Banner
    Clouds Don't Cause Climate Change, Says Texas A&M Professor
    By News Staff | September 6th 2011 11:18 AM | 36 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Clouds amplify climate change, says Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor Andrew Dessler, rebutting recent claims by some that clouds are a root cause of climate change (for an analysis of the study that led to the concern, go here).

    Dessler says decades of data support the mainstream and long-held view that clouds are primarily acting as a so-called feedback that amplifies warming from human activity.

    Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, Dessler studied El Niño and La Niña cycles over the past 10 years and calculated the Earth's 'energy budget' during that time. El Nino and La Nina are cyclical events, roughly every five years, when waters in the central Pacific Ocean tend to get warmer or colder, changes which have a huge impact on much of the world's weather systems for months or even years. 

    Texas is currently in one of the worst droughts in the state's history, and most scientists believe it is a direct result of La Niña conditions that have lingered in the Pacific Ocean for many months.  Dessler found that clouds played a very small role in initiating these climate variations, in agreement with mainstream climate science and in direct opposition to some previous claims.

    "The bottom line is that clouds have not replaced humans as the cause of the recent warming the Earth is experiencing," Dessler says. "Over a century, however, clouds can indeed play an important role amplifying climate change. I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change."

    Comments

    At last someone from researcher fraternity has the guts to tell the truth

    Gerhard Adam
    That's such an incredibly stupid thing to say.  What's your basis for suggesting that everyone else is either cowed or lying? 
    MikeCrow
    So Water Vapor causes climate change, not clouds......

    http://www.science20.com/news_releases/water_vapor_underappreciated_greenhouse_gas_global_warming

    But doesn't excess water vapor lead to clouds?

    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    The problem with the people who over-politicized this early, which led to over-politicizing on the other side, is that there are numerous drivers so pretending there was One Gas To Rule Them All leads to questions once data becomes more nuanced.  Generally, people don't know what to accept so they are left with belief. Climate scientists can try and blame Big Oil, Republicans, etc. but they did this to themselves and regaining trust takes time.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    MikeCrow
    I think there are a handful of scientist/activists who drove the car off the cliff. They made lots of 'progress' getting their meme out in the beginning, but they way over exaggerated Climate Change from the beginning, and now as you say
    they did this to themselves

    Personally, I think we have more to be concerned with running out of oil, than pollution from burning oil.
    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    Agree, a solution doesn't become cost-effective until it is too expensive and that won't happen if we ration it.   Subsidizing junk like solar and wind is goofy - environmentalists should be promoting people driving around in tanks, not a Prius.  The faster we run out of oil, the sooner the private sector will come up with a real alternative.  This is one place academia has shown it will not be any use.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Rick Ryals
    I don't believe that you can force a real alternative faster than the natural progression of technological development, other than in small burst that are sometimes necessary to "catch-up" to the natural rate of human technological ascent.  I don't think that it is any coincidence that this progression closely follows the depletion of fossil fuels, (additional waste would be suicidal), so energy efficiency is the only real accomplishment of extremist politics.  I also believe that this is the very good survival reason why neither side ever gets things their individually deadly way.

    Course, my cosmology has more meaning and purpose in it than most who don't believe in supernatural forces, so that might have something to do with it... ;)
    >>The faster we run out of oil, the sooner the private sector will come up with a real alternative.<<

    As much as we might like to hate it, the petrofuel/petrochemical industries are not going away anytime soon.

    The Bakken plays in the Dakotas, Montana, and potentially in Canada as well, are projected to have more oil than Saudi Arabia. The USGS released an estimate in 2008, saying that the Bakken had 3-4.3 Billions of barrels of recoverable oil. Unofficial estimates now place the recoverable at 11 Billion barrels. There are efforts underway to increase these figures even more, as there are several layers of these oil rich shale beds.

