatedy points out, the US has not seen any global warming, aka climate change.”
However:
Seems like Heller forgot to tell nature that (always presuming one doesn’t deny that earlier Springs means a warming trend) I’m afraid I don’t hold my breath here on that assumption ….
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/spring-arriving-earlier-national-parks
“Of the 276 parks in the study (including Alaska, not pictured), about three-quarters of them are experiencing earlier springs. More than half are experiencing “extreme” early springs; that is, recent springs are among the earliest ever observed—and in many cases are wholly unprecedented—compared to the past 112 years. The charts below show that indeed, the vast majority of parks are experiencing first leaf and first bloom earlier than usual. This means that most parks are already experiencing and responding to climate-driven changes.”
One tiny flaw: The warming alledgedly caused by Man’s CO2 emissions could only have started after the 1950s at best. However, it is nice to see a caveat put in for the “past 112 years”! Any observations before that?
“Seems like Heller forgot to tell nature that..” Give it a few years. Early springs will be a thing of the past just like the “70’s ice age” is a thing of the past.
” that is, recent springs are among the earliest ever observed—and in many cases are wholly unprecedented—compared to the past 112 years.”
Wow! Such an extremely long period of time!!
When it rains at your place, if the rain lasts longer than 5 minutes, do you proclaim catastrophe?
From your linked article;
“This spring, the cherry trees around the Tidal Basin, southwest of the National Mall in Washington, D.C., are reaching peak bloom in early April 2018—timing that is in line with the 96-year average. …After a warm February, cool March temperatures confounded models that had predicted the bloom to occur earlier than usual.
…The first map shows the rate of change (days per century since 1901) of “first leaf”—the date at which leaves first appear from buds. The second map shows the same rate of change for “first bloom,” the average date when blooms appear. Combined, the two indices provide a way for ecologists to identify how vegetation is responding to warming temperatures.
…Of the 276 parks in the study (including Alaska, not pictured), about three-quarters of them are experiencing earlier springs. After a warm February, cool March temperatures confounded models that had predicted the bloom to occur earlier than usual. That’s not surprising, as temperature plays a crucial role in bloom timing.
…The first map shows the rate of change (days per century since 1901) of “first leaf”—the date at which leaves first appear from buds.
…Of the 276 parks in the study (including Alaska, not pictured), about three-quarters of them are experiencing earlier springs. More than half are experiencing “extreme” early springs…”
____
This is quite an interesting “scientific” study since in 1901, there were only three National Parks in the US yet, they are claiming that they know the first bud date in 276 National Parks back to 1901. National Parks were added slowly over the 20th Century and there is no way in God’s green earth they can have data to compare National Park temperatures or first bud dates in any but three of them and not in most of them even because they did not exist until much later.
Oh, and if you like National Parks and, who doesn’t, Thank and Indian.
In his book Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks, Mark David Spence made the point that in order to create these uninhabited spaces, the United States first had to disposess the Indians who were living in them.
https://www.terragalleria.com/parks/info/parks-by-date.html
In his book Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks, Mark David Spence made the point that in order to create these uninhabited spaces, the United States first had to disposess the Indians who were living in them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_park
I guess the author missed this: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.html
the mothership is waiting for him just behind the moon.
the black dog wouldn’t lie.
Interesting that Reynolds should begin with, “Those of us who understand the existential threat posed by climate change….” A more-than-casual search yielded no record of any college-level or post-grad degrees of any kind, much less one in any of the relevant sciences. Gore at least got a degree in “government,” and, as everyone knows, invented the Internet.
Didn’t he also attempt divinity school and drop out twice from that? I guess he decided he’d rather start his own religion.
You just have to go read the bios of the CCL Governing Board members to understand what a bunch of kooks and clowns this group is.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/governing-board/
– Chairman – a poly-sci professor at UWisconsin.
– A real estate salesman with a MS in Fisheries science.
– some self-proclaimed banking economist with a degree in economics.
– some retired businessman
– a former psychologist, now self-proclaimed retired “collaborative environmental policy specialist” (WTF is that?)
What a bunch of clowns.
