“Revenue neutral” nonsense

By |2018-02-23T10:10:47+00:00February 23rd, 2018|Climate|87 Comments

There are a lot of wacky schemes around for forcing people to stop using carbon-based energy, even though fire is still the basis for human civilization. The economists like carbon taxes, because in economics a tax is not a cost, just a transfer. Those who pay these taxes disagree, but no one ever said that economics is a sensible science.

The big problem with carbon taxes (other than the false underlying premise) is that they hit the poor hardest, because energy is proportionately a bigger part of poor people’s budgets. To get around this we get what are laughingly called “revenue neutral” tax schemes.

Here the “revenue neutrality” idea is that the government does not get any new revenue from the tax, because it is offset somehow. On common proposal is to reduce some other taxes. But this does not work because there is no way to match these other tax cuts with what poor people spend on energy.

Instead we get various refund schemes, one of the best known being the so-called “Carbon Fee and Dividend” proposal. This little hummer is being flogged by a group called The Citizen’s Climate Lobby (CCL), which includes James “death trains” Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate alarmists.

The deception begins with the name. The tax is called a fee and the refund is called a dividend. Giving back money you have previously taken is not a divided and a tax on something that you could get without it is not a fee.

The funny thing about these tax and refund schemes is that if they work then they fail to meet their objective. If you jack up what the poor pay for energy, but pay them the difference, then they have no reason to change their behavior.

Nor can this scheme work because there is no way to track what people pay for energy, plus how much tax they paid, and correctly calculate their refund. The administrative costs, which are subtracted from the refunds, would be astronomical. Not to mention that everyone would have to report every energy related bill or charge that they paid. It would make the income tax, which is arguably the most complex reporting system ever created, look simple.

The CCL folks acknowledge this impossibility by using a simple “average household” refund scheme. That it does not work they admit this way:

About two-thirds of households will break even or receive more than they would pay in higher prices.”

This means that fully one-third of households will receive less than they will pay in higher prices. So we can expect a lot of wealth redistribution.

Actually, given the administrative cost of collecting and redistributing the many billions of dollars envisioned in this scheme, it is not clear that anyone will benefit. Nor is this revenue stream likely to be left alone. Governments tend to want to use the money they get, rather than giving it back.

The tax itself is huge, which is what you would expect from climate alarmists out to change how people live. CCL puts it this way:

We propose an initial fee of $15/ton on the CO2 equivalent emissions of fossil fuels, escalating $10/ton/year, imposed upstream at the mine, well or port of entry.”

$15/ton is a fairly standard proposal for a carbon tax, but this is on CO2 which more than triples it. But then it grows rapidly by $10/year, which puts it over $100 in a decade, $200 in twenty years and up it keeps going. The resulting price increases would be horrendous, especially for the poor.

It is also worth noting that generally speaking the earlier a price increase occurs in the supply chain the bigger it gets by the time the consumer buys the stuff. This is because each intermediate step tends to apply a constant percentage increase.

It is not surprising that CCL looks to be run mostly by a combination of greens and politicians. Their advisory board includes a number of top alarmists. They also have an indoctrination group called Citizens’ Climate Education.

So all things considered CCL is a heavy duty lobbying group out to tax the hell out of energy. Promising to give the money more or less back is a great vote getter when it comes to carbon taxes, but it does not make them any less dangerous, maybe even more so.

The greens are out to take over and control the global energy supply and this is just one of the many ways they are trying to do it. The siren song of “revenue neutrality” is still a scam.

87 Comments

  1. Robert February 23, 2018 at 5:56 PM

    “The Citizen’s Climate Lobby (CCL), which includes James “death trains” Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate alarmists.”

    “indoctrination group ”

    “..the false underlying premise) ”

    C.R.A.A.P. TEST

    Currency: the timeliness of the information
    When was the information published or posted?
    Has the information been revised or updated?
    Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
    Are the links functional?

    Relevance:
    the importance of the information for your needs
    Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
    Who is the intended audience?
    Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
    Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
    Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?

    Authority: the source of the information
    Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
    Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given? What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
    What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
    Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
    Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source? examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government), .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)

    Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content
    Where does the information come from?
    Is the information supported by evidence?
    Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
    Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
    Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
    Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?

    Purpose: the reason the information exists
    What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
    Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
    Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
    Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
    Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

    http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

    • David Wojick February 24, 2018 at 10:02 AM

      As usual, your comment does not address my article. You are wasting our time.

      According to Disqus you have made over 26,000 comments to date. You must work for Greenpeace, because crap is their mainstream.

      • Robert February 24, 2018 at 1:10 PM

        Yup, over a period of years, I written a lot about the lack of science, the rhetoric, the poor choices of resources, the poor levels of critical thinking exemplified by posters and letter writers trying to claim they know more than what thousands of scientists over the past nearly two hundred years have been telling us.

        I’ve also written many letters to politicians, marched, and taught others how to look for how rhetoric is used, how to develop critical thinking, and how to evaluate resources.

        Your efforts attempting to personally attack are noted.

        Both A ‘s are applicable.
        You could have used that rubric to show us the rational for your choice of rhetoric.

        • Immortal600 February 26, 2018 at 8:16 AM

          “how to develop critical thinking,”

          Too bad you don’t use it though. If you did you’d realize that AGW is a myth. A myth created for suckers like you who don’t have a clue about Thermodynamics.

          • John G February 27, 2018 at 5:56 AM

            A classic no-nothing reply!

            Personal attack followed by unsupported claim. Repeat.

            No actual substance about the thought that was quoted.

            Oh, and your talking point about AGW is wrong according to every major scientific organization in the world:
            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

            • Immortal600 February 27, 2018 at 11:47 AM

              A classic no-nothing reply. You haven’t a clue.