    One observer even went so far as to speculate that the USA would become a net oil exporter in the not so distant future. Since this sort of news doesn’t fit with the ‘green-shovel-ready’ crowd, you may not have read about it yet.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Well then let's hope that this new technology takes off soon. "A remarkable new energy source from fractional hydrogen will allow a gallon of ordinary water to become the energy equivalent of 200 barrels of oil, a team of physicists working near the onetime New Jersey laboratories of Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein is saying.
    "With further optimization," Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary of Rowan University in Glassboro, N.J., says, "there is no doubt that this technology will present an an economically viable and environmentally benign alternate to meet global energy needs. If advanced to commercialization, it would be one of the most profound developments ever." 
    Make love not war
    I agree, Helen. The problem is, as Hank alluded, not the new tech but the price point. As long as there are petroleum supplies available at 'reasonable' prices there is resistance to advances in other areas. Investors balk at putting up big dollars when the 'cheap' product exists.

    The good thing about shortages of any commodity is the search for, and investigation, of alternatives. Sooner or later the price point of petroleum will be great enough that these alternatives will become viable. The alternatives to internal oil burners may have to sit on the shelves for a longer than anticipated time.

    Note that 'reasonable' and 'cheap' are subjective.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    OK, but who puts a price on things? Governments often tax anything that they perceive as having a significant cost to society, like drinking alcohol and smoking for example. Surely, by increasing the taxes on oil and petrol,the price will then better reflect their true cost to society, and this will also give new, less harmful technologies a chance to compete? For a while the imported oil would incur higher taxes because of the transport and carbon footprint costs, so home-produced oil would still have an advantage and would still be creating jobs in the country that the Government was elected to represent.

    Also, I cannot understand why all Governments don't tax all imported goods to reflect their true carbon footprint. Australia is busy at the moment imposing a carbon tax on Australian producers and manufacturers, which then encourages many of these businesses to go overseas to places like China for example, where there are much lower environmental controls, production costs and human rights. We will then start importing the same goods and products at a cheaper price not reflecting the added combined environmental cost of China's less stringent pollution controls and transport costs, contributing towards a massive but still untaxed carbon footprint. Not to mention the loss of jobs and adverse effects on our overall economy, talk about bloody stupid! If Governments impose a carbon tax internally then they also need to impose one on imports.
    Make love not war
    Gerhard Adam
    If Governments impose a carbon tax internally then they also need to impose one on imports.
    You would think so, but it appears that the reason they don't do so is for fear that these foreign markets would retaliate with higher import prices for such goods.  In other words, they would restrict or prevent Australian (or U.S.) goods into their markets which drives our industries insane. 

    So, it's a stand-off because we want access to their markets, so we have to treat their goods with care, lest we lose access to those markets.  However, our own producers are often viewed as a captive audience, which invariably drives them (and jobs) overseas.

    It's the modern idiocy called "free market capitalism".  Of course, it hasn't got a prayer of actually working, but it seems to make those that are already wealthy, wealthier.

    Unless something is done fairly soon, I fear that we will see an economic collapse the like of which economists haven't even experienced nightmares about.  Their problem is that they keep fantasizing that it is the wealthy that are the producers and therefore they must be kept content.  They haven't yet grasped the economic fundamentals that producers are meaningless without consumers, and they're destroying the consumer class.  Personally I think they're engaged in "slash and burn" economics, where they can decimate a market and then move on to the next, in the hopes that it doesn't catch up to them. 
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Yes I totally agree Gerhard, so what's the solution, surely there must be one?
    Make love not war
    Gerhard Adam
    Hard to say with any absolute conviction, but it seems that the first thing that has to happen is that the people (i.e. the governed) need to start looking out for their own best interests and stop being lead around by ideologies.  They need to get selfish and demand that government performs for them and not for special interests.

    This isn't to say that they will get everything they demand, but it provides the necessary counter-balance to the one-sided policies practiced currently.

    They also need to start practicing "natural selection" with their politicians.  Only keep those in office that demonstrate competence and a positive track record.  I believe that "slash and burn" politics should be the order of the day and that every politician should be quaking in his boots wondering if they actually have a chance to serve more than one term.

