Lars Larson on “Cap and Tax”

Late last week we finally got a look into some of the details of that crazy “Cap and Trade” scheme (I like to call a “Cap and Tax” scheme) that the U. S. Congress is considering.

First of all, it’s almost a thousand pages long. Do they have speed readers looking at that thing so that Congress actually knows what’s in it?

One part in particular seems to be especially telling to me. The President is trying to sell this crazy scheme and says it will create new jobs. If that’s true, why is it that on one of the pages of that 900 page bill, they are actually providing for three years of unemployment payments and a lot of other payments to all the people who are going to lose their jobs.
If it’s really going to create all this new economic activity you’d think you wouldn’t have to provide (no joke here) 156 weeks of unemployment payment for the people who are going to lose their jobs.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:50 | Posted in Measure 37 | 45 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jessie

    This completely idiotic idea will not create one new job that means anything.
    It is just taxing without representing.
    It is stupid.
    Someday people will wake up, but not before a lot of damage has been done to our country by this teleprompter-reading novice.

  • anonymous

    Lars and the rest of his conservative talk brethren should beat the drum on a loud and regular basis regarding the Usurper Soetoro’s lack of Constitutional qualifications to stand before us as a “teleprompter-reading novice.”

    This would be a *cut to the chase method* of circumventing all of “teleprompter-reading novice”,(‘s) “idiotic idea”s.

  • Einstein

    Lars writes:
    “One part in particular seems to be especially telling to me. The President is trying to sell this crazy scheme and says it will create new jobs. If that’s true, why is it that on one of the pages of that 900 page bill, they are actually providing for three years of unemployment payments and a lot of other payments to all the people who are going to lose their jobs. ”

    Try to stretch your brain here Lars. A cap and trade will raise the cost of fossil fuel energy, thus some workers in industries heavily dependent on fossil fuels may cut back, for example coal mining. Other industries will benefit, such as wind turbine and solar manufacturers. Those getting the new jobs may not be the same individuals as those losing the old jobs, who may need a lot of time and re-training to adjust.

  • David Appell

    Lars Larson wrote:
    > The President is trying to sell this crazy scheme and says it
    > will create new jobs. If that’s true, why is it that on one of
    > the pages of that 900 page bill, they are actually providing
    > for three years of unemployment payments and a lot of
    > other payments to all the people who are going to lose their
    > jobs.

    This is, frankly, just stupid and dumb logic.

    Because the Obama administration claims a net positive amount of jobs will be created does not mean that some jobs will not be lost. Obviously. And jobs in the coal and oil industry will, unfortunately, be lost, because those industries are destroying our atmosphere and oceans. Green jobs are the way of the future.

    By Mr. Larson’s logic, we should not bother to take care of the people whose jobs in dirty industries will be lost. How is that fair or just?

    Mr. Larson is clearly more interested in stretching the truth so as to be provocative and drum up ratings that he is at a serious analysis of the actual situation.

  • David Appell

    Jessie wrote:
    > It is just taxing without representing.

    This guy Jessie is a winner, huh?

    Did he not notice that (1) Obama was elected by the populace last November, and (2) every one of the representatives and senators now dealing with the Waxman bill was elected by the constituents in his/her district?

    Where, exactly, is this lack of representation?

  • David Appell’s conscience

    You Conserv-a-Nutz don’t mind if I shift to this blog for a while, do you? I’ve worn out my welcome at NWR. And on the conference call they gave Rob Kremer’s blog to Roadrunner. I finally had to drop my grievance; suffice it to say that Roadie had them all bought off. Now I’m tanned, rested, and ready. I hope you don’t mind that I’m angling for a job with Podesta, or gaia-willing, Axelrod. For you trogs who want to know what an intelligent prog looks like, here’s my photo:

    https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/12/1229093410321/david_appell_140x140.jpg

    Quark Soup!

    • Einstein

      I’d advise getting yourself a life, but I imagine it is too late for that.

  • anonymous

    Appell, why don’t you make yourself useful? Get Soetoro’s college entrance records together along with proof that he’s a “Natural born citizen”. You do that and present it all here on this blog and I guarantee you Fame & Gratitude,,,, just before the “Chicago’s” come a callin’ on you.

    I can’t think of anything else that would make the folks you’ve *already* irritated happier.

  • David Appell

    > I can’t think of anything else that would make the folks
    > you’ve already irritated happier.

