Ralph’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Global warming should mean FEWER tornadoes

  Brad, you're a tool.  The global warming theory predicts warmer weather in the northern latitudes.  The heat-trapping properties of CO2 would be more noticeable the farther one gets from the equator because the air is drier.  In tropical zones, water vapor (the predominant greenhouse gas) overwhelms the miniscule amount of warming that CO2 would add.  Do you agree?

  Now, Brad, what causes violent storms like tornadoes?  In case you've forgotten your Earth Science course in 6th grade, it's the collision of cold, dry air with warm moist air.  So if global warming is making it warming in the northern latitudes, shouldn't the result be more moderate collisions and less violent weather?

  The fact of the matter is the planet has cooled and there is a massive amount of cold air spilling southward this spring.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with glo-bull warming.

  Ralph

  - When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes

  On Senators ignore the warning signs posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  josullivan58, do you have a problem?

  My views on climate change are crystal clear.  It is a serious political issue because a lot of politicians are foolishly considering draconian legislation in a futile attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the net result of which will be serious damage to the U.S. economy that produces absolutely no environmental benefit.  

  Global warming is a serious political problem.  It is NOT a serious environmental problem. Carbon dioxide emissions are a small fraction of humanity's contribution to climate change.  And I believe the human footprint is tiny in comparison to natural climatic changes.  Global warming alarmists like to scare people into believing freaky weather is occurring with increasing regularity.  But the fact is nothing has happened that hasn't happened before, and all recent weather events fall within the realm of natural variability.

  By all means, we should use energy more efficiently and we should reduce emissions where it makes economic sense. But remember, our economy runs on hydrocarbons. Constraints on carbon emissions are constraints on prosperity.

  Here's my view on taxes.  If politicians insist on doing "something" (even though it will have zero environmental benefit), I would prefer that they adopt revenue neutral taxes that do not harm America's competitive position in the global marketplace.  

  The fact is China burns more than twice as much coal as the United States, and its rate of consumption is growing 8% a year.  I'm sure Chinese leaders are watching with great glee as our so-called leaders in Washington contemplate climate legislation that amounts to economic suicide for America.

  Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.

  - When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes

  On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  to josullivan58

  I'm not pushing any taxes.  This would be a form of surrender to the global warming wackoes, i.e., a way to minimize the unnecessary damage to the economy that we will get in exchange for zero environmental benefit.

  Have I mentioned the Copenhagen Consensus?  It was a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists, including three Nobel Prize winners. They calculated that spending on health issues such as nutrition for children, prevention of HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."  In fact, on a lengthy list of world problems, they ranked climate change dead last because there would be very little benefit for the billions in spending.

  Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.
  

  - When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes

  On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  to trock

  Great idea.  Seriously, I agree.  Let's supplant existing property and income taxes with consumption taxes on fossil fuels.  It's a perfectly logical solution that if structured properly will preserve our economy and foster economic growth.  But there's one problem - Congress isn't logical.

  I don't see offsetting tax reductions anywhere in any of the climate proposals, except for a few that provide aid to low and middle income families to help them cope with the expected huge increases in energy prices.  There is nothing but higher costs for Corporate America (the guys creating jobs and wealth), and fights are already breaking out in Congress over how to spend the newfound largesse. And I can hardly wait to see the kind of bureaucracy that develops with the Climate Change Credit Corporation and the Carbon Market Efficiency Board.

  Like you, I continue to hold out hope for common sense in Washington.  But it just ain't happening.

  Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.

  - When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes

  On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More education

  For a bit of enlightenment on taxing big oil, check out:

  Forums: Des Moines Register

  Regards,
  Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.
  

  - When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes

  On One last rant from the Senate's loopy streetcorner anti-prophet posted 2 years ago 34 Responses