    That's the only way to shake up the complacency that has shaped modern political actions.

    Businesses should be rewarded with tax credits, etc when they advance the society in which they operate (or where they are headquartered).  If they want to operate elsewhere, then they should be treated as foreign companies and lose any benefit (i.e. legal and otherwise) they take for granted in their home countries.  They need to be required to perform minimal obligations as "citizens" of their countries.  If they are to have the constitutional protection of "persons" then they need to be held accountable for the contributions to society.

    In other words, if they aren't helping society improve, then they are a useless appendage.  Let them go seek a profit elsewhere.  We're under no obligation to help people make money.  The government's job is to manage and sustain society; not business. 

    Similarly, government should allow and encourage more local involvement in helping people and supporting the idea of community, through tax breaks, incentives, etc. 

    Those are just some rambling thoughts ....
    Gerhard for Emperor !

    Helen, the answer has to be somewhat like Gerhard has outlined. It's called revolution. Now, revolutions come in various flavors, so don't automatically think I mean the burning autos and flowing blood sort (although that can't be entirely out of the realm of possibility).

    I, too, am very pessimistic about the future of our society. We, the people of the industrialized countries, have become fat, lazy, and complacent sheep. For the most part we don't have to struggle for food, fresh water, and adequate shelter, like most of the third world folks do. When the economic collapse occurs, those hard-scrabble citizens will have a much better chance of surviving the disaster.

    /cynical thoughts

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Yes Frank, what Gerhard is advocating makes a lot of sense. One of the big problems here in Australia is the 'democratic' voting system that basically supports primarily a 2 party system and all the pitfalls that this encompasses, with the inevitable and compulsory towing of the party lines. I think we could only make any progress here in achieving the sort of policies that Gerhard has suggested, if there were to be more Independent MPs and proportional representation. 

    Unfortunately a few guys spent a few days in a boat, round about the start of the twentieth century and wrote the current Australian constitution, which failed to incorporate any declaration of Indigenous and/or human rights and also included such stringent restrictions on any amendments to  the constitution that it is almost impossible to change anything without a referendum and over 80% public approval, which is rarely ever achieved. 

    Unless we ever become a republic this constitution will continue to perpetuate ludicrous and ineffective duplicated and expensive 2 party politics at both the state and national level, which bow to big business and big finance and ultimately to the British Queen's representative, who still has the right to dissolve our parliament (which he did in the 1970s) and not to the people they are supposed to serve.
    Make love not war
    MikeCrow
    Where do you expect consumers to get the money they need to consume?

    Do you think it's the Governments job to provide it to them? There's a vast number of people who pay no taxes, and in fact I think some get money. Do we need more of that? If so that would explain why you think the wealthy need to pay more.

    If not, we need jobs. And if you were investing your money in a business would you payout more than you bring in as a long term plan? People invest their (extra) money in businesses to make more money than they could get in a bank or stocks/funds/etc. Why would any business operate any other way?

    As far as outsourcing goes, if your competitor sells their product to your customer for less (or gives them more for the same price) because they outsource(ie lower their/use lower human manufacturing costs), if you want to stay in business you outsource(lower your costs)

    BTW the biggest impediment in the US to a person becoming wealthy are taxes (and themselves).

    Actually I got an idea, why don't some of those people who can't find a job, start their own business? Doesn't have to be elaborate, mowing the grass, washing cars........


    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    There's a vast number of people who pay no taxes, and in fact I think some get money. Do we need more of that?
    If you don't want more of that, then we need to ensure we have policies that improve that situation.  This occurs because we have been working to create a permanent underclass.
    As far as outsourcing goes, if your competitor sells their product to your customer for less (or gives them more for the same price) because they outsource(ie lower their/use lower human manufacturing costs), if you want to stay in business you outsource(lower your costs).
    Once again, this is simply foolish government policies regarding imports, etc.  Outsourcing is simply a polite term for exploiting workers that operate at a lower standard of living or with fewer regulations/protections.  This also completely overlooks the governmental assistance often provided by other countries in subsidies and little things like national health care ... oh, but those countries are socialists, so we can't do that. 
    Actually I got an idea, why don't some of those people who can't find a job, start their own business? Doesn't have to be elaborate, mowing the grass, washing cars...
    Yeah, and then perhaps we can turn our citizens into migrant workers for other countries.  I wonder how many car washers the market will bear.  I'm sure there's a fortune to be made in dirty cars.
    MikeCrow
    Exploiting? I'm sure that happens, but is that all it is? And I didn't realize China had national health care.