    Who says I want to make the people I’ve irritated “happier?” Frankly, that’s the last of my goals. (It would also be a big waste of time.)

  • David Appell’s conscience

    Frankly, I’d prefer that they gulp down my noxious Quark Soup.

    Now that this is all about me, it’s only fair to admit … the second to last of my goals is to become an objective science journalist. (That would also be a big waste of my time.)

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Look, cap and trade is a job killer. This is not even a close call.

    First of all, making windmills and solar panels are a pipe dream now. Maybe, and that’s a big maybe, it will be practical in 10+ years or so. Windmills have been around forever, and they have been predicting wind power on some sort of cost effective basis since the 70’s. Its still a long ways off, solar perhaps more so.

    However even if wind and solar were practical windmills and solar panels are not ongoing expenses, at least not if this is going to be economically viable. They represent fixed costs, not ongoing costs. Thus the number of jobs created by such an industry is not going to replace manufacturing jobs for things that represent ongoing purchases. People buy cars on an ongoing basis. You don’t replace your windmills with anywhere near the frequency of cars, or other sorts of goods. If you did, it would immediately become non viable. So the jobs wont be equal quantity even in the best scenario.

    Second, most manufacturing jobs of any substantial kind will move immediately to China or India. Why pay for ridiculous cap and trade when you can simply just move the manufacturing? The Chinese are building coal plants by the hour. If you think they are going to sign any cap and trade, you probably are one of those who were shocked North Korea broke its treaties.

    We have already seen how hard it is to compete with the Chinese with the just the wage and work rule disparity we have, you think adding cap and trade is going to help that or hurt it?

    So, we will have a combination of business closures due to simple bankruptcy. Manufacturing moving off shore. But…. building a bunch of solar panels will replace all the jobs…. yep.

    The only thing mysterious is why people who put forth that delusion are in a quandary as to why no one trusts their judgment on the reason for such nonsense in the first place.

    In other words, if you can’t understand the math behind cap and trade being a job killer, please don’t be shocked when I don’t trust your reasoning on AGW in the first place.

    • come again?

      Yes, solar and wind are high on capital costs, low on operating costs, meaning most of the jobs to be gained are probably in manufacturing. But the deployment of these technologies, which are technically viable right now, and becoming more economically affordable by the day, will take decades to ramp up to significant percentages of our energy supply. That means for all practical purposes someone entering the wind manufacturing industry today could have a job for 20 or 30 years.

      And then, the as the technology improves old stuff is replaced by new stuff, so it could stretch beyond that. If these things last forever, so much the better. We can find something else to spend our time on.

      Commercial wind turbine manufacturing is likely to stay regionalized because these are expensive puppies to transport.

      China will sign onto cap and trade. They have lots to gain and not much to lose by doing so. They are already deploying solar and wind power faster than we are, and ramping up their manufacturing.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >That means for all practical purposes someone entering the wind manufacturing industry today could have a job for 20 or 30 years.

        Who cares?

        That’s not the issue.

        The issue is, you simply cannot replace every job that used to use power with jobs to generate power as if the number of those jobs were the same then you would have some super expensive power. That’s the point, try and address it.

        No one ever said there would be no jobs from replacing one source of power with another. The argument was that you simply are not going to be able to replace, in any meaningful sense, all the manufacturing jobs with windmill and solar panel jobs. Anyone making that argument is simply lying, or, if they believe it, then they expect windmills and solar to be so labor intensive that they will never be economically viable. Take your pick.

        >Commercial wind turbine manufacturing is likely to stay regionalized because these are expensive puppies to transport.

        I know, a friend of mine operates the crane that unloads the propellers from boats, as I have told you in the past Dean. Not a lot new here.

        With the costs involved in those propellers, I can tell you, it will be one hell of a long time before windmills become economically viable. Who knows though, we are at 30 years and counting, maybe sometime it will work out. I doubt it though, there is just only so much power you can wring out of a rotating shaft with a prop on it..

        >China will sign onto cap and trade.

        Why? Because you said so? Where is your evidence for this? Can you give me a treaty they have signed, a letter of intent, anything that indicates they are going to implement cap and trade in a meaningful manner.

        Note – Strategy warning, the use of the word meaningful is key here. If you come back with something that says they will implement it in 100 years or in some fuzzy nebulous manner, that is not meaningful.

