Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

for the most part, Carbon tax, carbon trading has very little to do with diminishing the US thirst for foreign oil.

 

"There lies the real problem. Control. controls on consumption controls on reproduction, controls on lifestyle, contorls on what you drive, controls on where and how you live, controls on how you vacation controls on what you eat. control. "

What I hear is ME ME ME ME ME! Is there not some room in your world for the well being of others,, particularly those that come after? Are we not supposed to be the stewards for the future? As I have been conversing with others about on another thread, at some point in a civil society there must be some accommodation of others. We do, after all live on a finite planet, despite our wish that it were others.

 

If indeed that is true, please explain how a carbon tax for example, would "impoverish" your children. Taxes do after all go for services that we all use, whether we agree with the use or not. For example, if a carbon tax went to subsidize sustainable energy for example how would that impoverish any one?

 

The key phrase in your question is, "cogent energy policy". The AGW movement is not about energy polity, it's about control. If energy policy were the true goal, why not address it directly with effective and scientifically verifiable policy? I've been bellyaching about our lack of a national energy policy since 1973, and chasing bubbles of CO2 is not it! How about a realization that our mid-term survival depends on nuclear fission, that so called "green energy" can only make sense in very limited circumstances? I think that long-term we'll need nuclear fusion, if the technology can ever be worked out.
A carbon market is nothing but a coercive racket. Show us where it's working in places where it's been tried.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. The last generation of environmental regulations have turned the US into a service economy instead of being manufacturing based. This has resulted in the exportation of jobs and the lowering of expectations. Further, a new rash of laws from California's CARB seek to criminalize the underinflation of car tires and to chase heavy industry from the state by outlawing heavy diesel engines. CARB is trying to comply with the State's goal of reducing CO2 emissions. This is insanity justified by a lie!

I'll happily embrace changes that improve our lives through a free and open market. Why are you embracing lies to justify totalitarianism?

 

Once again, where to begin,,,,

Perhaps at the end.

"I'll happily embrace changes that improve our lives through a free and open market. Why are you embracing lies to justify totalitarianism?"

I don't believe it is an either/or zero sum game. Even if global warming isn't an issue (which I am not conceding) population growth and peak oil is a demonstrable issue.


"Sorry, that dog won't hunt. The last generation of environmental regulations have turned the US into a service economy instead of being manufacturing based."

Please explain and cite why you think this is true? If we can't manufacture "clean" stuff but others off shore can is that an indictment of the regulations or our corporate culture?


" Further, a new rash of laws from California's CARB seek to criminalize the underinflation of car tires and to chase heavy industry from the state by outlawing heavy diesel engines."

Once again, please cite evidence that this is true rather than myth.


"How about a realization that our mid-term survival depends on nuclear fission, that so called "green energy" can only make sense in very limited circumstances?

Nuclear fission suffers from a nearly intractable problem of waste. Even if we figure out how to make it safe in the "short term" how can we guarantee that it will remain safe for the thousands of years that it is deadly? We can't even secure the nukes produced in the USSR in less than 1/2 of a century, not knowing if all of them are secure from nut jobs! What evidence do you present that we can keep waste repositories safe for generations from any nut job with a cutting torch?

Please cite some evidence the ""green" energy can only make sense in very limited circumstances"? Do you actually know how much energy is "produced" by sustainable methods (wind/solar/tidal/hydro)? Do you know what it average KWH cost is? Do you realize that our family of two use ~1/6 as much energy as the average American household of similar size? Do you know that we do that with all the "luxuries" that most take for granted including a hot tub? Do you realize that nearly 100% of our electrical power comes from renewable sources (without putting solar panels on our house)? Do you know that ~75% of our hot water comes from a simple solar hot water collector that cost ~$1000, and that we do this in the grey/rainy Pacific NW. Do you realize that if we had the option of an EV or plug in car, our net energy consumption would be even less, AND that even more of our energy would come from renewable energy?

Do you have any real idea (aside from propaganda and myth) what the real, installed cost(s) of renewable energy sources are?

Even if I accept what you say is true (without citation,, I don't) you still haven't explained why/how this will "impoverish" our children.

 

Of course I have room for the well-being of others. Caring about other people and caring caring about the future and economic-well being do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Stewards of the future? If you complete that thought, we should have energy rationing, food-rationing, housing rationing etc. I for one will never let my needs, or the needs of my family and friends be determined by some bureaucrat with a bad case of little-man's syndrome.