              • CB February 28, 2018 at 5:19 PM

                “You haven’t a clue.”

                If that were true, you certainly aren’t helping John get one…

                Are you so clueless you cannot figure out why a media outlet funded by a company might lie about the dangerous nature of that company’s product?

                …or are you paid to lie here as well?

                “CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

                http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow

        • John G February 27, 2018 at 5:49 AM

          Thanks for all your efforts to expose the misinformation from entities like CFACT. It took me a few years of reading comments from you, jmac, and a few others before I realized the importance of each of us doing our part to stand up to the voices of ignorance, bias, and greed-motivated liars in media.

          It is a simple game for them, because it’s much easier to be a bully and make personal attacks and be loose with facts than to construct a reasoned, logical, fully supported response. All they need to do to delay rational action is turn others off from the discussion, so they can be rude as they like, which is obviously quite rude sometimes.

          If you’ve figured how to make money doing it I’d like to get in on that. As far as I can tell big business (and Russia) will only pay people to wreak havoc to extend their profits and control, not for providing constructive, thoughtful input.

          • Robert February 27, 2018 at 10:36 AM

            Thanks!

            It took me awhile before I’d directly address authors of blog pieces like these, but their reactions, often bulky-like, showed they just as often aren’t better informed than comment posters and use the same rhetoric and logical fallacies.
            Interesting that d.w. didn’t peruse that line of argument.

  2. John G February 23, 2018 at 6:50 PM

    David,

    I agree with you about the tax swap option. Swapping an income for a carbon tax tends to hurt the poor, and the adjustments necessary to address that make such tax swaps unwieldy.

    But you missed a few key points about market forces and tax policy. With those cleared up I think you will agree that Carbon Fee and Dividend is a fair, beneficial, economically sound solution with global effect. This is market based and revenue neutral, which makes it efficient and politically viable.

    First of all, some definitions:

    Market Failure: this can be caused by monopoly power or negative externalities. The reason to correct a market failure is it prevents a market from operating efficiently. This hurts businesses, consumers, or others and promotes harmful behaviors. In the case of the energy market, there are very high external costs from the use of the fuels that are not reflected in their price (aka negative externalities). This indicates there is a failure of the energy market.

    Tax: money collected for government revenue

    Fee: money collected to recoup a third party for use or their loss in a producer-consumer relationship (this is a standard tax policy definition).

    Putting it together: we can fix the energy market by putting a fee on fossil fuels to account for the external costs of using them, and rebate the money collected equally to the people being harmed by their use (all of us). This elegant solution sends a clear market signal, and investors and businesses will turn their focus to other solutions, while consumers are protected. Over time, when fossil fuel prices have risen high enough, they will make different choices based on price.

    Here is Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s explanation: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/why-carbon-fee-and-dividend/

    David: “If you jack up what the poor pay for energy, but pay them the difference, then they have no reason to change their behavior.”

    This statement is wrong because people do have choices, and over time because of market forces those other choices will multiply and become even cheaper than the fossil fuel choices we have today. (Without all the pollution, property rights issues, geopolitical issues, and accidents we will always be stuck with using fossil fuels.)

    When the price of fossil fuels exceeds that of other options, people will switch to other options. That is why an independent study found carbon emissions will be reduced by 50% in 20 years by Carbon Fee and Dividend:

    https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/

    In the meantime, while they are paying increasing prices due to the fee, people are being kept whole by the dividend. According to multiple studies, including this one by the US Treasury, most will come out ahead:

    US Treasury carbon tax analysis: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-115.pdf

    Your concern for the poor is admirable, but misplaced. According to that US Treasury report, this policy will increase the after tax income of the bottom ten percent by income by 9%. In other words, if you are worrying about poor, you should support this policy for this reason alone.

    The fee is a charge to account for polluting. The highest income quintile will pay an average 0.2% more of their income due to higher prices from the fee. This group is the most able to make changes to reduce their carbon footprint to below average if they wish, so they can also come out ahead if they choose to.

    • David Wojick February 24, 2018 at 9:25 AM

      but as I point out, if you refund the money for the price increase nothing need change. But there is no way to make the refunds accurate so you create arbitrary winners and losers, plus a huge government intervention in the markets. Given that carbon is a benefit, not a problem, this is literally nonsense.

      • Robert February 24, 2018 at 10:39 AM

        I’d really like to see the resources that drove you to that conclusion.

        “Given that carbon is a benefit, not a problem…”

        • David Wojick February 24, 2018 at 11:38 AM

          That it is not a problem is explained here:
          http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/.
          That it is beneficial is explained here:
          http://co2coalition.org/ among other places. Atmospheric CO2 is the global food supply, so that it in increasing is a good thing.

          • Robert February 24, 2018 at 1:09 PM

            Let me see if I got this right:
            You are claiming, on a political opinion blog, that the science about Anthopogenic Climate Change is wrong because of
            a- your expertise
            b- a single graph on a blog
            c- a website that states their pupose is lobbying :”The CO2 Coalition was established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3) for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.” /about

            Am I misinterpreting your writing?

            • David Wojick February 25, 2018 at 11:53 AM

              It is true that I discovered the pattern that shows there has been no CO2 warming. It is not my first discovery. But that is not a graph on a blog. It is the satellite temperature record.

              Calling the CO2 Coalition a lobby group does not make what they say false. CO2 is in fact the global food supply. Virtually all plant material is derived from processed CO2 and water (plus a few molecules of trace elements, which are like vitamins). If the atmospheric CO2 level on earth were to drop below about 150 ppm then all life would end. That it has gone from 280 to 400 really helps feed the life.