        Note – Strategy hint – Re read the word meaningful. You will make an absolute fool of yourself if you try and use Dean Dodge Number One and fail to read the word meaningful.

        >They have lots to gain and not much to lose by doing so.

        A lot to gain? Like what?

        Name all these things China have to gain by cap and trade?

        Look, the only people with a lot to gain here are fat cat environmentalists and guys making windmills. Good for Al Gore, not much good for anyone else, especially those of us who would rather work than collect a welfare check.

        Nothing to lose?

        Do you have any idea how big the population of China is? You think they want to lose their manufacturing like we did? I sure as hell don’t think so. They have India right there. You think the leaders of China all of a sudden want a bunch of people losing their jobs over some foolishness like cap and trade? Sounds like riot time and overthrow real quick if that happens. Chinas leaders have to find jobs for something like a gazillion people a day. No way will they want a job killer like cap and trade.

        >They are already deploying solar and wind power faster than we are, and ramping up their manufacturing.

        Wow, pretty soon that production might catch up with how fast they are building coal plants. I think they build one every three days there. It will take a hell of a lot of windmills to replace that.

        China has said repeatedly it has no interest in this sort of thing. Contrary to your odd statement, they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain. The key thing China lacks to make cap and trade economically viable, for some at least, is a vested political interest class. In other words fat cat environmentalists looking to make a buck out of creating a fictional crises and profiting off of the gullible. Absent massive profits for someone, cap and trade makes no sense at all, there simply is no purpose in it beyond that.

        • David Appell

          > Name all these things China have to gain by cap and trade?

          First of all, China lives on the same planet as everyone else, and is as susceptible to the pejorative effects of climate change as much as anyone, if not more so, given the number of people they must feed and hydrate. Their environment is already under considerable stress and their citizens are suffering from bad air and water. More heat waves and droughts are certainly not something they desire, and their scientists and policy makers are smart enough to know this.

          Second, they want to not just be part of the international community, but leaders in it. They surely see that governments around the world are beginning to take steps to address climate change and they know they will face political and economic barriers if they do not get onboard. Ultimately we do need a comprehensive agreement, but until them peer pressure exists.

    • David Appell

      Rupert wrote:
      > The Chinese are building coal plants by the hour. If you
      > think they are going to sign any cap and trade, you probably
      > are one of those who were shocked North Korea broke its treaties.

      “China Is Said to Plan Strict Gas Mileage Rules,” NY Times, May 27, 2009.

      “China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants ,” NY Times, May 10, 2009.

      • Anonymous

        What a hoot to have David Appell, the bete-noir of Oregon’s conservative blogs, cite the NY Times as authoritative! Would that be the same NY Times that won a Pulitzer Prize by a writer who later admitted to plagiarizing the story … and … the same NY Times that recently admitted that it spiked the ACORN-Obama financial connection story to boost Obama’s election? David, try four doors down on the left. It’s called B.O.

        To learn more about plagriarism in journalism, where one day our own David Appell may be featured if he ever gets his career going, visit:

        https://www.famousplagiarists.com/journalism.htm

        • David Appell

          In other words, you won’t strain yourself to actually read their reporting, and instead dismiss them because they — like any news organization (or, for that matter, any organization or individual) has made some mistakes in the past. It’s a convenient but trivial response.

          You know as well as I do that the NYT is one of the premier news organizations in the world. That hardly means they’re perfect, or that the above mentioned articles are incorrect.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >First of all, China lives on the same planet as everyone else, and is as susceptible to the pejorative effects of climate change

        That assumes they buy into AGW. To do this they would have to either adhere to the basic beliefs of the AGW system or have a bunch of fat cats looking to get rich off a cap and trade system or a combination of the two. I don’t think they have either really. We have both – the Al Gores of the world looking to make a buck and a meaningful, although declining, segment of the population that accepts the AGW beliefs.

        >Ultimately we do need a comprehensive agreement, but until them peer pressure exists.

        Well, you are relying on peer pressure to exceed the benefits of the job influx they will get when we implement cap and trade. Frankly given the numbers I don’t think that’s going to happen.

        Now, if you were proposing something more sensible, implementing cap and trade on China first, with us following them, that might be more constructive.

        >”China Is Said to Plan Strict Gas Mileage Rules,” NY Times, May 27, 2009.

        “China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants ,” NY Times, May 10, 2009.

