TCS Daily

The Climate Gap and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

By Kenneth Green - January 3, 2008 12:00 AM

As we approach the elections of 2008, a clear gap has emerged between the major Republican and Democratic candidates on the issue of environment. Call it the "climate gap."

A look at the websites of the candidates as well as media coverage reveals that all of the Democratic candidates for President have presented detailed plans for addressing climate change that include four components: carbon caps and targets; fuel efficiency measures; renewable electricity standards; and efficiency targets. They also generally oppose coal power plants unless greenhouse gases are sequestered.

Hillary Clinton, for example, supports reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050; imposing a 55 mpg fleet standard for automobiles by 2030; generating 20% of electric power with renewables by 2020; reducing energy use by 10% by 2020; and supports investment in coal power only if it reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. The other major candidates, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Barak Obama share similar targets, though there are minor variations seen in their calls for improved vehicle fuel economy. The only significant outlier in the Democratic field is Bill Richardson, who seems to be trying to out-Gore Al Gore, pushing for a 90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050; a 50% share for renewables by 2040; and a call to ban coal plans outright unless they can capture and store their carbon emissions, a capability that, at present, does not exist.

In stark contrast to the unified Democratic position, the Republican field largely defies easy classification even after significant scrutiny. John McCain, who has long endorsed carbon emission trading, continues to do so, though at a less aggressive level than the Democratic candidates. Two other Republicans - Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee - have expressed general support for the idea of capping carbon emissions, but have not spelled out any method by which they'd achieve such a cap. Rudy Giuliani might also fit into this category, as he has expressed admiration for the Arnold Schwarzenneger approach to environmental policy (which prominently features carbon emission trading)[i] though Giuliani has focused more on conducting another space race, this time focused on developing alternative (presumably lower-carbon) forms of energy.

In April, our AEI colleague Newt Gingrich wrote an article called "We Can Have Green Conservatism--And We Should" in which he discussed a number of values which he classified as green conservatism.[ii] Among these were the belief that economic growth and environmental health are compatible, and that positive environmental outcomes will be realized faster by working within market structures than via regulation and litigation. And Newt is not alone - while many will argue that Governor Schwarzenegger has failed when it comes to adopting market-friendly means to environmental ends, he has certainly shown the political viability of embracing the values and the outcome goals of his environmental constituents.

Here are two powerful, positive ideas to mitigating carbon emissions and averting expected damages from climate change that embrace the goal of climate protection, but utilize methods that are compatible with basic conservative policy principles.

As we argued in a previous AEI Environmental Policy Outlook in June[iii], a revenue-neutral carbon tax, offset by reductions in taxes on productivity is a superior policy option to carbon emission trading in virtually every dimension. Revenue neutral carbon-centered tax reform would: be more effective at reducing GHG emissions than emission trading; create a revenue stream to offset economic damage of higher energy prices; shift a portion of the tax base from productive endeavor to consumption; be less prone to corruption; require no new collection mechanisms; be predictably adjustable and be self-moderating - nobody is likely to want the tax to be higher than absolutely necessary.

Putting forward a program to get the price right on carbon emissions would allow Republican candidates to argue for regulatory streamlining and the removal of such things as CAFE standards, appliance standards, construction standards, light bulb standards, and so forth, all of which become totally superfluous in an economy that is properly pricing carbon emissions through a carbon tax.

Another area where Republicans could bring a positive, market-friendly agenda to the climate change debate involves adaptation, a subject treated like an unwanted step-child by Democrats and others fixated on a Kyoto-style approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

NASA's James Hansen has estimated that the greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere are likely to deliver about 1° of additional warming by the year 2100, regardless of what we do to slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions today.[iv] That additional warmth could have a broad range of impacts, from slightly higher sea levels and coastal flooding, to increased drought in drought-prone regions, to increased water shortages in those areas dependent on winter snow deposits, and so on. Democrats and environmentalists are fond of pointing out that these disaster losses are a future cost of global warming.

But as several researchers have pointed out, the higher costs resulting from coastal disasters such as tidal surges and hurricanes are not primarily due to environmental change, but from the increased property values found on coastlines and in forest areas. And that clustering of increased property value on coastlines is enabled by state and federal governments through a variety of storm and flood insurance subsidies.