              But you do not know any of this do you? Your endless comments repeatedly reveal your ignorance. I hope whoever is paying you is paying for quantity, because they are not getting quality.

              • Robert February 25, 2018 at 11:56 AM

                An especial wow for :

                “It is true that I discovered the pattern that shows there has been no CO2 warming.”

              • Robert February 25, 2018 at 12:00 PM

                Pointing out your source is biased should have lead you to checking their information.
                You accepted it wo doing due diligence.

                8th graders know not to do that.

                “Calling the CO2 Coalition a lobby group does not make what they say false. “

              • Robert February 25, 2018 at 12:07 PM

                ” I hope whoever is paying you is paying for quantity, ”
                And another personal attack rather than addressing the content.

                Behavior that doesn’t fly on an 8th grade paper, but seems to be SOP for your rebuttals.

                And the most egregious takeaway from that line of argument?

                Research showing the CCCM funding driving the spread of misinfomation and the thinking skillset leading to:

                Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thing, says study
                University of Oxford project finds Trump supporters consume largest volume of ‘junk news’ on Facebook and Twitter

                https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford

                • pkwz February 25, 2018 at 12:42 PM

                  It IS relevant if you are a paid troll for the climate change lobby. In fact, it is probably true that there are more paid trolls on the left than the right.

                  Just like all of the Rent-A-Mob demonstrations you see.

                  • Robert February 25, 2018 at 1:01 PM

                    Thanks for the attempt…
                    “probably true ” “Rent-A-Mob ”

                    Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations ” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.” http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en

                    “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.” To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.”
                    Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
                    http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

                    Funny how those making assertions like pkwz have no evidence.

                  • John G February 25, 2018 at 8:34 PM

                    I doubt that. There are four times as many paid fossil fuel lobbyists in Washington DC than there are Congressmen. The 100 billion dollars in profit the fossil fuel industry rakes in each year is the most of any industry. How could any other competing energy source hope to out-lobby the fossil fuel industry?

                    • pkwz February 26, 2018 at 4:27 AM

                      A paid troll is not a lobbyist. Quit spreading fake news. That’s like the fake news that NRA members go around committing mass murder with their guns. That’s like the fake news that the NRA is responsible for the massacre in Florida. The fake news media doesn’t report that the FBI and local law enforcement had dozens of opportunities to stop Cruz. They even had the chance to take the guy out while he was shooting. But the cops were too busy eating donuts! (okay that’s fake news).

                      You global warming cultists are simply dishonest. Fracking doesn’t cause water pollution and the Alaska pipeline didn’t destroy the caribou. And the earth didn’t run out of oil in 1995. And air pollution doesn’t kill millions of Americans every year.

                      Your freaking 4th century windmills are so crappy at making electricity they need massive government handouts to produce overpriced electricity that nobody can afford.

                      So cut the crap, when your pie-in-the-sky “renewable” technologies become truly competitive with plain ole coal and gas, then societies will start buying them to generate power.

                      As of now, they’re not even worth crap in a can.

                    • John G February 26, 2018 at 6:00 AM

                      pkwz, I have seen many replies built around straw man arguments. But your reply is different. I would call it a house of straw men. It is the most obviously CRAPP word salad I’ve seen. It is a perhaps unprecedented in its ridiculousness in the history of the internet. The irony is that you are either a paid troll yourself, or have been fooled by them to actually believe that CRAPP. Congratulations, it is truly a poster-worthy learning opportunity that could be used as a teachable moment in all middle schools!

                      Why your word salad is CRAPP: http://researchguides.ben.edu/c.php?g=261612&p=2441794

                      It sounds like you aren’t aware that Exxon knew that climate change was real 40 years age, then funded lots of CRAPP like CFACT to delay a rational response anyway: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

                      Exxon endorses the market-based, revenue neutral carbon fee called Carbon Dividends now, because they know the science indicates it is not safe for life on Earth to delay action any longer: http://clcouncil.org

                      Here are some ideas based on the real world. You should give them a try for a change: https://www.carbontax.org/conservatives/

                    • Robert February 26, 2018 at 10:49 AM

                      Thanks for the ExxonMobil link. I’m including it in another letter for our Governor.

              • Robert February 25, 2018 at 6:10 PM

                “But that is not a graph on a blog. It is the satellite temperature record.”
                Here is how you made the link:
                “To see this negative result, let us look closely at this graphic.”
                And the link is unsourced.
                Though Google says it could be found at:

                UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2017: +0.28 deg. C « Roy …
                Dr. Roy Spencer › 2017/08 › uah-global…

                2340 × 1350 – Aug 1, 2017 – Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency …
                While global surface temperature cools, the lower troposphere has …
                Watts Up With That? › 2017/11/02 › whi…

                2340 × 1350 – Nov 2, 2017 – 2, 2017: Apparently boosted by warmer than normal water in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean that peaked in June and July, global average temperatures in the atmosphere rose to record levels in October, according to Dr.
                Cooling: UAH reports the Lowest global temperature anomaly in last …
                Watts Up With That? › 2017/07/04 › coo…

                640 × 369 – Jul 4, 2017 – UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2017: +0.21 deg. C by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Lowest global temperature anomaly in last 2 years (since July, 2015) The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature …
                The ‘Pause’ Returns As Global Temperatures Plummet, Warming …
                Climate Depot › 2017/07/09 › the-pause-…

                1568 × 888 – Jul 9, 2017 – Via: http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/09/the-pause-returns-as-global- temperatures-plummet-warming-hiatus-to- …. Last month they fell to just 0.09°K above the WMO 1981-2010 mean, falling from 0.29°C a month earlier.