        Oh I never said China was not concerned about air pollution, they are and that’s what most of this is addressing. Frankly our move to clean coal plants would have been eased it environmentalists had been a little more accepting of a gradual approach rather than all or nothing. They stuck with all or nothing and thus got… nothing. George Bush tried to do something about this but of course he was stupid and no we couldn’t try anything different, gradual implementation of coal plant clean up rather than all at once. Oh well.

        Oh, and also you forgot another thing China leads in:

        News flash – China also now outpaces the US in greenhouse gas emissions.

        Nuff said on that.

        • David Appell

          > News flash – China also now outpaces the US in greenhouse
          > gas emissions.

          Though hardly on a per-capita basis, which is the only realistic measure. Per-capita they only emit about 1/4th of the average American’s.

        • David Appell

          > Now, if you were proposing something more sensible,
          > implementing cap and trade on China first, with us
          > following them, that might be more constructive.

          Of course, we can’t “impose” C&T on China, but we can take a leadership position by first getting our own house in order (the US is the worst GHG polluter, after all) and then using international pressure to get them to do the same. There are indications this is already happening — for example, Pelosi’s recent trip to China and the climate discussions that took place.

        • come again?

          The issue is not whether China adopts a cap and trade system to reduce its CO. The issue is whether they adopt any effective system, which in a top down dictatorship can mean just changing what they do across a number of fronts. They are already ahead of the US on several, including the first fact that their per capita emissions are less than ours by a factor of 4 or 5. They have a national energy efficiency target, a 16% renewable energy mandate for the year 2020, are the worlds largest user of solar hot water, 1st or 2nd in wind, they are expanding their nuclear power, have high energy standards for new buildings (and they build a lot of new buildings,) have high standards for energy efficient appliances, and have a 36 MPG efficiency standard for personal vehicles.

          Pointing the finger at China is silly. They already do more than we do on most fronts, and are far poorer.

        • David Appell

          > Frankly our move to clean coal plants would have been eased it
          > environmentalists had been a little more accepting of a gradual
          > approach rather than all or nothing.

          There is no such thing as a “clean” coal plant — China’s are only “cleaner,” not “clean.” And the severity of the climate change problem is such that we can’t afford a gradual approach that still utilizes coal in some fashion for the next 25 years. We have to eliminate all coal as soon as possible.

  • David Appell

    > That assumes they buy into AGW.

    They don’t “buy into” it, they recognize its scientific veracity. If you monitored the scientific literature (which I doubt you do), you’d see that Chinese scientists are publishing lots of papers on the climate change topic, very few-to-none of which question AGW. The fact that increased amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere will lead to warming is a robust conclusion based on simple physics. The Chinese are bound by the same physical laws as everyone else.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Though hardly on a per-capita basis, which is the only realistic measure.

      Hogwash.

      Your opinion that only per capita measurements in this situation count is just that, an opinion, not any sort of rule or fact. One could just as easily start dividing emissions by GDP, or number of goods produced.

      The point is Chinas greenhouse gas emissions are on the upswing. That’s what you need to address

      >Of course, we can’t “impose” C&T on China, but we can take a leadership position by first getting our own house in order

      Ok, more lameness.

      I wasn’t arguing we could impose it. I was saying we simply impose it on ourselves after China, the worlds largest emitter of these gasses, puts cap and trade in place. Hell, even simultaneous imposition would make more sense. Absent that, you haven’t done jack, all you have done is shift the source of emission when companies move.

      Anyway, now that that is cleared up, try addressing the point.

      Why not have a reciprocal agreement? Cap and trade will do nothing but shift jobs, and emissions if it is not in place. Therefore there is little actual cost to having such an agreement and everything to gain. Seems to me way more reliable than simple relying on some sort of following by China of our leadership position once we have devastated our economy and all the jobs have moved over there.

      You want to address that?

      >They are already ahead of the US on several, including the first fact that their per capita emissions are less than ours by a factor of 4 or 5.

      Nonsense, following this logic we could solve our greenhouse emissions problem simply by having babies.

      >Pointing the finger at China is silly. They already do more than we do on most fronts, and are far poorer.

      I think what’s silly is you saying they should not impose cap and trade and we should.

      I also think its absurd you hold out all these great environmental things happening in China, I suggest you visit there. It is one of the most polluted areas in the world.

      >There is no such thing as a “clean” coal plant — China’s are only “cleaner,” not “clean.”

