And because CFs contain mercury, this law will generate a huge amount of hazardous waste which can’t be put in landfills. I wonder if Congress generated an EIR and held the required public hearings before enacting this bill. If not, maybe one of those environmental lawyers can be talked into suing them and making them do it. How busy is Ralph Nader these days?

“The earth has warmed by 2/3 of a degree to as much as a degree (all temperatures in Celsius) over the last 100 years, of which man may be responsible for no more than half through CO2 emissions. The poles, which are important to all the global deluge scare scenarios, have warmed less than the average. Man’s CO2 emissions will warm the earth another degree or so over the next 100 years. There is a possibility the warming will be greater than this, but scary-large warming numbers that are typical of most climate reports today depend on positive feedback loops in the climate that are theoretical and whose effect has not yet been observed. The effects of warming will be a mix of positive and negative outcomes, recognizing that the former never seem to get discussed in various media scare stories. If the effects of warming are a net negative on mankind, it is not clear that this negative outweighs the costs in terms of lost economic growth (and the poverty, disease, and misery that comes with lower growth) of avoiding the warming. In other words, I suspect a warmer but richer world may be better than a cooler but poorer world.”

But whatever he believes, I posted what I believe. You express, with great certainty, that man is not causing the earth to warm. I believe, with less certainty, that man is causing some of the earth’s warming, and I believe that some amount of effort is reasonable to attempt to mitigate this.

Where do we go to get the national anthem re-written to take out that silly line about “the land of the free”?

While you may believe that there is no problem, there are lots of people who are convinced otherwise, and are pushing forward on much worse legislative agendas. I can even accept that there might be a chance that the problem is larger than I think. So all I’m saying is that I’m willing to accept a plan that makes carbon emissions more expensive, so long as it isn’t another government revenue program. It would also be the least problematic to reverse if, as you say, we all end up seeing that there is no problem at all.

Jon Nichols wrote “No better evidence that this is just as much as social issue for them as an environmental issue.” This is exactly true. When ever I argue if this is a serious problem (which I don’t buy) then we should have a tax that doubles the price of gasoline, people argue it would hurt the poor. Apparently it’s imperative that we stop global warming, but not if the poor have to give up their pick-ups(preferred low income vehicle here). I guess if the top 1% don’t drive that’ll solve the problem.

This is numerology not science, but nevertheless I wonder if some number of people have formed this kind of pseudo-connection in their brains…

“I’m also on board for a carbon tax that is offset with payroll and corporate tax reductions. It strikes me as the best of any solution currently being offered…”

Warren, as you know, but Jon does not, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! Therefore any “solution” is bogus, because there is nothing to solve!

This is the danger of pointing out why this scheme or that won’t reduce carbon–BECAUSE YOU HELP SPREAD THE MYTHOLOGY THAT CARBON IS THE NEW EVIL! Or I should say “boogeyman” because it’s a mythology designed to frighten children!

To Jon Nichols, you might want to read some of Warren’s other work at climate-skeptic.com, or Steven Milloy’s work at junkscience.com, or Michael Crighton’s work, etc.