                You claim to be trying to write are seeking funds to write a science curriculum.
                Have you asked any 8th grade science teachers if they’d accept these as reputable sources ?

                • David Wojick February 26, 2018 at 1:22 PM

                  You do not even know who Roy Spencer is, do you? He and John Christy pioneered the satellite global temperature readings. Sounds like you are not even familiar with the existence of the satellites.
                  See https://www.uah.edu/essc/research/climate

                  As for K-12 teachers looking for skeptical sources to balance against alarmists like you, a major poll says that about a third fall into this category. They are the ones I hope to serve.
                  See http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2017/07/3-articles-on-climate-debate-education.html

                  • Robert February 26, 2018 at 2:12 PM

                    Funny how your reply is essentially a personal attack, namecalling, and a link to your own blog…

                    Thanks.

                    Which link on your blog is to that ” major poll “? Oh, this gets a bit, we’ll circuitous. …
                    Third link.
                    Which has a link to a CATO article co-written by you.
                    Which talks about an article about a poll.
                    Your c fact post obscures the url for the poll and both pieces misrepresent it.

                    So, here is the poll https://ncse.com/files/MixedMessages.pdf

                    MIXED MESSAGES HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS TAUGHT IN AMERICA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS How do teachers teach about climate? MARCH 2016

                    And, for the record, I am aware not only of Dr. Spencer”s contributions to science but also his discussion of how best his work should be used.

                    And please tell us why that particular photo was used at the top of your second link. An article which talks about a poll that doesn’t relate to your claim here, and doesn’t link to one?

                    • David Wojick February 26, 2018 at 2:40 PM

                      What I have noticed is that you never address the substance of my comments, like the satellite readings or the teacher poll results. You always comment on my comment instead, usually in trivial ways. This is called deflection and you do it consistently. You are not a bot, are you?

                    • Robert February 26, 2018 at 3:17 PM

                      Your comment had 3 discussion points:
                      1- your personal attack
                      That took up much of the first para.

                      3- a bit of further personal attack rather than support for your rational for cherry picking one database to base your faulty complaints about climate science.

                      I addressed that. Sorry you missed it. Here it is again:
                      And, for the record, I am aware not only of Dr. Spencer”s contributions to science but also his discussion of how best his work should be used.

                      3- a reply to my pointing out your efforts to get funded to write a science curriculum by linking to other articles about science is the classroom.

                      And we’ll note your silence on your picture choice and your misrepresentation of the poll results.

                      But not your efforts to change the topic.

                      And your further personal attacks.

                    • Robert February 26, 2018 at 3:26 PM

                      A bit further:

                      If your poll analysis is accurate, why not a clear aces sale link directly in the comment rather than the click through to build your numbers?
                      And further, why no quote from the poll.

                      Twice now you’ve had the opportunity to do so.

                    • Robert February 26, 2018 at 3:34 PM

                      We understand your reliance on one specific database to support your claim.

                      Why not discuss why you cherry picked that one? Perhaps discuss what you read that lead your thinking to that being a good conclusion.

                      Why not discuss why you are so obstinate that your anslysis of the science is correct given you can find no support inside the halls of science?

                      Why not discuss why you can’t flesh out claims like:

                      “The fact is that as yet no climate change has been adequately attributed to human activity, except local urban heat island effects, which are not caused by CO2. ”
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3777011725

                      The writer’s science-

                      “Climate alarmism is far more dangerous than a simple conspiracy. It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. But just like Communism, alarmism generates numerous local conspiracies.”
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

                      “That it has captured all of the liberal institutions I do not dispute.”
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3763211995

                      “… It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. “https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

                      “It is true that I discovered the pattern that shows there has been no CO2 warming.”

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3775564268

                      “If it is a compensation scheme then it is a true hoax, because there are no known damages from our CO2 emissions. There are some alarmists making these claims but they are all based on hot models that are specifically designed to be sensitive to CO2, which is not science.”
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3775553140

                    • John G February 27, 2018 at 5:11 AM

                      You have elegantly captured in quotes from David the ideology of free market fundamentalism that Naomi Oreskes, Harvard science historian, attributes as the reason for the anti-science media campaign against the science of climate change.

                      Oreskes attributes their effort to discredit the science and the scientists to an irrational fear that government action to address human health or environmental issues amounts to Socialism, and the paranoia that from there it’s a slippery slope to Communism.

                      A difficult to listen to, but brilliantly organized book tour lecture about ‘Merchants of Doubt’:
                      https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A

                      Summary: a few cold-war warriors with ideological motives set up PR shops like the Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, CFACT, etc. which they promoted as ‘Conservative think tanks’, but rather than do unbiased policy work they take money from industry and work to discredit science when the implications of science mean government intervention is necessary to fix a broken market.

                      In other words, it’s ideology over facts for these people. They just don’t want to believe in pollution, and they will take money to lie and slander to delay sensible action to address it. They have been paid for thirty years to do this by some big fossil fuel industry players – Koch, Exxon, etc.

                      For example, Exxon knew forty years ago, but paid for PR to delay action: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

                    • Robert February 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM

                      +1 ! On Oreskes. I had to put in a recommendation to the library to acquire it. But now they’ve built up a pretty good collection.

                      Your penultimate paragraph point exactly to why we don’t need to be arguing science, but be being active in real life working to develop policy.

                      Keep up the good letter writing!

                    • 9.8m/ss February 27, 2018 at 12:19 PM

                      You don’t need Oreskes’ guidance to see what motivates the “free markets” fundamentalists. The ideology is the source of their self esteem. (They’re the smartest people in the room, the only ones who know what’s really going on. Just ask them.) Information about a risk to public health and safety that can’t be solved by “free markets” presents a threat of ego trauma. It must be neutralized somehow. Denial is practically an autonomous defense. That’s what’s going on with the shrillest volunteer climate science deniers. The paid astroturfers are another story.