      Gee – thanks for pointing out the obvious, ok, you put an “er” on the end of the word, I didn’t, wow. I sure hope your science writing is a little better than this third grade stuff. This is singularly unimpressive.

      >And the severity of the climate change problem is such that we can’t afford a gradual approach that still utilizes coal in some fashion for the next 25 years.

      Oh wow great. So we can’t do things gradually because this is such a dire emergency?

      Ok – well, then this totally undermines your entire argument with China. You just argued we should accept cap and trade and leave out the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases so that they could follow our leadership role at some point in the future.

      Gee, so lets see, its bad for us to gradually clean up our coal plants, but its ok to let China gradually adopt cap and trade.

      Are you starting to see why your arguments aren’t taken very seriously here? I mean this is ridiculous.

      >If you monitored the scientific literature (which I doubt you do)

      Nice try, however lets not forget this little bit of silliness is easily dispensed with by referring back to one of our recent encounters.

      Namely when you tried to get on Karlocks case for citing numbers from advocacy groups and then tried to get away with citing GISS numbers! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

      I called you on that because James Hansen, the AGW advocate who heads GISS, had been caught twice making up numbers. Therefore showing that not only did I monitor the scientific literature, but I monitored it probably more closely than you since I had effectively hoisted you by your own Jean Luc Picard!

      I also called you on your lameness at not showing up to hear a member of the IPCC speak when you had weaseled a free ticket to it by claiming to be a member of the media.

      So not only do I monitor the literature, I go to talks to see people speak on the subject.

      And what about you? What did you do?

      Well, you feigned some lame “my car wouldn’t start” excuse. This thereby establishing not only the extent of your success as a member of the media ( most professionals can afford a running car or cab fare ) and also establishing your professionalism ( a professional would have called to excuse himself ).

      So, nice try but don’t try the heavy handed scientific up on all the literature BS with me. Unless I miss my guess you are a guy with a pencil who fancies himself a reporter but has little qualifications beyond that. If you have any scientific training or degrees, which I doubt, it is hardly indicated by your writing or conclusions drawn here.

      • David Appell

        >> They are already ahead of the US on several,
        >> including the first fact that their per capita emissions are
        >> less than ours by a factor of 4 or 5.

        > Nonsense, following this logic we could solve our greenhouse
        > emissions problem simply by having babies.

        Faulty logic. Those babies will consume about the same as the rest of society, on average, and so the country’s GDP/capita would remain unchanged.

      • David Appell

        Rupert wrote:
        > Your opinion that only per capita measurements
        > in this situation count is just that, an opinion, not any sort
        > of rule or fact. One could just as easily start dividing
        > emissions by GDP, or number of goods produced.

        No, you can’t. The atmosphere and oceans don’t respond to GHG/GDP, they respond to the actual amount of GHGs put there. They don’t care how many good and services you produce with a ton of CO2 — to them, a US ton of CO2 is the same as a Chinese ton of CO2.

        > The point is Chinas greenhouse gas emissions are on the
        > upswing. That’s what you need to address.

        So are the US’s GHG emissions on the upswing. And the US is responsible for far more of the CO2 already in the atmosphere, put there over the last several decades, than are the Chinese, which puts even more of the onus on us.

      • David Appell

        Rupert wrote:
        > James Hansen, the AGW advocate who heads GISS, had
        > been caught twice making up numbers.

        Rupert, what is your evidence that Hansen “made up” the numbers? That would imply dishonesty — what’s your evidence?

        In fact, I’ve talked to people at GISS about this, and the Oct 08 numbers were placed on the Web (which is *not* the scientific literature) automatically by computers that monitor and collect data from around the world. When GISS, alerted by Internet users, quickly realized the number was suspiciously large, they immediately took the number down, examined the underlying data, published a corrected value, and instituted a better quality control process. At no point did Hansen (or any human) even see the number before it went online. Your assertion is false.

        In fact, GISS did what good scientists are supposed to do — correct and reanalyze data and publish better data and calculations when they are available. Everyone makes mistakes, but that hardly means that all mistakes are the result of fabrication or other dishonesty.

        So, again, I’d like to see your proof that Hansen or anyone at GISS fabricated data. If you don’t have it, you need to withdraw your claim and you also owe them an apology.

      • come again?

        It is an objective fact that China’s per capita GHG emissions are a fraction of ours. It is an opinion that this does matter with respect to who has the ethical obligation to pony up first.

