Comments Ralph has made

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

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

To Steve E. about my Ph. D.

Since you seem to need a clue, consider the basis of my arguments in the context of the quotation in my signature line.  Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes?

Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.

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

How about a solution?

This Ph. D. is sick of you save-the-planet whiners who continually misrepresent the views of scientists who have legitimate questions about the alarmism that Al Gore and his minions are spreading.  Do you so despise human technology and industrialization that you would kill it in the name of ecology?  

I don't deny that the planet has warmed in the past century, and I'm absolutely certain that humans have had an influence.  No denial here.  What I deny is the pomposity of the IPCC to suggest its so-called experts are 90% certain that humans are the major cause of global warming.  No one can honestly speak with that degree of certainty because the change in temperatures we've seen is within the margin of error of the global climate models.  Let's drop the arrogance and have some honesty.  We just aren't that sure what has caused recent climate changes.

I question the motives of the IPCC and political "leaders" around the world for their obsessive focus on human carbon dioxide emissions when there are other equally relevant human influences that can have a measureable impact on climate.  What are we doing about deforestation these days?  How about the enormous amounts of methane and nitrous oxide emanating from agricultural operations around the world?  Could this CO2 obsession in some way be related to a desire to bring about changes in energy policy?  Absolutely!  Is the UN interested in policies that would create a transfer of wealth from America to the developing world? You bet!

I hear the posters here complaining about man's influence on the planet.  Well, what do you think we should do about it?  Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will NOT make a measurable difference in the planet's temperature.  Even the alarmists acknowledge that Kyoto, if its reductions could have been achieved, would have reduced the earth's temperature a tiny fraction of a degree.  

But now politicians insist we have to reduce emissions 80-90%.  Do you understand that 86% of US energy comes from fossil fuels?  Do you deny that reality?  If tomorrow the United States shut down its economy, all its power plants, stopped all froms of gasoline and diesel vehicles and Americans stopped heating their homes, we would have reduced human CO2 emissions less than 25%.  China and India would more than make up the gap in the next 10 years, and we would see no difference in the climate.

Effective carbon capture technology for stationary sources (power plants and large factories) is at least a dozen years away from commercial deployment, and will inevitably be hugely expensive.  So let's not pretend that we have affordable technology to deal with the problem, or are Gristers prepared to embrace nuclear energy, which is one of the more obvious ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The skeptics of the world are not the ones in denial.  It is the eco-freaks who seem to believe there is a simple solution.  Let's just stop emitting carbon dioxide.  All mankind has to do is reverse our evolutionary course and live in caves.  We can join the other 3 billion people of the world who live in abject poverty because electricity and other modern forms of energy technology are already beyond their means.

Or do you believe future technological developments will allows humans to develop new energy alternatives that will free us from our dependence on fossil fuels?  If you do, then you need to understand that new technology depends on R&D.  Research and development is expensive, and the best way to be able to afford it is to have a thriving economy that will produce the tax dollars necessary to pay for it.  

If you don't like my solution, what's yours?

Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.

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

Good grief - NASA's blog?

It can't be done.  There is no proof, no evidence that humans are the major cause of recent warming, much less assigning the blame to carbon dioxide emissions.

trock offers Grist's AGW Bible and Gavin Schmidt's activist blog populated with posts from his NASA comrades? Gimme a break!

How about explaining what caused the rapid warming in the Arctic in the 1920s?  How is it any different today?  Do you have any idea what conditions are like on the Greenland ice sheet?  Is it melting out there?  Let's see, the HIGH temp this summer at Summit Camp was 34 degrees Fahrenheit.  Nope, not much melting there.

For some objective insight and analysis, I recommend Climate Science at the University of Colorado ...
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

Read and ye will be skeptics too.

Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.

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

On the subject of realism

One more article for all to consider ...

U.N. climate plan called unrealistic

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-warm ...

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

Keep trying believers

Sustainable Green - Read my posts.  I don't DENY mankind has contributed to climate change.  What I don't believe is that CO2 is the major cause.  And if you had an open mind, you'd see there's a high probability those making that claim are wrong.

Earth Shaman - Mercury was a boondoggle cooked up the environmentalists in their crusade to eliminate coal. Most of the mercury originates from natural sources.  Check the fish advisories around 2025 or 2030, long after electric consumers have paid trillions to capture the small amounts of mercury emitted by coal plants.  I'll bet we still have mercury in fish!