If you feel the need to give up your self-determination, there are plenty of places for you to go on earth. I for one, will never give it up. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Why does this not surprise me? But please quote the entire context.

"Taxes do after all go for services that we all use, whether we agree with the use or not. For example, if a carbon tax went to subsidize sustainable energy for example how would that impoverish any one?"

 

Please provide a citation as to the percentage of taxes that go to fraud.

Then please define waste, and cite how big a percentage goes to waste. I might posit that 50% of the defense budget is waste,, perhaps more.

And for the record, do you drive on a public road, send your kids to public schools, have your kids play in a public park, go on vacation flying in airspace kept "safe" by the FAA, eat food that is FDA inspected, have your checking account insured through an FDIC insured account, have your house and family protected by your local police, rely on your local fire dept. to come if the unthinkable happens, rely on a state supported trauma center if you get hurt, use Doctors who have been educated at state subsidized schools to treat you in that ER, (not to mention the EMTs that got you there? Do you breath cleaner air and drink clean water because the EPA has been (fairly) diligent at making it so? Is your local coast line kept safe from smugglers and terrorists by ICE and the Coast Guard? Has the National Guard ever come to your neighbourhood in the aftermath of a flood, or tornado, or hurricane, or earthquake, or god forbid a terrorist attack? Have you been able to pump gasoline freely because we have spent billions if not trillions of tax dollars keeping that oil flowing to your tank?

Who do you think or what do you think pays for these services? Oh, I forgot, we don't pay them, we foist the costs on to future generations, or in the case of the Iraq war mess, we choose to "off budget" them hoping that we are suckers enough not to notice.

I have to laugh at the "town hall" meeting folks yelling, "keep your socialist hands off my medicare! Talk about laughable!

To Malorn:

"if you complete that thought, we should have energy rationing, food-rationing, housing rationing etc. "

That statement makes no sense. If we are truly stewards of the future we don't need to ration anything per se. What we need to do is use our resources (and technology) wisely so that there are resources left for future generations! I would posit that commuting in a single occupancy ~10 mpg Hummer, on the way to a 10,000 sq ft trophy house is not using our resources very wisely.

 

I didn't suggest that "every last tax dollar" is well spent. I asked if you used these services, and where you thought the money came from. Simple question.

Where is the huge "waste and fraud"? Would it surprise you to know that Defense is ~ 56% of the federal budget, if you include the cost of caring for vets?

So if you are paying ~$1000 in federal taxes, ~$560 goes to the defense department year in and year out. That leaves ~$440 for ALL other government functions. Does anyone out there believe that the percentage of "waste and fraud" in rest of government services comes anywhere near what we spend on "defense"?

 

WRONG!!!!

By no measure, is entitlements in any source I have ever seen shows entitlements over 50% As you say it does depend on how you define entitlements. For example are veterans benefits "entitlements".

So, where would you propose to cut taxes more to balance any budget? In reality individual and corporate tax rates have never been lower!

 

No argument here, oil is running out and population growth is an issue. But let's let the free market take care of these issues, using real data, not a trumped-up red herring scheme to further enrich the elite. A contrived catastrophe who's solutions would only indirectly address these problems.

Er, why regulations and Progressive government policy, of course.

Sure. Google is your friend, but I'll include some links.

CARB tire inflation: search for "carb tire infation criminal"
Heres one link of 94,100 on Google:

California Tire Nazis | Before It's News

CARB diesel job losses: seach for "carb diesel rules job loss"
Here are two links of 157,000:

http://sweet-haven.com/worst-ever.pdf

Diesel regulations put pinch on businesses

Further, I posted this on PC last month:

"But you know, even catching them red-handed won't do any good. For example, the California Air Resources Board "CARB" recently passed a draconian rule governing the emissions from off-road diesel engines, like earth-moving equipment, farm equipment, train locomotives, etc. The main justification used was a paper by one of their staff PhD's claiming that 3,500 people died in California each year because of these emissions. The new rule will bankrupt many business or drive them out of the state. Further, if an engine can't be economically upgraded it's prevented from being shipped out of the state for resale. It must be destroyed for the benefit of "humankind"."