Their “advisory board” is a list of some big names, including the double clown combo of James Hansen and Katherine Hayhoe. My guess is these big names on their advisory board are merely padded. If you were to go up to one of them and ask them about some CCL public statement, you’d get a “deer in the headlights” moment.
My guess is some big name Left wing philanthropy and Soros, Rockefeller, and/or Steyer NGO pays their expenses and salaries as just one of their many front organization to claim some grass-roots climate advocacy. Top down fingers pulling the strings of Left wing “grassroots” organizations. What a joke.
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel
Bad weather takes us back to the deeply entrenched superstion logic of humans.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/03/the-sorcery-killings-of-melanesia/
Yeah but tossing virgins into volcanoes is now widely recognized as a making the individual suffer for the sins of the many.
The Green blob wants the many to just suffer.
That was a great read. Thank you for posting the link.
This is just Alarmist SOP.
Remember the words of the late Stephen Schedenier. “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. “
A “carbon tax” is a fait accompli. It will be forced on us by the Dem-Enviro-MSM-Deep State cabal in DC and Brussels and the only question to ask is what will our response to it be?
No! It is not a ‘fait accompli’! It is not ‘written in the stars’. It is not inevitable!
It is just another lame-ass socialist attempt to gain further control of both the greater economy and individual citizens through an massive arbitrary backdoor tax on energy.
YOU can stop it, if you’re willing to set aside your lethargic ‘fait accompli’ acceptance of this crap, get off the damn couch, and get involved in electing people that will not support ‘carbon taxes’.
There were many fools telling us that the election of Hillary as President was a ‘fait accompli’ also…. until a lot of good people got involved and ended that crap!
Governments are addicted to money, your and my money. They will do anything, for any reason, for new taxes.
“The proper business of socialist government is to have your heart in the right place, your head in the clouds and your hand in someone else’s pocket”
I invented that! Plagiarist.
Thanks, great quote. Notice the quotation marks.
Score:
KAT: 1
Leo: 0
It’s really too bad that the first humans that experienced a storm didn’t “do something” about climate change. I blame them.
Ever since Gogg brought that fire stick back to the cave and lit a fire, the weather has never been normal since. We need to go back to the good old days.
So when are the Mark Reynolds of the world going to want people taxed based on the amount of CO2 they exhale? Are they going to have us wear CO2 measuring devices, or just tax us based on some model?
These patriots really hope to repeat Pearl Harbour.
They are not ‘patriots’. They are the enemy attempting to cripple both the greater economy and individual citizens of the United States of America through a massive arbitrary backdoor tax on energy. This must not succeed!
I was talking to one of the neighbors about Brexit. Part of the reason is that the EU is run by people who were not elected yet have sovereignty over the lawfully elected ones. I knew this but to fully comprehend what the UN and ‘Climate Change’ people are doing is to install an un elected group of people who are accountable to no one. Based on their version of science and the their peer reviewed process.
‘ Climate Change ‘ is an enemy of the United States. It is UN sponsored and is calling for the end of the democratic process in this country. They should be put on a terrorist list. Curious George was being sarcastic.
sovereignty used to mean self rule.
when words have been compromised, the thought process is also.
the proper term is hegemony.
Pretty sure it’s Pearl Harbor. It’s a proper name, so you don’t get to Britify it.
Come om guys – where is the compassion? I’m in favor of a carbon tax — but ONLY if I get all the money! Then I’ll pass it out to all who need it – as determined by me! You see, my popularity rating needs to be improved and I think that would do the trick.
You forgot to explain the human race will become extinct if you don’t get your money…
Then, UAH drops to only 0.19C above whatever they use as “average”
9th warmest August since 1979
UAH US48 had its 13th warmest August.
All round… pretty much NORMAL weather.
Nothing untoward in warming, extremes etc happening.
But, but, but, it was announced yesterday that Los Angeles just had the warmest July-August since they began recording, back in ~1875. How can that be?
I isn’t. 🙂
Roy’s chart is for the “Global Lower Atmosphere”
and the comparison is for the degrees Celsius average from 1981 through 2010.
This is standard practice for “Normals” as defined.
See: http://w1.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?word=normal
“The next opportunity for action came in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy roared up the East Coast with a storm surge that put much of New York City under water.”