    And where do those countries get the money for free health care when we pay exploitation wages?

    It's funny you take the idea of starting a business as a joke.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    It's funny you take the idea of starting a business as a joke.
    It's not a joke, but it becomes one when it is proposed as a solution.

    Even Wikipedia has this entry:
    China has a health insurance system that provides virtually free coverage for people employed in urban state enterprises and relatively inexpensive coverage for their families.

    Regarding exploitation:
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479571/The-High-Street-sweatshops-Primark-M-S-factories-India-pay-13p-hour.html
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/indi-j08.shtml

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125858061728954325.html

    MikeCrow
    It's not a joke, but it becomes one when it is proposed as a solution.

    This is actually kind of sad, that you think the prospects of starting a business with a simple idea and some hard work is a joke.

    So the employees of State run businesses get free State run health care, Sounds like a Workers Paradise. Sascha seems to like it there, not sure if that's good or bad though.

    Regarding exploitation:
    You must have missed this.
    Exploiting? I'm sure that happens, but is that all it is?

    Though this one
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125858061728954325.html

    Sounds like something that would take place in Detroit.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    So the employees of State run businesses get free State run health care, Sounds like a Workers Paradise.
    Well, they're doing something right, since we're sending much of our business over there, and we're certainly in debt up to our eyeballs to them. 

    Then again, what does that say when "free market" advocates have to borrow money from "communists" just to stay afloat.

    ---------------------------------

    No, I didn't miss your comment regarding "exploitation", but my point remains.  We aren't shipping jobs overseas because of better worker protections and to raise the standard of living in China and India.
    This is actually kind of sad, that you think the prospects of starting a business with a simple idea and some hard work is a joke.
    Oh, please.  You know that isn't what was said, and you also know that it isn't true.   Instead you want to use this as a platform for essentially accusing everyone without a job of simply being lazy.  To suggest that mowing lawns and washing cars are viable business ideas is ludicrous on its face, since you know full well that any actual "business" that could be formed wouldn't get funding because of the individual's unemployment.  So what you're really suggesting is that some poor schmuck walks the neighborhood with his lawn mower, offering to cut his neighbor's grass or wash their car.  Yeah .... that's a sterling business idea.

    Just curious .... how long do you think that would work when half the neighborhood is walking around to each other looking for such jobs?  Or perhaps you had something else in mind, like standing on street corners waiting for the wealthy to pick them up for odd jobs around their yards?
    MikeCrow
    So is the Chinese Gov's doing something right?, or are they exploiting the workers as well? And as far as I know, "free market" advocates are not borrowing from China, the Gov sells Treasury bonds, they borrow from everyone who's willing to buy them.
    --------------------------------------------
    No, we ship them to reduce costs. And if it raises the std of living in China, and it can't be hurting it, so much the better.
    --------------------------------------------
    And how do you know what I was thinking or implying? You're clairvoyant now?

    What I do know is around here there are a lot of lawn care companies(56 listed in the yellowbook in my zip code alone), one of which was started when my friend was 8 or 9 and went around the neighborhood mowing lawns. Now I realize that 8 yr old's are savvy business geniuses, so I'll also mention the guy(say in his 50's, sings in a Doors tribute band, though I don't see the resemblance to Morrison) up the street who mows most of the lawns and plows most of the driveways on my street.
    I also suppose there aren't any auto detail shops in your city(only 16 here, mostly dealers, looks like an opportunity)?