                    • Robert February 28, 2018 at 11:19 AM

                      Funny how you have still not quoted and cited this “major poll”.

                      But you did find the wherewithal to personally attack.

                      Thanks for demonstrating that your argument wouldn’t pass basic middleschool level intellectual rigor and honesty.

                  • 9.8m/ss February 26, 2018 at 3:59 PM

                    This Roy Spencer?

                  • Robert March 2, 2018 at 3:19 PM

                    Careful, this might sting a bit if you are still trying to get funded to build a anti anthropogenic climate change curriculum

                    NOAA – a Fantastic Teacher Resource and NCSE Partner
                    “In a new exciting venture with several partners, I have come to greatly appreciate the many science-based resources for teachers housed at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

                    NOAA is a trusted source of accurate and useful data. When you think of NOAA, your first thought may not be its educational mission but instead the fact that it delivers the data needed by meteorologists to make weather forecasts. It also produces annual State of the Climate reports and the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment.

                    NOAA’s approach to education is to promote data-driven lessons, but as NOAA’s Frank Niepold, Senior Climate Education Program Manager puts it, “data is not enough.” A good lesson must make the data relevant by the application to real world problems. I recently had a conversation with Frank, and we discussed why data-driven, place-based lessons are so effective.”
                    https://ncse.com/blog/2018/02/noaa-fantastic-teacher-resource-ncse-partner-0018696

                    • David Wojick March 3, 2018 at 1:59 PM

                      Both NCES and NOAA are on my list of major suppliers of alarmist teaching materials.
                      http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2017/05/33-alarmist-climate-change-teaching.html

                      They are a match made in alarmist heaven. NOAA is the most alarmist federal agency, although NASA is close behind. NCES is the leading alarmist attack dog for now. No surprise that they are petting each other.

                    • Robert March 4, 2018 at 10:55 AM

                      Ah, thanks for a content free, research free, assertion and insult laden non responsive response.

                      And the link to your own fundraising is noted. ” Please donate! Introduction The purpose of this project is to help bring some balance to the teaching of climate science, especially in grades K-12, but ….”

                      Seems the public is sensible enough to realize their kids are getting the science already.

                    • David Wojick March 4, 2018 at 1:55 PM

                      Actually I have raised over $6000 so far and we are close to launching our 1000+ skeptical video website.
                      https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education

                      Your empty comments help.

              • CB February 27, 2018 at 7:42 PM

                “I discovered the pattern that shows there has been no CO2 warming.”

                You discovered CO₂ is transparent to infrared radiation!?

                Excellent!

                Where are you published, and when will the Nobel committee present you with your award?

                “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.”

                science.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget

                • Jan Steinman February 27, 2018 at 10:24 PM

                  “I discovered the pattern that shows there has been no CO2 warming.”

                  Excellent! This means we can live on Venus!

                  (Thanks for the quote-through, @CB . I have this guy blocked.)

                  • CB February 28, 2018 at 2:59 PM

                    “I have this guy blocked.”

                    I would suggest this is a disservice to the community!

                    When you block Climate Deniers, you are unable to see their disinformation, and therefore cannot flag and demote that disinformation.

                    That means it reaches more eyeballs, and not everyone knows as much about the subject as you do.

                    This particular clown does not appear to be very effective in misleading people, and I would not suggest flagging in a propaganda outlet like CFACT… but the liars aren’t just here. They’re everywhere.

                    I would suggest that means we need to fight them everywhere.

                    • Jan Steinman February 28, 2018 at 5:17 PM

                      we need to fight them everywhere

                      I disagree.

                      Ignore them. Take away their oxygen. Arguing with irrationals gives them power over you, and gives them more opportunity to spread their propaganda.

                    • CB February 28, 2018 at 5:21 PM

                      “Ignore them. Take away their oxygen. Arguing with irrationals gives them power over you”

                      You aren’t paying attention to what I said.

                      Don’t argue with them. Flag them and downvote them.

                      If you block them, you’ll never see them, and therefore they’ll never get your thumbs-down… which makes their propaganda more effective.

                • 9.8m/ss February 28, 2018 at 6:22 PM

                  the Nobel committee is part of the Conspiracy!

      • John G February 24, 2018 at 9:23 PM

        All the money collected from the fee, minus administration costs, is returned back to American households on an equal basis: one share per adult, a half share per child up to two children per household.

        Fair, because each of us is being hurt equally by the pollution.

        Efficient to administer, because every citizen gets the same dividend amount.

        Intervention in markets is only warranted to correct market failure, to enable efficient market forces to operate. See previous note about market failure and recouping people for their loss.

        According the the IMF, the external costs of fossil fuels worldwide are about $5 trillion a year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/imf-estimates-trillions-in-hidden-fossil-fuel-costs-1431958586
        About a quarter of that is from climate change. The rest is a combination of health impacts, geopolitical problems, accidents, and other pollution.

        In the US, we pay enormous external costs from using fossil fuels:

        $100 billion per year in Healthcare and lost productivity due to smog and particulates from burning coal and vehicle exhaust.

        $70 billion per year ‘protecting our oil interests’ in military spending on military bases and shipping lane protection in the Middle East. (In peacetime)

        Escalation of tensions and creation of enemies in the Middle East that fosters enormous resentment of us by the poor who do not get a piece of the action, creating conditions that create terrorist groups against the US.

        Continued promotion of fossil fuel use props up the market, which helps Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others who are not our allies.