As an article in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union points out, "More people are moving into coastal areas that are vulnerable to natural hazards--particularly earthquakes on the west coast and hurricanes on the east coast. Furthermore, the effect is amplified because the people who are moving into these coastal areas represent the higher wealth segment of our society, plus their wealth has been increasing.[v] Climate researchers Roger Pielke Jr. and Christopher Landsea have demonstrated that when you normalize the insurance losses to account for increases in population and wealth, the trend of increasing damage amounts in recent decades disappears.[vi]

The argument that coastal vulnerability is a government failure, not a climate problem is also shared by Joseph E. Stieglitz former Chief Economist of the World Bank, who wrote,

Natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina and, in earlier years, hurricanes in Florida and floods along the Mississippi, have made two things clear: Large numbers of individuals facing large risks have not purchased insurance (for one reason or another); and, when disasters happen, there will be a government bailout. (The recognition of this, in turn, provides one of the reasons individuals limit the purchase of insurance; that is, if it is left as a voluntary matter.) There is clearly a role for government ex ante, but ascertaining what that role should be (requiring the provision of private insurance, providing public insurance, etc.) is not so simple...if the private sector has strong incentives to overcharge, the public sector has strong incentives to undercharge.[vii]

As Newt Gingrich and others have pointed out, Republican candidates need to find policy approaches that embrace environmental values but that secure those values with policy approaches compatible with fiscal responsibility, limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility. Two such policy options are a greenhouse gas mitigation agenda incorporating revenue-neutral, carbon-centered tax reform, and a deregulatory adaptation agenda of eliminating the insurance subsidies that have, and will continue to encourage people to live in areas that are most susceptible to small changes in the climate.

Kenneth P. Green is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

[i] At a presentation in Silicon Valley in 2007, Giuliani met with Schwarzenegger on the subject of climate change, and afterward expressed general agreement with Schwarzenegger's approach, saying, ""I generally agree with Gov. Schwarzenegger,'' he said. "He's a good friend and a progressive leader.'' See "100% in president race, Giuliani tells tech group: Ex-N.Y. mayor lauds Schwarzenegger in Silicon Valley Talk," San Francisco Chronicle, February 13, 2007. Available at

[ii] Newt Gingrich, "We Can Have Green Conservatism, and We Should," Human Events, April 23, 2007. Available at,pubID.26036/pub_detail.asp.

[iii] Kenneth P. Green, Steven F. Hayward, and Kevin A. Hassett, "Climate Change: Caps vs. Taxes," Environmental Policy Outlook, June 1, 2007. (Washington: American Enterprise Institute). Available at,pubID.26286/pub_detail.asp.

[iv] James Hansen et al., "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," Science, Vol. 308. no. 5727, June 3, 2005, pp. 1431 - 1435.

[v] G. Van Der Vink et al., "Why the United States is Becoming More Vulnerable to Natural Disasters, EOS, November 3, 1998. Available at:

[vi] Pielke, Jr., R. A. and C. W. Landsea 1998. "Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925-1995," Weather and Forecasting, 13: 621-631. Available at

[vii] Joseph E. Steiglitz, "What is the Appropriate Role of the Federal Government in the Private Markets for Credit and Insurance? What is the Outlook," Panel Discussion, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, July/August 2006.



AEI koolaid
It is very disappointing that a group calling itself the American ENTERPRISE Institute would support artificial 'free' markets.

Especially when there is yet no scientific data to support CO2 emissions CAUSE increasing global temperatures.

I could accept an AEI position which would support the most efficient use of energy and support ISO 14001.

Most building codes are local.

The best way to encourage adaptation to flooding and hurricane damage is for the federal government to stop subsidizing it with FEMA and flood insurance.

If the politicians just can't help themselves, demand that any rebuilding funds must be used for structures such as the concrete monolithic domes, such as The Dome of a Home.

Wake up! Don't be so gullible!
Ken, m'lad, the best way to approach "global boring" is with the good old fashioned common sense horse-laugh. Check out the actual data, I have, it ain't that hard. You will find no (i.e. zero) evidence for catastrophic global warming and certainly none caused by CO2.