"This is all bad enough, but now it's been discovered that their staff scientist lied about his degree from UC Davis. It turns out that he is a Vietnamese man who got his only degree from an Internet diploma mill (he even paid and extra $1,000 for suma cum laude) run by an Israeli pedophile on the run from prosecution in the US. Oh, but that's not bad enough, the CARB director admitted that they KNEW he lied about his diploma and issued the rule anyway! She said "It's a good rule anyway". You can't make this stuff up!! Politically motivated environmentalists will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. (This info taken from a San Diego Union Tribune editor, plus a talk-only radio station, KFI-640, in Los Angeles)"

Here are but a couple of links on this absurd situation:

REPORT: CARB hid information about scientist in diesel emission rules fight — Autoblog Green

The air board knew - SignOnSanDiego.com

Regarding environmental regulation job losses: search for "california environmental regulations job losses"

There are 6,630,000 hits on this one, go for it on your own!

Come on, you know that research and deployment on fission have been shut down in the US for political reasons. If France, of all places, can power 80% of their national grid with fission, why can't we? Yucca Mountain was killed by these same political "green" forces.

Well, we all don't live next to hydro dams, and new ones can't be built thanks to the "green" environmentalists. It might hurt some fish, you know. Solar? You'd need to cover an area the size of Arizona to power the US grid. This would change weather patterns and make a huge mess. The "greens" would never let us get started. Wind? Too intermittent, kills birds and creates eye/noise pollution in rural areas. The NIMBY's get wedgies when they hear about someone wanting to build a wind farm. Power lines to distribute wind farm product? Forget it! Eye and EM pollution you know. Geothermal? Not possible on a large scale with existing technology.

The big issues with wind/solar is the intermittent nature of the output. They can supplement nuclear/fossil-fueled base load power generation, but they can't replace it. For example, a wind storm here in San Diego took every single turbine out of service on the Campo Indian Wind Farm last month. The whole farm will be down for months.

Any schemes to address these problems that aren't "market based" will require the coercive force of big government to implement. You trust "Big Government", don't you? I don't. I think that Government has its purposes, for example, funding nuclear fusion research, but I think they stopped even that.

I guess our differences boil down to your thinking that Big Government is the solution, while I think it's the problem.

 

Er, even wikipedia, not exactly a conservative biased source, shows this for the 2011 Federal budget:

Defense = 23%
Social Security = 20%
Medicare/Medicaid = 19%
Other mandatory (entitlements) = 17%

So, Defense is 23%, entitlements are 56%.

Well, you're correct that lowering taxes increases revenue to the government. I'd lower taxes across the board, including corporate taxes (second highest in the world), inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes. The only way to cover Obama's deficits, if it's possible at all, is to get the nation working and productive again. You DON"T do this by raising taxes!

 

Amen brother!

 

"Well, you're correct that lowering taxes increases revenue to the government. I'd lower taxes across the board, including corporate taxes (second highest in the world), inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes. The only way to cover Obama's deficits, if it's possible at all, is to get the nation working and productive again. You DON"T do this by raising taxes!"

How's that worked out for you in the last ~ 30 years. Tax rates have never been lower, but average household income is (in inflation adjusted $$) actually gone down!

2 income families are now the norm (unlike the '50s) so that people can afford to put food on the table. (and to pay for ever increasing health care costs/premiums!) And yet marginal tax rates are significantly lower than they were in the 50's. It seems you guy's ideas have been tried and have been shown to not to work very well.

Clinton left Bush a budget surplus, which he promptly turned into the largest deficits in history, all while lowering tax rates further and further. Where was the "rising tide that floats all boats" in the first decade of this century. The boom was built on leveraged money, and when the bottom fell out, Obama was forced to bail out wall st. as well as Detroit, just to bring us back from the cliff. If you listened to Hank Paulson (Bush's T-Secy) in Aug-Sept 2008 he warned that the cliff was near. It is entirely possible that if the Tarp and the stimulus were not passed unemployment would be in the 25-35% range, with the economic effect as great as or greater than the great depression.

And you guys want to blame Obama for spending money! Where were you in the last decade? Give me a freaking break!

Time to move this to the FhoPol threads.

 

Cites please?

Do you argue that maximum revenue to the government happens with a 100% tax rate? Absurd, I know, but it illustrates the point that the maximum revenue is achieved at some rate between 0 and 100%. Where's the sweet spot?

But this issue is really separate from the runaway spending problem.

Bush = Obama = Progressive

Bush was no friend of mine when it came to the budget. But Obama is in an entirely different league! This country will never manage to pay off Obama's deficits, ever. The US has insolvency in its future.

Fine by me!