        Increasing severity of heat waves, droughts, fires, heavy precipitation events, coastal flooding from sea level rise, all of which lead to higher tax spending to cover FEMA rescues and costs, and increasing national flood insurance costs.

        You think fossil fuels are cheap because we don’t pay much directly for them, but the costs we pay for using them are very high in total. Basic economics describes this as a failure of the energy market.

        The only nonsense here is your silly claim that fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions are not a problem. For a hint of the catastrophic problems that human-caused global warming from fossil fuels is causing, watch ‘Chasing Coral’ on Netflix streaming, check out NASA’s climate site at http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

        Then read the two-page Highlights section of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, Executive Summary: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Executive Summary, see two-page Highlights section: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

        • David Wojick February 25, 2018 at 11:46 AM

          Wow, John, I had no idea that the CCL scheme was designed to compensate people for CO2 caused climate damages. I did not see that on the website, so I thought it was a standard carbon tax scheme designed to reduce emissions.

          If it is a compensation scheme then it is a true hoax, because there are no known damages from our CO2 emissions. There are some alarmists making these claims but they are all based on hot models that are specifically designed to be sensitive to CO2, which is not science. See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/09/climate-change-attribution-games/.

          I take it then that CCL is part of the bogus “loss and damage” movement, as described here: http://www.cfact.org/2017/11/16/compensation-for-climate-victims-inches-forward-at-un-climate-summit/. This pig will never fly.

          Given that there is no damage, there is no market failure and hence no basis for regulation. If you want to go after actual pollution do not involve CO2 in it. CO2 is the global food supply, which is the very opposite of pollution.

          • Robert February 25, 2018 at 11:49 AM

            “CO2 is the global food supply, which is the very opposite of pollution.”

            Nice talking point.
            And as unsupported .

            Thanks for demonstrating that.

            • pkwz February 25, 2018 at 12:39 PM

              Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. That is a fact. You dispute this FACT? The talking points all come from the Globull Warming cult members.

              • Robert February 25, 2018 at 12:42 PM

                We appreciate your use of such obvious logical fallacies.

          • Robert February 25, 2018 at 11:51 AM

            Even better:
            “….because there are no known damages from our CO2 emissions. There are some alarmists making these claims but they are all based on hot models that are specifically designed to be sensitive to CO2, which is not science. “

            • pkwz February 25, 2018 at 12:38 PM

              Where are there damages caused by “manmade” CO2? The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. People who don’t believe the assertion don’t have to prove a negative.

              • Robert February 25, 2018 at 12:45 PM

                Indeed. So why does he not do so? And why are you telling me that, when it was d.w. making the claim?
                “The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.”

                • pkwz February 25, 2018 at 12:59 PM

                  Ah, if it weren’t for the global warming scam industry, this website wouldn’t even exist. You’re the ones who are claiming that “man made” CO2 is endangering the earth’s climate, not the objective skeptics.

                  So put up or shut up. Demonstrate where this claimed CO2 increase has occurred and caused any harm.

                  • Robert February 25, 2018 at 1:07 PM

                    “..global warming scam industry..”

                    “..objective skeptics.”

                    And an extra thumbs up for the quote marks around manmade!

              • Robert February 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM

                We like you quote marks around manmade.
                Thanks!

          • Robert February 25, 2018 at 11:54 AM

            Here we have it. About as clear a denial of the science as Inhofe, et al perpetuate:
            “If it is a compensation scheme then it is a true hoax, because there are no known damages from our CO2 emissions. “

          • John G February 25, 2018 at 3:57 PM

            According to all the major scientific organizations from around the world that have provided a statement about human-caused global warming from fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions, there are enormous costs.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

            Here’s a good start on what is going on, the two-page Highlights section of the Executive Summary of the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

            Or check out the ‘Effects’ tab in the NASA link: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects

            • David Wojick February 26, 2018 at 10:38 AM

              You are giving me an argument from (corrupt) authority, John. The science trade associations have all jumped on the political alarmist bandwagon because their governments did.

              But if you look at the actual attribution studies they all work the same fallacy. They take a climate model that can only be made to change using CO2 and find that the observed changes can only be explained using CO2. This reasoning is perfectly circular.

              The fact is that as yet no climate change has been adequately attributed to human activity, except local urban heat island effects, which are not caused by CO2. Chanting that the science is settled does not change this fact.

              By the way, if you want to compensate people for damages, driving up their prices with a tax, then giving them back the extra money that they had to spend does not do it. It is a hoax.

              • John G February 26, 2018 at 2:44 PM

                David, really! No comment on my money trail question? Come clean.

                Regarding the rest of your C.R.A.A.P.,

                David: “You are giving me an argument from (corrupt) authority”

                Um, no, not at all. I am providing data about the unanimous scientific organization conclusion about a scientific theory. The scientific process is the authority here, and as far as I can tell, it is the best way humans have come up with to learn how the world works.

                David: “The science trade associations have all jumped on the political alarmist bandwagon because their governments did.”

                These are scientific organizations. You must be confused how this works, because you work for a trade organization that sells doubt to industries that want to delay rational policies to address scientifically proven threats to health and the environment.

                People go to college, get advanced science degrees, and work for public, educational, or private scientific endeavors. Scientific organizations provide a structure for the science to work in. NASA, NOAA, and the National Academy of Sciences are such organizations. Here are 200 others that also hold the position that human activities are the cause of global warming: http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

                There are no scientific organizations that support your position, so you try to discredit all of science. You fail to do so.

                David: “They take a climate model that can only be made to change using CO2 and find that the observed changes can only be explained using CO2.”