Politicians have always exaggerated or totally made up scare scams, abetted by the venal and always eager MSM, to terrify folks into giving up their freedoms and electing them. Recall Y2k, the missile gap, bird flu, AIDS & epidemics of all kinds, and other hoaxes too numerous to mention.

If you do bestir yourself to examine reality, you will find that CO2 is a blessing. All living things, you abd I (and even global warmmongers like Hansen), are made of aerial CO2. The tiny fraction of 1% of the air that is CO2 has been rising benignly. The result has been that plant growth has been increased by about 10%, while requiring less water to do so. This includes crops as well as both land and sea plants and wildlife. All this while temperatures remain pleasant and stable. I envy the lush world our grandchildren will live in. I hope their freedom and liberty will be protected from the inevitable control-freaks that come along.

The Climate Gap
Th problem has a much simpler solution at a much lower cost than the idiotic Kyoto Protocol CO2 reduction method. It doesn't require 100+ nations to cooperate. In mankinds history that has never happened so why would anyone expect it to work now?

IF the temperature goes up as predicted we have NASA launch a few rockets into the Earth's upper atmosphere and scatter small particles that will reflect a % of the Sun's rays. Volcano's have been doing this for millions of years.

This would cost a few Million $$'s not Trillions of $$'s for CO2 reduction. The developed countries economies don't end up makeing a massive transfer of wealth and power to China and India in this process.

Some research would need to be done to make sure we don't end up producing global cooling and a new Ice Age.

This method could be done if and when it is needed and it would provide the needed time to develop new sources of
energy to replace our need for fossil fuels.

Another waste of money
Who will assume responsibility when it fails?

China will be attempting weather control during the Olympics. Let's see how successful they will be.

CO2 'causing' temperature increases
That was a red flag for me when I read this article.

Doesn't CO2 increases simply serve as a measuring SYMPTOM to global temperatures that have already risen, not the cause?

Global Scare Mongering...
The latest (Democratic) energy bill will do nothing to meet the energy needs of the US, short term or long term. There was nothing in it to promote nuclear power. Coal power provides over 50 percent of our current power, and is low in cost. Nothing for it either.

Renewable energy is a bad joke on the world. It can not provide anymore then a mere token of our energy needs.

Ethanol is a cruel joke on us too, it is burning up huge amounts of natural gas to convert corn to ethanol, which puts out 70 percent of the energy of gasoline, and the natural gas energy wasted would provide as much energy.

And then there is the florescent bulb fiasco, where we are trading the warm lighting from tungsten to the hazardous waste problem and much more expensive CFL, whose life expectancy has been also greatly exaggerated. I find in the applications I have tried CFL's they don't last any longer then an incandescent, and cost 5 times as much.

That's easy, but..
..the Feds will have to pay out one more generation, unfortunately.

Say, the Fed cancels insurance subsidies for hurricanes in the East Coast. Then what happens to everyone's property values there? Or, say they just say they simply won't subsidize any new homes sold from date X? Same result, except people's behaviors will be to not move. Their homes will become stranded assets.

Either way, the political backlash would be enormous. So, it won't happen.

We could have the government compensate people for the difference. But that will have to be determined by a formula and not market rates. And, the Feds don't have the money for that. Meanwhile, those of us not living in those areas but paying federal taxes into this trough will be a tad bit ticked. So, it won't happen either, I think.

In short, we can't just turn off the spigot. Not unless we become a dictatorship and even then there would be a huge revolt for the Dictator in question to deal with. Nope. Not going to happen.

"revenue-neutral carbon tax"
This is from a 'think' tank which supports free markets?

another easy, another good comment by you.
You say many things I would also except for my crap Englisch. RE this house subsidising now, I think it was John Stossel or somebody like that, who said he already got FEMA to build him, or pay him for TWO houses already, because he built them too close to the shore and were wrecked. Now as you're saying, even thought it's such a stupid policy, and probably even Roy and LeMule wouldn't defend it, it's hard to change now. That's the trouble of going the entitlements way in social policy, the trouble of welfare nanny states. But in another way, the government really doesn't mind too much, because they never pay anything with their own money, and they can excercise more control by such means; and that's what they re really interested in.