Grevangelical - It was kind of you to refer me to the 8th grade primer provided by the brainwashers, but your "skeptics guide" fails to answer many of my questions.  I'll zero in on just a few:

Why do you trust the IPCC?  Are you unfamiliar with the accounts of scientists who've quit in protest because the facts were being twisted to fit the political agenda? (Google Chris Landsea) The skeptics guide calls it collusion.  Why are you so sure that IPCC scientists aren't fudging facts to keep their jobs?  Imagine what happens to them if they admit that CO2 might not be a big problem after all.

Will countries like China and India agree to cooperate with the international community in reducing their use of fossil fuels?  If they agree (which I doubt will happen), it will take a team of UN inspectors to ensure their compliance.  

But the biggest unanswered question is this - If America and the world are to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion 80% or more, what do you propose as a replacement?   Carbon capture technology is many years away, and will likely be prohibitively expensive when it is commercially available.  How shall we power our lives?  Or are you content to ratchet down the economy, force people to lower their standard of living, all based on the dubious belief that a minor rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cook the planet?

By the way, in case anyone is curious, my Doctorate is in Economics.

Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.

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

None of you ignorant twits can rebut me!

Do any posters here know Maurice Strong?  Have you even heard of him?  The man has made a living at the United Nations by showing the lesser economies on the planet how political manipulation can suck wealth out of the U.S. economy.  The Kyoto Protocol has very little to do with saving the planet.  It's all about transferring wealth from the U.S. and other developing countries to the Third World.  Have you considered what carbon constraints will do to the Goliath that is the United States economy?  The U.S. is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but it is also by far the largest economy.  And we use energy FOUR times more efficiently than the Chinese.

That's news to the Gristmill geniuses, no doubt.  But now for the big rant!

What facts should make me believe increasing CO2 concentrations produced by humans are heating the planet, particularly at a magnitude likely to cause global catastrophe?  Please explain why the minor warming we've experienced in the past century isn't attributable to land use changes (the heat island effects of urbanization, deforestation, increased surface albedo caused by our greening of the landscape), surface or underwater volcanic activity, or an increase in solar intensity. How might the mitigating effects of plant life, clouds, precipitation and the oceans offset the warming effects of the .038% concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide?  

Please explain why you trust a climate panel, under the auspices of the United Nations, when it proclaims it is more than 90% certain human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for recent warming.  Isn't it possible that the combination of political pressure and the desire of IPCC scientists to keep the money flowing might have corrupted the process?  Please explain why it's not possible for politics to trump science.

If "global warming" is changing the climate, why should we presume that it is bad?  Are milder winters, lower energy bills and longer growing seasons undesirable?  Because plants use CO2 like we use oxygen, shouldn't they grow better and absorb more CO2 if concentrations are higher?  If most of the warming occurs at higher latitudes, shouldn't we see less-intense storms because there is less difference in the temperature of the colliding air masses that cause them?  Why should we expect droughts? If the world is warmer, shouldn't it also be wetter because there will be more evaporation?

Those promoting the global warming theory blame it primarily on human combustion of fossil fuels, but it's also agreed this is a global issue.  How do you propose this issue be "solved" without unduly harming the ability of developing countries to lift their citizenry from the depths of chronic poverty?  Will these countries, most notably China and India, agree to cooperate with the international community in reducing their use of fossil fuels?  Considering that 80% of America's energy now comes from fossil fuels, what do you propose as a replacement?   How will imposing restrictions on the use of coal, America's cheapest and most abundant source of energy and the source of 50% of our electricity, affect our ability to break our dependence on foreign energy?  How will it affect America's competitiveness in a global marketplace, particularly if developing nations do not participate?  

What methods do you propose to calculate the cost/benefit ratio of global warming legislation?  How do you propose to monitor the effectiveness of climate change legislation in reducing global warming?  If we are convinced future planetary warming is already inevitable, why isn't it more sensible to invest in adapting to climate change, rather than spending billions on an emissions reduction plan that may have little, if any impact on the earth's climate?  Isn't it better to embrace the warming as insurance against the next ice age, which some climatologists suggest may arrive very soon?  

When you can satisfactorily answer these questions, you will then have the right to enact laws that significantly increase the price of energy, constrain the US economy and force Americans to lower their standard of living.

Rebut that, children! Or maybe you just want to concede now because you can't!  

You dweebs who blindly follow the treasonous likes of Al Gore and Barbara Boxer are pathetic.

Ralph Hansen, Ph. D.

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