                Bzzzzzz! That’s a straw man argument. Climate science predicted warming over a century ago, from human greenhouse gas emissions. No alternative theory has been advanced with any success. A predictive theory that is supported by many independent lines of evidence is how science works. It is not circular, it is successful. Here is a brief history of climate science, in case you are interested in learning rather than simply fighting for your own personal ideological (or financial) reasons: https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

                David: “The fact is that as yet no climate change has been adequately attributed to human activity, except local urban heat island effects, which are not caused by CO2.”

                What’s your source on that? According to mine, there are multiple, independent lines of evidence that climate change has now been directly attributed to human activities. Like the Fourth National Climate Assessment. Save your time and just read the two-page Highlights section of the Executive Summary: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

                David: “By the way, if you want to compensate people for damages, driving up their prices with a tax, then giving them back the extra money that they had to spend does not do it. It is a hoax.”

                Ugh David, you’re still missing the basic theory of how free markets work. Once again, here is the chicken video:
                https://youtu.be/zD64kaTY5Vg

                You see, by raising the price on fossil fuels by putting a fee on their production based on the carbon emissions that will result when they are burned, we change consumer preferences gradually over time. By returning all the money equally to all households, middle income households break even, low income households come out ahead, and the extra spending that enables them to do grows the economy and creates jobs. You don’t have to take my word for it, take it from the US Treasury (graph on page 26): https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-115.pdf

                You’re starting to repeat yourself, and repeat the same mistakes. Are you reading or just writing these days?

                • Robert February 26, 2018 at 3:04 PM

                  Seems he is missing that there is a substantive difference between authoritativeness and “argument from (corrupt) authority”.

                  And the rhorical sideswipe in parentheses…….

                • Robert February 26, 2018 at 3:06 PM

                  Can we just use this one as the poster child for the next time someone whines about being called a denialist?

                  “David: “The fact is that as yet no climate change has been adequately attributed to human activity, except local urban heat island effects, which are not caused by CO2.” “

                  • John G February 26, 2018 at 5:15 PM

                    David’s blatant lies (or dumb ignorance) about climate science remind me of the part in the movie version of ‘Merchants of Doubt’ where they show a clip of Morton Downey Jr. loudly making fun of a scientist who was a guest on his show, loudly claiming there is no scientifically proven link between smoking and cancer, and look at him, doesn’t he look healthy, and he ‘smokes four packs a day!’ while stalking around puffing on a cigarette. As if that proved the science was wrong. Downey ended up dying of lung cancer about fifteen years later.

                    A few years before his death, while suffering from the ravages of lunch cancer, he saw the light and became an anti-tobacco activist. It seems some people have to be personally affected before they will believe scientific conclusions that go against their ideology (or sponsors). Sound like anyone you know?

                    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=108365&page=1

        • Robert February 25, 2018 at 11:47 AM

          Thanks for the great resources and clear writing about the topic. The quality of the argument shows the difference bthe quality of the replies.

          Esp good is the discussion of externalities .

  3. pkwz February 25, 2018 at 2:16 AM

    I’m sure glad Donald Trump is president. Pulling the plug on raiding the American taxpayer to redistribute their wealth, AKA “Global Warming” fraud, will cause this entire idiotic scheme to melt into oblivion.

    Tax, Tax, Tax…they can create all the fantasy carbon pricing/taxing/defrauding plans that they want. The American public will just give them all the boot. It’s already happening.

    The liberals/Democrats/Greens/name_your_crazy_group are trying to impeach Trump because they don’t like him. It’s never going to happen because there literally would be a revolution. All of those gun clinging Bible toting NRA members would come rushing out of their homes just looking for an excuse to demonstrate how an AR-15 works.

    Trump isn’t going anywhere and he’s going to take this con job apart one piece at a time.

    • mattgrainger February 25, 2018 at 9:10 AM

      I hope you’re right. He’s meeting a lot of resistance, which proves he must be on the right track.

      • pkwz February 25, 2018 at 10:36 AM

        The left/liberal/Democrats/environuts that are trying to impeach Trump have no idea that they are forcing this country into a Constitutional crisis. They have no idea how weak they are compared to Trump supporters.

        They think that ANTIFA children are tough, that “intellectuals” that run our universities and MSM have real power. They think that the gun toting Bible thumping citizens that make up a huge portion of this country will go quietly to the gas chambers.

        I’ve got news for you–you would have 100,000 patriots show up in Washington tomorrow all armed to the teeth if Trump was threatened. The real power lies with the people, not these childish snobs and Hollywood phonies.

        If the government tries to make a move to take citizens’ guns away, that would be a trigger–it would get very violent very fast. 10,000,000 gun owning Americans would mow down the police.

        So this is serious. It’s not a game. People should obey the laws and Constitution. The Second Amendment was intended just for situation like this where the government goes out of control and makes a move to snuff out freedom.

    • John G March 3, 2018 at 4:42 PM

      Leading Conservative economists, former US Treasury Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Republican administrations, and major corporations have all strongly endorsed using a fee on carbon emissions from fossil fuels to address the energy market failure. This group includes Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, Larry Summers, Greg Mankiw, Exxon, BP, Shell, GM, J&J, P&G, and more – https://www.clcouncil.org/founding-members/

      For more on the solution they endorse, see this TED Talk: https://youtu.be/ta2Wvy9F_gA

  4. pkwz February 25, 2018 at 3:02 AM

    Humans have the inherent right to produce CO2. The only people that don’t produce CO2 are dead.

    Humans have the inherent right to create “pollution”. Every time we take a dump, we create pollution. In fact this most basic human pollution is one of the most deadly in the world. Even today waterborne illnesses caused by this human pollution kills MILLIONS of people every year, especially infants living in the third world.