Comment is right on target...... Beware the one wearing Greenshirt
Climate change is a certainty. Current climate is ideal for human habitation and for the development of human technology to adapt and tolerate more extreme swings in climate (warming or cooling). The smart money goes to preparation for the inevitable. The fact that democratic candidates are not even talking about preparation is a glaring indication that their convictions regarding MMGW are weak. If they truly believed in an imminent catastrophe and truly believed in serving their constituyency, they would be working to cancel FEMA sponsored insurance programs to provide a dis-incentive to build in flood-prone margins. Instead, they develop schemes for their friends to capitalize on constituents' fears (i.e. carbon-trading & credits). Eventually, the populists' enemy will transmogrify from "Big Oil" to "Big Green". In the future, the brownshirt thugs of yesterday will wear greenshirts.

Unreasonable stupidity
I'm always amazed how many people really, really BELIEVE that the world will come to an end via global warming.

American, European and other politicians will happily pander to that fear and feel perfectly justified in raising carbon taxes for dubious uses.

C02-stupidity seems to be disease which is airborne.

global warming is 95% BS, and many Republicans know it.
I have a PhD in Physics (and a number of pubs in the field) and have studied the Global Warming literature in enough detail to render a confident professional opinion that the warnings of human caused catastophe are BS.
This isn't a close issue either. Moreover, I don't know anybody whose technical work I respect on other grounds, or who I respect as a professional, who has studied the literature sufficiently to render a professional opinion, who would say otherwise. Its possible there are physicists in this category, but noone I've ever come across yet.

As such, any candidate who supports costly efforts to address global warming will lose my support in direct measure to how much he supports such efforts.

Much of the Republican electorate likewise is skeptical , so I think it would be unwise of anybody seeking the Republican nomination to propose major carbon initiatives.

Right in general, wrong on CFs
I agree that any real energy policy must include the following: Advancing nuclear; advancing clean coal technology; pushing drilling all domestic oil reserves and intensive searches for more; advancing the building of many more refineries (through subsidy if necessary), pushing scientific study into real alternatives for the power source fo the future.

Renewables are not a joke; but the ones being pushed are (at least with present technology). This is an area where a lot more research is needed.

Totally agree on ethanol.

But, while I completely disagree with the proposed bans on incandescent, I have found CF bulbs are a good buy. I too was skeptical and had some early burn outs with my first switch. I initially switched out 5 of the 18 bulbs in my house and two of them burned out in a matter of months. I replaced them with old incandescent, but noticed the rest were still going after a year. They were also in our highest use areas of the house. At that point I switched everything over to CFs. Since then I have had two others go out (both "new" ones) but we have been totally CF for three years and the original 3 are still going strong. I never had an incandescent last more than 6 months in my kitchen or living room. And the difference in my power bill is actually noticable, though not large.

This comment seems awfully un-libertarian of you. You really favor extending a form of welfare into perpetuity, by asking the USG to fund people's poor investment choices in the form of flood and hurricane insurance?

Most unsatisfactory. If the insurance makes market sense, why not get the feds out of the insurance business (funded by MY MONEY) and leave it to the pros-- the insurance industry?

If they go the mild route, and just say houses built after 2008 will receive no federal umbrella policy, the only net result is that builders will make wiser site choices. Under the existing regime, what happens is that after every storm, people get free money to rebuild in the same stupid place.

Plus, any shore geologist can tell you that the front line of beach homes are all destined to end up in the Atlantic. We're just throwing good money after bad when we let builders build on unbuildable oceanfront sites, with federal backing that allows them to get inflated prices for their product. Such assets are stranded by Mother Nature, not federal policy.

Federal bailout progams like this are a total waste of tax dollars.

A better solution
Here's a simple fix, that should ruffle no feathers:

Whenever there's a claim against federal floodplain or storm insurance, stipulate that the payout will come for funding a replacement home somewhere else. Mandate that any homes destroyed in a designated floodplain or vulnerable beachfront should cause the retirement of that lot as a buildable lot.

