Global Warming and Climate Change are back on the topic menu. And of course, governments are looking at it as an excuse for a Carbon Tax.
By Benjamin Gaul:
Why are we still even having this conversation? Oh yeah; billions of dollars in grants and taxes, taken from an unsuspecting public and given tax-free to the Wizards of Smart who keep the lie going, annually. Silly question. Let me rephrase that.
How can governments around the world continue to harp about a problem which only exists in Computer Models, in the face of all the Real World data which completely refutes said Computer Modeling?
OK, so nobody told you there was credible, verifiable data out there which debunks the whole myth of Global Warming / Climate Change. And if it’s ever brought up, it’s only to be laughed at as some wild conspiracy theorist nut-job making unsubstantiated claims. Or that the 31,487 scientists who signed the Global Warming Petition must ALL be in pay of Big Oil, they are scientists of the wrong fields or they don’t actually exist. None of them. But all the people who tell you that, fail to mention that research is big business, which is most often driven by ideology.
The scientists who know how to write the grants, get the money.
A 2005 study in the science journal Nature, surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded by the National Institutes of Health, which is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. HHS is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and health-related research, and consists of 27 separate institutes and centers. Out of the 3247 scientists questioned, 503 admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies, because of pressure from their funding source. And those were just the scientists willing to be honest.
The trick for getting the Grant money seems to lay in what your study purports to discover. Lets say you wanted to study the dietary habits of the Red Tailed Squirrel of the Sierra Nevada mountains. You could title your grant proposal thus: “A study of the dietary habits of the Red Tailed Squirrel of the Sierra Nevada mountains.” Which makes perfect sence.
But you’re competing against another scientist whose title is “A study of the effects of Global Warming and Climate Change on the dietary habits of the Red Tailed…” You get the point. Both surveys will gather the exact same data, but only one of them forwards the current political mindset. Guess which study will get funded.
Global Warming hasn’t actually happened for 16 years. In fact, the Climate didn’t really Change much, either.
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released in early October of 2012. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in Global Warming, has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet without any media fanfare and, until a week later, simply wasn’t reported at all.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures seven months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data in 2010 meant it was possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Of course, the people who make all those billions of dollars in tax-free Grants will justify their fudging, data manipulation and outright lies by saying they’re “only doing it to emphasize how important the issue is.” NOT to keep that free money spigot flowing. Nooo. They have absolutely the best of intentions. Therefore, we must only judge them by their noble intentions. Judging them for the lies they perpetuate, the crimes they commit and the greed they exhibit might somehow “hinder the scientific process.”
Carbon Taxes are bad for the Environment AND the Economy.
Now we come to the government’s grab for more of your hard-earned money: Carbon Taxes. You knew that with all this money flying around, the Bureaucratic Empire Builders weren’t going to let any slip through their sticky fingers, didn’t you?
The UN is all over this, encouraging Nations all over the world to submit to a Global Taxation of Carbon Emissions. Never mind it will create a virtual, Global Envirotocracy, with a scant handful of individuals having financial control of every member nation to sign on. Remember what I told you about how evil it is to judge these Bozo’s on their actions? Not supposed to do that. You’re only supposed to readily agree to their reasoning, and lay your neck willingly on the block for them. They’re the Wizards of Smart, after all!
The following points were made by the American Enterprise Institute:
No gain — There would be virtually no environmental benefits to unilateral greenhouse gas emission reductions by developed countries (whose GHG levels are already flat and slowly declining), while developing countries are pouring out virtually every kind of pollutant with joyous abandon. Some argue that we’ll get “co-benefits” from reducing other pollutants, such as particulates. Well, we already have highly effective (if economically damaging) regulations for conventional pollutants. If they’re not working, they should be fixed. Establishing a new set of controls based on ancillary benefits is not simply wasteful, it’s dishonest.
A carbon tax would also have limited impact: If $4-per-gallon gas won’t reduce consumer demand, how is adding another 10 cents, 50 cents, or dollar going to do so? Low carbon taxes won’t have a significant effect, and high carbon taxes won’t retain political support long enough to provide environmental benefits. That’s not surprising: Houses, cars, and energy-consuming appliances are long-term investments that can’t easily be changed when fuel prices fluctuate. Jobs are also not abandoned lightly, so commuting distances aren’t easily adjusted.
Plenty of pain — Studies continue to show that carbon taxes, through their influence on energy prices, would cause considerable harm.
They’re recessionary: High energy costs reduce economic productivity and are passed along to consumers in everything they buy, from medical treatments to food and clothing. In fact, research at the American Enterprise Institute suggests that half of the total spending consumers do on energy is invisible to them: Its costs are embedded in the things they buy and the services they use. The more things cost, the less people consume, which means less production, less economic growth, and fewer jobs.
They’re regressive: Most analysis shows that energy taxes are highly regressive. After all, it’s not the rich people who are driving around old cars with poor mileage, living in old houses with poor insulation and inefficient appliances, or having limited career mobility and lengthy commutes from poor communities into wealthier communities where there are jobs.
They’re anti-competitive: Energy taxes also make countries less competitive when it comes to exports, particularly when they’re competing against countries that don’t impose comparable taxes. Carbon tax proponents argue that such things can be handled with border taxes on imported goods from non-carbon-priced regimes, but does anyone really believe that such activities will not set off innumerable trade wars?
They are bait-and-switch: If climate alarmists really thought that the goal was to get the price right, you’d hear them promising to remove all of the other regulations of carbon emissions if they got their carbon tax. They’d talk about repealing vehicle efficiency standards, appliance standards, technology standards, emission standards, unraveling regional trading systems, ending low-carbon energy subsidies, and more.
But they don’t. Climate change alarmists like Al Gore, have never been shy in admitting that they will not be content with a carbon tax and will still want additional layers of carbon suppression through cap-and-trade as well as regulation. This will result in rampant over-pricing of carbon emissions and energy.
I wish I had better news, or perhaps a way around all this. Write your Senators and Congressmen. Tell them you’re not wiling to vote for someone who votes to destroy what’s left of the economy. If you’ve got any better ideas than that, PLEASE let me know.