        Yes China’s emissions are increasing, as are ours. Theirs are increasing faster because they started from such a low point, and their growth rate is 5 times ours. As far as the earth’s climate is concerned, it doesn’t matter where the molecules come from, but the fact is most of the CO2 in the atmonshpere today came from us, Europe, Japan, and so forth, not China.

        Yes, we could choose to wait for China to do more. We could also wait for the Europeans to do more, or the Canadians, Australians, Japanese, etc. Or we could step up, re-assume a leadership role in the world, and make our own commitment. Using China as an excuse for further inaction is self-defeating and juvenile.

        But what you still seem to confuse is the tool of cap and trade with the objective of lowering emissions. Neither we nor China need to use cap and trade. There are other ways to lower emissions. The reason the US is going for cap and trade is that we like market based systems better than command and control systems, and we are gun shy on imposing a carbon tax. China is still a command and control nation, so it may make more sense for them to choose a different means to the same end. They can simply decree a stop to building coal plants tomorrow if they want. We can’t or won’t do that.

        Lets be honest. You Rupert, don’t accept the reality of global warming as being prmarily human caused. You want to find ways to stall doing anything about it, so you hold up China as your newest reason. Its another in a long line of lame arguments that you and other so-called skeptics make. You prefer to play Russian roulette with the future.

  • B-HO

    Over the last 120 days, we have all learned that converting to an energy-secure economy will add green jobs and pull the planet out of the economic malaise my administration inherited from prior Republican administration. That’s why I have decided to name David Appell as my Cap & Trade Czar to China. Although he will be very busy helping the Chinese government, and will often be half a world away, David assures me that he intends to continue ministering to the readers of this very important blog. David is uniquely qualified to lead this crucial initiative. We all wish him the best of luck, as he enjoys our full support.

    • Max

      Could it be that he is following standard convention by ending a question with a question mark?

  • John in Oregon

    David Appell. All of your posturing is becoming old and tired.

    The nails through the heart of AGW keep coming. The latest from a team lead by Kim Prather, of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of California San Diego. They found that biological material—bacteria, spores and plant material—may account for 1/3 of the airborne material involved in cloud formation. Another example of how the IPCC model assumption about cooling cloud formation is just wrong. The IPCC, assumptions piled on conjecture and lubricated by wishful thinking.

    Another nail is the book Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science by Ian Plimer. The value of this book is not the science. The value is the book is in language used by real people. Just as the Gutenberg bible freed the people from the early church and the priest as the only path to god, Plimer frees the people from the IPCC as the only path to scientific enlightenment.

    You make a spirited defense of James Hansen, you needn’t bother it does not matter. James, never met an adjustment he didn’t like, Hansen is well known as the worlds leading AGW proponent (the Fox) who is in charge of the GISS data set (the Hen house).

    The day the man became the leading opponent of free markets and liberty and an advocate of dictatorship to save the world is the day he became irrelevant. That was the day Hansen became no longer worth my sweat.

    I and many I know are propionates of good stewardship of the environment. We recognize that by far the largest progress of environmental protection is found in advanced free market societies.

    A small group who claim to speak for the “environmentalists” demand the abandonment of existing technology as killing the earth. With one hand they insist on alternate technology while with the other they use every legal roadblock to that alternate development.

    They insist that man is evil and must be removed from all forests. The forests will be fine if only humans would abandon 6,000 years of pacific northwest forest management.

    To this small but vocal group I and 7 out of 10 of my fellow Americans say thinks, but no thinks.

    Einstein, despite the ad-hominem attack a simple answer exists for why the Cap and Tax bill contains provisions for years of unemployment payments and other payments to all the people who are going to lose their jobs.

    The bill is a major job killer. The research in the EU is done. The results are known.

    The results have been not only disappointing, but very negative. The salient economic highlights are findings that:

    1] For every four “green” jobs created, nine other jobs are destroyed.

    2] Among those “green” jobs, only 1 in 10 was a real, full-time job.

    To put it in terms of full time real green jobs;

    For each real full time Green Job created, 22.5 other full time real jobs will be destroyed.

    None of this is a surprise; “alternative energy” requires overly-massive use of scarce resources – resources that can only be taken away from better and more productive activities.