In time people will move elsewhere, while still getting the payout they came to expect when they bought the place.

There was a brand of conservativism that decided to live with big govt
they just wanted to make it as efficient as possible.

Why should we drastically re-organize to society, in order to address a problem that doesn't exist in the first place?

The Democrats all have positions on GW, because the lunatics who run that party think it is a big deal.

The Republicans don't, because the rest of the population is not concerned about GW.

a few decades ago
their was a substantial number of Republicans, who believed that big govt was inevitable, so they took the position that conservatives should concentrate on trying to make big govt as efficient as possible, and give up the fight to shrink the size and scope of govt.

Come to think of it, the Republican party still seems to be run by those guys.

It will take about a generation, but that will solve the problem is a win-win fashion; in my opinion. Good work roy!!

I, a much less learned individual, have come to the same conclusion. Could you and I be the wide-eyed optimistic deniers? Or is it that the other side has their head burried up thier AGW stinkhole and are eternal pessimists?

It seems to me the AGW crowd is slowly losing their most learned and respected scientist into the skeptic camp; yet the true believers continue to trumpet the impending doom. What is wrong with this picture?

I agree fully with this post; good going!

I know it's strange that I agree with you RB, but I like your proposal.

A tough position
I agree that you cannot eliminate all government largess as it now exists. I also agree that I would like small, effecient government. That creates a position that is tough to handle.

If I really had the power I would begin by getting rid of the Department of Education and put that back under the direction of H&HS; I would also do away with the EPA and put the management back under the auspices of Interior; and I would probably get rid of several branches of the DOJ. Do that, and let the ESA sundown and disappear, and you end environmental lawsuits as they will no longer have standing to sue.

Of course, that is just the tip of a big iceberg; and probably very wishful thinking on my part. But a lot could be done to limit the scope of government without getting rid of SS and Human Services.

Maybe they should start with New Orleans.
That would be a good start.

Nuke is the answer
We have the ability to obtain all the clean energy we want by unleashing the nuclear power industry. Regardless of whether or not global warming is going to be a problem, we can reduce dependence on energy from medieval societies by freeing up the process of building new nuke plants. We have the technology and the raw materials - lets go for it!

If the Dems are so hot on CO2 why did they just select General Motors as their. . .
If the Democrats are so hot on carbon cutting why did they just select General Motors as the official car provider for their convention. I would have thought that they would select one of the environmentally conscious car companies that produces a hybrid.

It's easy to talk CO2 control in the abstract when you're not in office. Better to inspect what the Democratic controlled House of Representatives has actually enacted into law.

If I'm elected I will cut CO2 emissions by 100% by 2050; and I'll provide a GMO-Free Organic Free-Range Chicken for every pot both in the US and throughout the world; and I'll import a genuine third world village to raise every child.

global warming is 95% BS..
physicsphd says " would be unwise of anybody seeking the Republican nomination to propose major carbon initiatives."

While I agree from a personal perspective, somebody needs to tell Giuliani, Huckabee, et al. Only Thompson and Paul are warming skeptics among the Republican candidates.

1) I don't favor it. I am just acknowledging reality. Your characterizations of my position otherwise only proves you didn't read exactly what I wrote.

2) As pertains to what you write here:

" If the insurance makes market sense, why not get the feds out of the insurance business (funded by MY MONEY) and leave it to the pros-- the insurance industry?"

First of all, the Feds don't directly insure. They re-insure. If they didn't and stopped doing so now, then private insurance would stop insuring. W/o insurance against hurricane damage, mortgage companies would stop LENDING (forget about the developers and new housing for a second) in that area, period. It would, in effect, become 'red-lined'. People who lost their insurance would have to pay off their current mortgages or find new insurance where there would be none to find. Foreclosures would soar. Housing prices would plummet.

In short, if you thought the sub-prime mess was a bad case of the government causing it via its continued ignoring of the Law of Unintended Consequences, then this would be sub prime x 100 and would be DELIBERATE on the foolish Congress that passed it and the foolish President who signed it into law, not unintended.

And that is the reality of why it won't happen.