There is no such thing as a superstorm. They made that up from nothing. Sandy was a subtropical storm and only did a lot of damage because a lot of people built inadequate buildings where a storm could easily do huge damage. When idiots put their belongings in harm’s way, it is not the storm’s fault they are lost.
Oh, and most of New York was not underwater, but why quibble about lies.
Superstorm Sandy was actually two different storms which combined when they got to New York, one unnamed storm coming in from the northwest, and Sandy coming in from the south. Sandy alone wouldn’t have done nearly as much damage as occurred. CO2 did not cause these two storms to merge.
And then the author complains that after Hurricane Katrina when it would have been a good time to promote a CO2 tax, that noone was interested and he couldn’t understand it. Well, here’s a clue: After Katrina hit, there were not any major hurricanes that hit the U.S. for 12 years! Twelve years of no major hurricane landfalls would tend to rachet down the concerns.
I doubt that taxing the hell out of people is going to make a substitute for fossil fuels appear any sooner.
It’s not supposed to.
If it was a real emergency it would be apparent to all. Since they hide the data, make false claims, cannot accurately predict when and how or why, they do not deserve any funds.
Just yammering about how we must act now isn’t sufficient to steal my money.
“The Great Galveston Hurricane, known regionally as the Great Storm of 1900, was the deadliest natural disaster in United States history”
Must have been a hell of a lot of CO2 hanging around in those days. Maybe this Warmista can tell us where all of it has gone to?
It seems like the new catch phrase is “existential threat.” I’ve been hearing lefties spouting this about all sorts of things the last few weeks. I guess all their other hyperbole have been falling on deaf ears. It is pretty funny how they all start using a new term at the same time.
We all have favorite existential threats and love to hyperble, here’s mine… cannot figure out whether lack of responses is disinterest in the topic or rejection of the writer…
I imagine no one got through the book your wrote. I didn’t.
A comet is not the only threat and, per new research, might well not be the worst one, though, it would ruin your day. New research claims the dinosaurs and life withstood the comet impact rather well and that is not what caused the extinction. It was this and there is nothing we can do about it except find a new planet and fast.
The Nastiest Feud in Science
BIANCA BOSKER
Thttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/dinosaur-extinction-debate/565769/The Nastiest Feud in Science
Keller fears that we are filling our environment with the same ingredients—sulfur, carbon dioxide, mercury, and more—that killed the dinosaurs and that, left unchecked, will catalyze another mass extinction, this one of our own devising. “You just replace Deccan volcanism’s effect with today’s fossil-fuel burning,” she told me. “It’s exactly the same.”
There’s your money quote, the modern impetus for pushing Deccan theories over and even to the marginalization of impact theory. Get them ‘greenhouse gasses’ into the act. The rest of it is just gossip about scientists. Thank you for replying to my message to inform me no one has any interest in what I write, it means a lot.
It is a flat out lie to equate burning fossil fuels to a worldwide volcanic out break.
Pearl Harbour – you mean when an anticipated attack that was confirmed in advance by the departing Japanese ambassador that happened while the military was told to stand down and the navy commander was ordered to put the ships back in a row so they could be destroyed and the event could be manipulated to get a pacifist nation onto a war footing?
That Pearl harbour?
What an appropriate analogy for manipulating the population into accepting a useless carbon tax. Does this guy realise that a carbon tax doesn’t reduce emissions? Really, does he? Does he think that taxing CO2 will reduce emissions of CO2?
Is he perhaps confusing a carbon tax with a cap and trade system? These pesky details about terminology! Sometimes they even affect contracts.
The fact that these people still call it a carbon tax should give you a clue as to how much they know about emissions of CO2.
… and their analogy doesn’t work out if you remember that the end result for Japan attempting to knock the US out in the Pacific was a thorough and comprehensive defeat. Perhaps they need to lie down in a darkened room to reconsider their Pearl Harbour tax, the unnecessary deaths it and how it might end- especially the likely ending actually.
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
Adm. Yamamoto
It’s again quite evident that these fools haven’t ever opened a history book.
Katrina did way more damage to Biloxi than to New Orleans. But Biloxi getting wiped out wasn’t news for some reason.
Biloxi is a competent city. People were protected and the city continued to operate after the storm.