    • David Appell

      John, how does Prather’s recent work undo any conclusions about AGW? Everyone already knows that cloud formation is perhaps the largest degree of uncertainty in climate calculations. Does Prather’s recent work change any of that uncertainty in a way that makes AGW less likely in the face of large forcings from CO2 and other AGHGs? I read her paper and it doesn’t say anything about that at all.

      Besides, clouds have a cooling effect (from above), but also trap heat (from below). There is still uncertainty. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take action to prevent the buildup of GHGs in the atmosphere and oceans, which after all are called “greenhouse gases” for a good reason.

      • DavidAppell’s conscience

        Here’s an old folklore rhyme that Grampa Appell used to recite to as he bounced me on his knee: “As a rule, man is a fool. When it’s hot he wants it cold, when it’s cold he wants it hot — always wanting what is not.” With that, I am off to make the courtesy calls on U.S. Senators who will be voting on my nomination as Cap & Trade Czar – China. Thank you, thank you, thank you, B-HO, for your unwavering confidence in me. Frankly, I promise to live up to your expectations. More to follow.

    • Max

      “The value of this book is not the science. The value is the book is in language used by real people.”

      Scientists are also real people. The difference between them and the rest of us is that they do real research, publish real results, and gradually draw conclusions about the natural world based on the reality of it rather than on what they want to believe or not believe.

  • John in Oregon

    > *how does Prather’s recent work undo any conclusions about AGW?*

    Prather’s doesn’t undue IPCC AGW all by its self. It found a new form of cloud seeding which drove a nail through yet another IPCC AGW assumption. If it were the only nail. But its just one of many nails. Barrels of nails.

    With so many assumptions piled on conjectures placed on a foundation of oughttabees IPCC AGW has had so many nails driven through it that it would trigger an airport metal detector from the parking lot.

    > *Everyone already knows.. that cloud formation is perhaps the largest degree of uncertainty in climate calculations*

    Well duahhhhh. Now Prather has shown IPCC AGW is certainly wrong, overestimating warming.

    Isnt that what Dr. Roy Spenser has been saying for years “The main reason the models produce so much warming depends upon uncertain assumptions regarding how clouds will respond to warming. Low and middle-level clouds provide a ‘sun shade’ for the Earth, and the climate models predict that those clouds will dissipate with warming, thereby letting more sunlight in and making the warming worse.

    I had earlier commented that Ian Plimer’s book was written in language used by real people. In response Max holds > *Scientists are also real people. The difference between them and the rest of us is that they do real research*

    Some Scientists do actual real field research. Others create conjectures, typically computerized these days. Both have a place.

    The “scientists” to be worried about are those who say they are the way and the light. They tell us the only true path to enlightenment is through them. Al Gore, now known as the Goricle, and James Hansen, the champions of merging Government and Business in order to save the world. That small group of saviors of the world astride the white maimed steed, armor gleaming in the sunlight.

    But did you notice that Gore lied to congress about his financial holdings and conflict of interest? Or did you ask what major field of political thought holds the merging of Government and Business as a major tenant?

    • David Appell

      I really don’t care what Al Gore says about anything, and barely even pay attention to it. He’s not a scientist and, in any case, no one scientist speaks for all science any more than any one oil-funded skeptic speaks for all skeptics. I take ideas as they come, and I consider them as ideas.

      Prather’s work has implications for cloud formation but hardly undo the case for AGW. Climate scientists already know how many clouds are up there, and these are taken into account into their models — Prather’s recent work just helps explains why.

      If you seriously want to wait until science can explain the formation of every little cloud in the sky, you will be missing the big picture and fail to foresee the overwhelming danger from adding known heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. At your rate we might be able to say something absolutely precise about climate in 100 years. Unfortunately, a simply back of the envelope calculation, backed by sophisticated climate models, shows that 100 years will be far too late. Science never says anything precisely about anything. There are always a million complications that are not considered. Still, science has shown its value in a great many contexts by considering the 1st and 2nd orders or perturbation on a system. Higher perturbation orders rarely, if ever, change these basis conclusions.

      If you have evidence that an incomplete accounting of cloud physics reverses the case for AGW, present it. If not, tell us how you will figure the future effects of our continued release of GHGs, which is a deadly serious topic that cannot wait 100 years until every tiny little detail is worked out.

    • Max

      “The “scientists” to be worried about are those who say they are the way and the light. They tell us the only true path to enlightenment is through them.”