We don't need to use special purpose rockets for climate control
We already have tens of thousands of jetliners circling the world at high altitudes. An additive in their fuel could be delivered high in the atmosphere at very low cost.

And we have tens of thousands of ships crossing the oceans. An additive in their fuel, or a spreader attachment on their sterns could deliver iron and/or other nutrients to increase algae growth in the top layer of the oceans, again at negligible cost.

If CO2 caused global warming is real we have technical options that are much less costly than stopping the gprogress of technological civilization, which is what Al Gore's proposals would do in practice if ever enacted.

Yup, that works
I'd just advocate the caveat that the Feds get the land outright and then pay a $15k "relocation grant" and then it would be a whole lot simpler to administer.

I believe that was proposed and rejected
...once the local race-baiting political machine started screaming 'ethnic cleansing'.

"cannot eliminate all government largess as it now exists. "
Why not?

It will certainly NEVER happen with an attitude like yours.

they should have used the phrase 'tax shifted' in, knock down the payroll taxes for FICA by a few percentage points so that the revenue gained by the carbon credits replaces that lost by the FICA tax cut.

In reality, we'd end up with more total taxation, given how politicians behave with making the taxes actually paid obtuse as possible.

PHD my arse
Maybe one from a website where you send ten dollars and they send you a nice bit of paper. What's your name, if your going to try and use an appeal to authority you can't post under a false name? I often wonder why is it that Global warming deniers and such all sound the same, creationist are always saying that the evil evolutionist world view is about to collapse, or that their side is weakening. Get over it most scientist (real ones, not pretend ones) who look into it are convinced we need to do something. Sure their are a few who don't, hell there are physicists who think relativity is wrong. Get over it, it comes down to risk management. Tackled smartly no ones economy is going to have any big hits, in fact some will do well. However inaction if the GW predictions are correct will have a big impact. Try looking at how other parts of the world are effected, are effected already.

Do we really want efficent government? Does it matter anymore?
In fact, is not efficent government a oxymoron? I would also argue they are not conservatives.

Alas, as of today I have officially given up on the notion we can either contain government or that we are free. In fact, the politicians we elect have no ties to the electorate at all.

How do I know?

This was the tipping point for me. We have gone absolutley nuts and there is no return. Couple that with the pathetic Republican field for president and the total losers the Democrats have we are pretty much doomed to mediocrity. The final blow would be Hillary. If we, as a nation, actually elect someone so vapid then we are doomed. From Lincoln to Hillary?

From Washington to Edwards?

Show me a single politician who is worth squat? A single one?

Nope, my goal now is to make enough money to quietly sit back and watch things fall apart without my having to become part of it.

I didn't used to feel this way but in my life the government has done nothing but grow and consume more and more. There is a point where it can take no more.

100 year floods
Who issues the permits for these homes to begin with?

I remember a valley near where I grew up outside Seattle. Flooded every winter. However, King Country granted permits for the usual California style housing and we laughed. Well gee, it flooded and the owners sued the county and the taxpayer had to pay for it.

They are all crazy. Any local could have told you if flooded.

By the Tennesses river they have houses on stilts. They know it flood. Let them build and if they lose, they lose.

This notion of a risk free society is really getting silly.

Life has risk so live with it.

Alas, I have little to no hope for our culture. A nation of whinners.

I often wish I had been born 100 years ago. Risky life, hell yes but freedom is worth the risk.

Today, we trade freedom for security. How boring is that?

"we need to do something" and other smart planning
Most scientists favor no such thing. The phrase "we need to do something" or its cousin "something has to be done" is a perfectly understandable though irrational reaction to feeling powerless.

When you stated "Tackled smartly no ones economy is going to have any big hits, in fact some will do well" as fact, would you please explain how this is so? What evidence can you link to the help me understand your logical reasoning?

Lastly could you name for us a recognized physicist who doesn't believe relativity theory is a good description of reality? You made a statement that they exist, and I was wondering if I ever met one at a conference.


Because there will be winners and losers.
There will always be people who wish to control the lives of others. In the past, they were considered dictators, emperors, kings and clergy.