Add in the fact that this competent city was run by Republicans, and it’s understandable why the media didn’t want to talk about it.
There are a bunch of people out there that think the government can control the weather; if such a thing did exists, it would be alarmists making use of it. What a bunch of money grubbing, disaster loving sickos.
I have personally spoken with people who firmly believe that Bush used a weather machine to Target New Orleans in order to kill black people. I wonder what it is like to be that stupid?
“…to be so blissfully unencumbered by the ravages of higher intelligence.”
(Time Bandits , if i recall)
Did I miss the explanation for exactly how a Carbon Tax in the US was going to reduce CO2 and save the Earth and not make the US a much poorer nation? I looked but couldn’t find it. Hmmm. What is the purpose of the tax and who gets the money?
Maybe I’m not supposed to ask those questions?
Kctaz
Haven’t you heard? The tax will be “revenue-neutral”! It won’t actually cost you anything! The BC government showed how this will work some time ago.
1. Tax something
2. Spend the money on something unrelated
3. Check that it was all spent
4. Net gain for government = 0
5. Therefore it is revenue neutral
5. Therefore no one suffered any financial harm
Quite simple, really. I am not sure why Ontario stopped their carbon tax. The only thing that happened was a drop in the fuel price which will feed through the entire economy and drop the price of everything done and made here. That would give us a drop in GDP. Bad news, right? Everyone should go out and break a window.
One of my friends is ticked off because the price of his Tesla will go up $14,000 and without the subsidy he can’t afford it. His revenue just got ‘neutralised’.
France uni-party (UMP-PS or “UMPS”) voted for a tax on trucks during the Sarkozy presidency. It was tax “neutral”: the cost would be on all trucks using French roads (by a complex system of beacons, databases, cameras…) rather than on just French trucks paying gas tax by buying gas in France. The collection of the tax was exceptionally costly, 40% of the product of that tax went to the private collector body (an Italian consortium!).
The additional revenue of the tax would go to transportation projects that are an alternative to road transport (or something, it was very vague).
Nobody asked how a neutral weight tax (no additional weight for tax payers) with an unprecedented tax collection cost could “générer des excédents” (produce more money). The whole idea was transparently a scam.
That’s where an average 12 years old child could see through all the politician nonsense that even analyst, commentators on the MSM, public policy experts, lawyers and judges cannot or do not want to see through.
I don’t believe it is still the case, but at one time the turnpike and toll road fees imposed in Massachusetts went primarily to paying the toll boot operators with the remainder ostensibly going to maintenance. ‘Fast Trak’ and the such has reduced this, but I am not sure if the tolls were reduced to only the maintenance expense portion. Experience has taught me to suspect it hasn’t.
Ah, perhaps because Humans caused all these disasters they deserve the contempt displayed towards them by the warmunistas? Certainly this fellow seemed to have little concern for them!
I just looked at source on this topic who has reduced his direct postings here. Here is a quote the author of the post topic and others might find interesting:
“Additionally, I recently published the second short story in that series Dad, Is Climate Getting Worse in the United States? It confirms, using data from NOAA, USGS, EPA, and NIFC, that climate here in the States has, in fact, gotten better, not worse. Specifically, based on the linear trends of the data (data sources in parentheses), and contradicting the nonsensical alarmist propaganda that is broadcast and published daily (again, based on the linear trends of the data):
The Annual Number of Hurricanes Making Landfall on the Continental U.S. Has Decreased Since 1900 (NOAA AOML – Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory)
The Annual Number of Tornados for All 50 States Has Decreased Since 1954 (NOAA NWS – National Weather Service)
Drought Conditions for the Contiguous U.S. Have Decreased Since 1895 (NOAA NCDC – National Climatic Data Center, now known as the NCEI – National Centers for Environmental Information)
Floods for the Contiguous U.S. Streams and Rivers Have Decreased Since 1970 (USGS – United States Geological Survey)”
The link: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/open-letter-to-u-s-politicians-running-for-office-in-2018/#more-11714
But,as an incompetent governmental official its hard to blame an improving climate for why your cities are falling apart around you.
…some quote about when its your best interest to be willfully ignorant.
