Global warming is a touchy subject. Believers, perhaps, feel a sense of guilt and don't want the subject raised. By the way, here’s a challenge: What % of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide? 35/1000’s of a percent (.035%) will probably surprise you. Don’t feel bad – most people who think that governments should do “something now” don’t know. Carbon dioxide is considered a “greenhouse gas” along with water vapor. It is estimated that greenhouse gases cause the earth to be 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and that water vapor causes about 2/3rds of the effect. Also, remember that 50 years ago a lot of scientists where decrying “global cooling…, another ice age coming…”, and that government should do something about it “now !”.
But what about the skeptics? To hold that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a farce, you'd have to believe that governments around the world are colluding to extort a crippling tax on citizens and were in bed with those who might stand to pocket billions inventing and trading carbon credits. And you'd have to believe that an Academy Award winning Nobel Peace Prize recipient is either a mildly convincing actor...or a menace to humanity.
But that's not all. As of a couple of weeks ago, to suspect that AGW is a con, you must believe that private emails exchanged between climatologists responsible for providing the "consensus" data excluded dissenting viewpoints and manipulated evidence. In case you didn’t hear about the "Climategate" scandal, here's a very quick wrap: In late November, hackers broke into the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England, one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The exposed emails and files were then leaked to various media outlets and published on Al Gore's "Internet." The results were interesting... For example: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." Professor Phil Jones, CRU director, has stepped aside from his post at the University, an independent investigation is underway there, and the Oscar-decorated Nobel Laureate mentioned above has canceled the lecture he planned to deliver at the crucial Copenhagen Climate Summit.
Estimates vary on how much a proposed "cap-and-trade" plan might cost. For the US this could be between $200-$350 billion, or roughly $1,750 - $3,000 per household. Remember this is on top of the costs for 2 dumb wars, TARP, bailouts, “cash for clunkers”, home-buyer incentives, ? trillion for an undefined bureaucratic national healthcare system, tax increases, a 1.4 trillion deficit, 14 trillion debt, and 104 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which you and your children must somehow pay.
President Obama himself said that energy costs were likely to "skyrocket" under his plan. Obama's transition team after last November's election, estimates that, "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP". (140 billion?) Critics, predictably, rebuke those figures, claiming that they are typically inflated and that their government would never spend that much money on a bogus scheme. (Remember Rumsfeld berating a journalist for saying our wars would cost $300 billion – he claimed that was ridiculously high.)
TheFundamentals adds -- Thank you Lou for this essay on a timely topic. We at TheFundamentals have a modest suggestion. Let's make Washington DC a green town and ban all carbon emissions coupled with one of those famous "zero tolerance" government enforcement schemes.. Nancy P's jet would, of course, be grounded. Who wouldn't like to see Nancy P stand in line and have her carryon baggage examined in full view of her fellow passengers?