      I don’t know any scientists who have stated such a thing. I know a few who believe the only, or best way to enlightenment is through science because it is based on demonstrable facts, not beliefs. And the science is compelling that the earth is warming due to human generated greenhouse gasses accumulating in the atmosphere.

      Al Gore, by the way, is not a scientist. Nor does he claim to be an oracle. I don’t know what you are referring to with respect to “merging government and business.” They are already pretty fairly merged in this nation if you stop and think about it. Every business operates under the protective umbrella of the government, and government needs functioning businesses to pay the rent.

  • John in Oregon

    > *I really don’t care what Al Gore says about anything, and barely even pay attention to it. He’s not a scientist…*

    I understand why you want to BUT sorry you don’t get to throw Al Gore under the bus. The fact is he walks the halls of power speaking before the fawning democrat committees as an expert. He and his entourage chanting Goracle, Goracle.

    David I know you want to take any question in isolation. Such as > *Prather’s work has implications for cloud formation but hardly undo the case for AGW.*

    A strategy of isolate and minimize. But, David there is such a thing as death of a thousand cuts. In Law it’s called the preponderance of the evidence.

    There is even more to contest IPCC AGW. Now comes the study of the NIPCC. 880 pages which will “present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.”

    As to Maz who said > *I don’t know any scientists who have stated such a thing* as being the path and the way to global warming salvation.

    You don’t huh? Wellllll. Dr. James Hansen, Al Gore, Dr David Suzuki, and Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri for four. Do you need more?

    > *I don’t know what you are referring to with respect to “merging government and business.” They are already pretty fairly merged in this nation if you stop and think about it. Every business operates under the protective umbrella of the government, and government needs functioning businesses to pay the rent.*

    That umbrella is called the sanctity of private contracts, rule of law, blind justice and equal protection under the law. Hardly a merging. In fact the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution hold government at arms length from the conduct of the free market place and the people.

    But Max doesn’t see any merging. I have to wonder how its possible to be so blind? So let me list a few mergings.

    White House \ Goldman Sachs division \ Government
    White House \ JP Morgan division \ Government
    White House \ Bank of America division \ Government
    White House \ Citigroup division \ Government
    White House \ Wells Fargo division \ Government
    White House \ Fannie Mae division \ Government
    White House \ Freddie Mac division \ Government
    White House \ AIG division \ Government
    White House \ General Motors division \ Government
    White House \ Chrysler division \ Government
    White House \ GE division \ Government
    White House \ NBC division \ Government

    Watch for the new White House enterprises coming soon.

    White House \ Health decision division \ Government
    White House \ Doctor division \ Government
    White House \ Energy division \ Government
    White House \ Steel division \ Government
    White House \ Internet \ Google division \ Government

    • Max

      “In Law it’s called the preponderance of the evidence.”

      I think scientists use the same term. And the preponderance is that the earth is warming due primarily to human generated causes. If the preponderance of evidence was the other way, we would not be having this exchange.

      Show me where Hansen, Suzuki, or any other reputable scentist has claimed to be an oracle and claimed they are the only true path to enlightenment. You have bupkis here and you know it. Repeating the same claim over and again with no evidence is beneath your intellect, and if not it is certainly beneath mine.

      The Constitution has nothing in it I am aware of that holds government at any particular length from the free market. Enlighten me on that one. We could vote in a fully socialist government tomorrow and it would not be unconstitutional. Government all but nationalized industry during WW2. It regulates as it sees fit. And for the most part private industry is happy to sit at the trough feeding off government contracts.

      I did not write that I did not “see any merging.” I wrote that they are already merged, and have been for a long long time. At the least since government handed land over to railroad companies.

    • David Appell

      John, just as I thought: Prather’s latest finding does not undo the argument for AGW, but you’d prefer to believe that it’s the 999th snowflake that takes us over the 1000 mark, and suddenly the tree branch breaks. But that’s entirely wishful thinking.

      Prather’s work is interesting and could someday lead to news ideas in micro-cloud physics. But climate scientists already have a fair handle on clouds, regardless of how they are formed. Prather’s work doesn’t really undo any of their models.

      I’m sure you find the next “thousandth cut” in next weeks’ bevy of papers, if you can’t find it this week. I also bet that, if you wrote Prather, you’d find she’s as concerned about AGW as anyone. Why don’t you do that?

      • Conscience of a Moonbat

        Why does David Appell always end his posts with a question mark?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)