Today’s world is threatened by a variety of disasters. Those who are in the decision-making situation are responsible for their decisions. If they were simply stupid then they should not have taken a responsible position. It is also obvious that mere foolish people can not be held accountable for their opinions.
Many mayors and president of other communities in France subscribed to “toxic” credits aka structured financial products aka bets on foreign currency future value.
When they lost their bet, they screamed that he was soooo unfair because they couldn’t know what these credits meant and what could happen. Nobody dared to question their competence in their role of presiding a community sometimes as important as a large département français (millions of people).
It was the bank’s fault. Nothing more to see move along.
So the French State took over the whole thing so the cost was shared even among citizens who managed to not elected people who would do such thing.
Isn’t that the textbook definition of the shock doctrine made famous and odiously used by the Reagan boys as described by the other Naomi? (The Naomi that isn’t a beautiful geologist that is so used to getting hit on, by all men except by Rajendra Pachauri.)
That is because she was not in Dr Pachauri’s field of vision
It seems Mark Reynolds is suffering from CSS (CO2 Stress Syndrome) . Fortunately the Australian Psychological Society has the solution in its recently published Handbook; but sadly he will wind up as a vegan cyclist on a strict organic diet keeping warm/cool with recyclable solar panels.
In Canada we have a carbon tax and since mid august it has definitely been getting colder across the country. An Environment Canada spokes-person predicts “things could get even colder by winter”.
Bouyed by this recent success the TrueDope government has decided to pay $4.5 billion for the rights to a pipeline to nowhere to carry nothing to market.
“In Canada we have a carbon tax and since mid august it has definitely been getting colder across the country”
Carbon tax = colder
No carbon tax = warmer
Possibly the carbon tax should be reduced (or revoked completely ) during the winter and then re-imposed during the summer. Fine tuning the tax percentages could be used to control the temperature to optimum value!
Reductio ad Absurdum
None of these so-called “climate disasters” was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2.
That is the BIG LIE in this story – but big lies are the primary tool of the extreme left.
The left has a perfectly negative predictive track record on this subject – every one of their very-scary predictions has failed to materialize – they have always been wrong.
When the left speaks, assume the opposite is true – and you will likely be right. 🙂
Mark Reynolds confuses and conflates weather with climate, a favorite tactic of Warmunists. Perhaps he is having a “Dumb and Dumber” moment.
I must have false memories. I clearly thought there were hurricanes in the 50s. And 60s. And 70s. And 80s. Seemed like every year.
A little more vague than group suicide anticipating The Rapture, but it’ll have to do. For now.
Let’s continue comparing the use of natural weather events as a means to enact “Green” stuff to the US’s response to Pearl Harbor.
To enact things like a Carbon Tax or other “sustainable” energy stuff because of the weather would be like, after Pearl Harbor, the US declaring war on Brazil.
Hurricaine Katrina and the mess that was New Orleans was a failure of the environmental radicals in that they blocked the sea wall plan for lake pontchartrain in the 70’s. Without it everybody knew it was only a matter of time before the city would flood again.it would have been a bargain compare to the cost of fixing the city.
Scott
New Orleans/Katrina was greatly affected by the state and local corrupt and inept governments: One N’OrLeans (democrat) congressman forced the National Guard trucks and boats to deliver him back through flood waters to his house so he could get some 28,000.00 in cash that had been left in his refrigerator freezer; more multi-hundred millions that were authorized for flood dams/canal wall repairs were funneled off into local projects (local pockets.) None of the money authorized for some 25 years had been spent on repairs to the canal walls, the pumps, nor the pump power supplies and controllers.
Yet more proof of noble cause corruption.
He’s openly declaring that it is alright to lie in order to panic the public into doing what he wants them to do.
“Those of us who understand the existential threat posed by climate change ”
So much certainty, so little clue
More climate con artists using fear and falsehoods to take other people’s money.
Katrina didn’t kill 1,836 people a failure of local and state government did. As as been discussed here none of the storms mentions are extraordinary if one bothers to study history. The reasons these hurricanes caused so much destruction compared to the past is because of the coastal development that has taken place since WWII. Of course the tropical cyclone experts have said exactly that but have been ignored and even ostracized.
Problem, reaction, solution
As Reynolds demonstrates, it’s all about raising taxes, nothing more.