    As an American I have the right to jump in my car and drive 2000 miles, all the while making lots of CO2 and pollution. Everything I eat was produced by things that made pollution. Every single thing necessary for human life is the result of processes that create “pollution”.

    Pollution is so universal and ubiquitous that it might as well be called “AIR” (which contains CO2).

    It’s just a freaking joke that CO2 is pollution and needs to be taxed. Every time I see one of these stupid stories, I go out and pollute and create some excess CO2. I go for a drive in my least efficient car and I drive like Juan Fangio. I love the smell of gasoline in the morning…..I make sure to spill a few drops of gasoline when I replace the nozzle.

  5. pkwz February 25, 2018 at 1:12 PM

    Okay, we have a paid troll here, so it’s best not to feed the troll. Problem solved. No hits, no $.

  6. Robert February 25, 2018 at 3:14 PM

    “…I make sure to spill a few drops of gasoline when I replace the nozzle.”

    “Humans have the inherent right to create “pollution”. Every time we take a dump, we create pollution.
    . . . .
    It’s just a freaking joke that CO2 is pollution and needs to be taxed. Every time I see one of these stupid stories, I go out and pollute and create some excess CO2. I go for a drive in my least efficient car and I drive like Juan Fangio. I love the smell of gasoline in the morning..”

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3775103242

    Far right logic……

    • CB February 26, 2018 at 6:43 AM

      “Far right logic……”

      aka, not logic… Heck, I don’t know if the dementia here even qualifies as on the “right”.

      I do love that we’re using a mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry to discuss ways to drive that industry out of business, though. That’s good clean fun!

      David clearly doesn’t understand how the dividend works, but I’m not sure that’s an argument against it.

      Personally, I would prefer to have the funds collected from a carbon tax disbursed to people sequestering carbon. It would be harder on people with lower incomes, but perhaps easier for them to understand.

      • Robert February 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM

        He even says he hadn’t bothered reading it….

        But we’re ‘ required’ to read their claptrap…..

        What’s more interesting is how denialists who won’t acknowledge the hard sciences’ accuracy and consilience because of political nitwittery, think they understand the softer ones….

      • Jan Steinman February 26, 2018 at 11:46 PM

        I would prefer to have the funds collected from a carbon tax disbursed to people sequestering carbon.

        Hey, we’ve planted 60 trees this year, so far!

        Where’s my “carbon credit?”

        Oh, well. I guess it’s sorta like peeing yourself in dark pants: you get a warm feeling, but nobody notices.

        • CB February 27, 2018 at 1:34 AM

          “Where’s my “carbon credit?””

          I think one is owed to you!

          You live in BC, so you stand a better chance of getting it there than here… unfortunately for us… 🙁

    • Popcorn Joe February 26, 2018 at 7:15 AM

      Is stupidity logic? Or is stupidity logic for idiots only?

      • Robert February 26, 2018 at 10:39 AM

        Hannity”s coffeepot advert comes to mind

    • Jan Steinman February 26, 2018 at 10:15 PM

      “Humans have the inherent right to create “pollution”. Every time we take a dump, we create pollution.

      And nature has the inherent right to squash you like a bug for your stupidity and short-sightedness.

      • John G February 27, 2018 at 5:26 AM

        Great line, it reminded me of this one:

        “God forgives all. Man forgives sometimes. Nature never forgives.”

        ~ Pope Francis, the Pope Francis’s encyclical on ecology, Laudato Si. Also:

        ‘Climate change is real and mainly “a result of human activity.”

        The problem is urgent. “Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two hundred years.” We must all change our day-to-day actions to live more sustainably. “Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility.” On a larger scale, our leaders must be held to account. “Those who will have to suffer the consequences . . . will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility.”

        Solving climate change means protecting the planet and vulnerable people, and we must hear “both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.” Faith can guide us. “The entire material universe speaks of God’s love, his boundless affection for us. Soil, water, mountains – everything is, as it were, a caress of God.”

        The problems are big and urgent. But hope remains if we act in honesty and love. “Humanity still has the ability to work together in building our common home . . . Truly, much can be done!”’

        http://www.catholicclimatecovenant.org/encyclical

        • Robert February 27, 2018 at 10:50 AM

          Great quotes!

      • Robert February 27, 2018 at 10:49 AM

        Yup, pkwz left little spots all through the thread…
        Thanks, though the “you” sb us and “your” sb our.

  7. Immortal600 February 26, 2018 at 8:17 AM

    Dr. Wojick. you are right over the target on this article. You have brought out at least 4 AGW crazies. Well done !!

  8. Robert February 26, 2018 at 12:29 PM

    This is what the fellow writing the article believes:

    “The fact is that as yet no climate change has been adequately attributed to human activity, except local urban heat island effects, which are not caused by CO2. ”
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3777011725

    The writer’s science-

    “Climate alarmism is far more dangerous than a simple conspiracy. It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. But just like Communism, alarmism generates numerous local conspiracies.”
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

    “That it has captured all of the liberal institutions I do not dispute.”
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3763211995

    “… It is a massive social and political movement, on the scale of Communism 100 years ago and also focused on central control of human living. “https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/15_degrees_of_climate_madness/#comment-3754523427

    “It is true that I discovered the pattern that shows there has been no CO2 warming.”

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3775564268

    “If it is a compensation scheme then it is a true hoax, because there are no known damages from our CO2 emissions. There are some alarmists making these claims but they are all based on hot models that are specifically designed to be sensitive to CO2, which is not science.”
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/8220revenue_neutral8221_nonsense/#comment-3775553140

    David Wojick, c fact scientist and attemptor at getting people to pay him to develop a c fact approved science curriculum

    Might want to consider what sort of lens promotes delusional and paranoid thinking like that.

Comments are closed.