Now, they seem to want to control other people's lives because they believe they are smarter and more caring than the masses they disdain yet fervently wish to lead.


Given the propensity of the US government to federalize so many things which might be dangerous, I would not be surprised if the NRC were reorganized along the lines of the TSA. I'd call it the Nuclear Safety Administration but NSA was already taken.

Excessively rude, controlling, arrogant and lecherous (no, not Congress). These are just the kind of "people skills" we have come to know when we see the federalized face of transportation security.

And on a lighter note, what will we do with all the high-level nuclear waste? I just visited the Yucca Mountain home page and it said: "The Department of Energy is currently preparing a license application for the nation's first-ever repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste."

It is somewhat humorous that the US government has to prepare a license application to itself to receive a license from itself to use its (federal) land to store nuclear waste from civilian reactors.

You guys crack me up
You've been saying the same stuff for the last several years. In the mean time, most major professional scientific societies agree with global warming science.

There have been numerous examples of people trying to disprove greenhouse gas induced global warming science findings only to end up either wrong, or in a stalemate.

The Academy of Science has examined this and several related issues and their experts have agreed with the findings that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

The world's experts in the field have convened for hours upon hours milling over the data, the models, and the predictions and they, in summary, agree that global warming is a reality.

Then there is this group of 10 or so of you, who hang out here at TCS, and state how stupid scientists are for beleiving in what they have found to be true.


The enormity of your stupidity simply boggles the imagination.

Anyone who claims that humans cause global warming is an idiot who
repeats it over and over, believing that through repetition, it must become true. Earth warms and cools on its own mechanisms, with or without human influence. Even by your experts (whose very careers and livelihoods depend on global calamity), human influence is only very slight. Here is a letter to the Sec.Gen. UN from a number of real scientists that completely negate your uninformed opinion.

They do not dispute climate change. Nor do I. They (and I) propose the smart solution, which is to prepare for climate change. See Copenhagen Consensus. Your approach seems to be hysterical finger pointing.

Suggest you continue to "Pffff" your opponents. This seems to be your best response to engagement.

PhD your arse
Well this explains where you get your information. Suggest you look elsewhere. Perhaps you'll find your elementary grammar book while you're searching your arse.

another proposal
I read a proposal a few years ago that the FAA could adjust the height at which jets fly each day to maximize or minimize the amount of contrails being generated by jets. No additives needed.

the AGW alarmists are getting more desperate sounding
the claim that most scientists believe we need to do something about AGW is only true if you include the soft sciences. If you limit it to scientists who know something about science, the number of believers drops off dramatically.

For example, that 2500 scientists participated in and agree with the IPCC reports. That's been disproven many times.

2500 is the number of scientists who participated in the reports that were cherry picked by the 100 or so scientists who wrote the IPCC. Have you read the IPCC comments? The number of scientists who disagree with what is reported by the IPCC is huge, and growing.

China and India will do well
as industries move in mass to countries that aren't required to cut their CO2 emissions

I don't remember who wrote the essay
but in it he concluded that he would rather live under a classical dictatorship than under modern liberalism.

I don't remember his exact words, but the concept went something like this.

Dictators will on occassion grow sated in their desire for power. Additionally, most dictators are willing to leave you alone so long as you don't threaten their power.

Liberals on the other hand, confirmed in their belief that they are doing good, never let up in their desire to change your behaviour so that it matches their ideal of how life should work.

High level waste can be reprocessed into new fuel. It's what most of the rest of the world does with theirs.

Of the rest, the really radioactive stuff decays away quickly, months to decades. The rest is low level stuff that in many cases is less radioactive than the uranium ore that was originally mined.

stephen continues in his fantasies
1) Not that many "societies" agree with the alarmist AGW position.
2) The leadership of these societies is made up of primarily politicians.
3) In no case, did the leadership actually poll their membership before making their pronouncements.

That the world has warmed has never been in doubt. It's been warming since the end of the little ice age.

How much it has warmed, and how much credit to assign to each of the many causes is very much in doubt.

stock up on your fur coats

The site is a little slow, so be patient.

Space Science Research Center

(a bunch of real scientists)

TCS Daily Archives