    But these jobs, were just a couple suggestion that came to mind that don't generally need a loan to start, not a definitive list.

    Oh, as for standing around, I wouldn't not be surprised that some of those workers hanging out at Home Depot after they save up, start their own businesses (with all of their other unemployed friend they met at the Depot). They'd fit right in with all of the convenience store owners who came to America with nothing, worked a bunch of jobs, and bought a store.

    Is it a cure for unemployment, no, but it can't hurt.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    ...are not borrowing from China...
    Perhaps someone might mention that to the Chinese.
    China bluntly criticised the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower's credit rating was downgraded, saying the "good old days" of borrowing were over.
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/idINIndia-58648620110806

    They'd fit right in with all of the convenience store owners who came to America with nothing, worked a bunch of jobs, and bought a store.
    So that's your idea?  Any chance you could indicate how that second part ("worked a bunch of jobs") gets done when you're unemployed, or is this when the cutting grass/washing cars bit kicks in?

    You may think I'm being flip about this, but given the severity of our economic problems, people need more than a few "work harder" platitudes.  Your attitude that people are unemployed because they are lazy (which is what you're suggesting), is unwarranted. 

    Somehow the attitude has been that when businesses screw up, then taxpayer dollars should be taken to bolster them up and help them through the hard times.  When individuals have difficulty, then it's simply their fault and they can lose their homes, livelihoods, and everything because we can't be bothered to deal with them.

    MikeCrow
    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/what/what_borrow.htm

    How the US Gov borrows Money.

    Again with the putting words in my mouth.

    And not that I really condone how and what happened, There is some logic to making sure that a corporation with 1,000's of employees doesn't make all of them unemployed!

    For those who unfortunately do lose their jobs, we also have many, many months of unemployment benefits.

    What else do you want for them? The Gov to give them a job? If you do the math on the stimulus package and how many jobs got created/saved, we paid 100's of thousands/job. That worked out well, how about we toss out another trillion dollars around!

    And you can't demand companies hire people, that will just cause businesses to lose money and go out of business(or ask for bailout money), which if you ask me is counter productive.

    BTW, when I was laid off for almost 2 years, I worked for myself, so my suggestions are from personal experience.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    And not that I really condone how and what happened, There is some logic to making sure that a corporation with 1,000's of employees doesn't make all of them unemployed!
    Sorry, but that makes no sense.  Regardless of how many people are employed, a poorly run business should never be entitled to bail-outs, since it only promotes greater recklessness.  As it stands, we still lost jobs and now we've also lost credit.  It's hard to imagine that we could've done worse by simply letting them go under.
    What else do you want for them? The Gov to give them a job? If you do the math on the stimulus package and how many jobs got created/saved, we paid 100's of thousands/job. That worked out well, how about we toss out another trillion dollars around!
    I agree that that isn't viable.  The problem is, once again, the financial sector which has a stranglehold on the consumer with ruinous interest rates for credit.  As a result, too much money is being channeled into servicing debt instead of spending which is what drives an economy.

    Instead the financial sector was greedy.  They got the bail-outs for themselves and then put the screws to the consumer.  Instead of renegotiating mortgages to help stave off foreclosures, the bank decided they wanted to become realtors.  Now what kind of sense does it make when you have a loan out that is a problem to collect, instead of working to improve terms for repayment, you write off the loss and incur an expense.  This is the kind of thinking at the corporate level that is assured when they are confident at being bailed out.

    Most of these mortgages are over such long terms, it is inconceivable that one couldn't find a better way to negotiate repayment of a loan, instead of simply foreclosing.  In addition, it wasn't enough that credit card companies were charging high interest rates, they lowered credit limits, artificially impacting people's credit scores (making it even harder to get loans), and then charged over-limit fees, etc. simply because they could get away with it.

    The consumer is responsible for driving over 70% of this economy, and the government and corporations have done their level best to decimate this class.  So, now they want to protect the tax cuts on the wealthy and see if they can squeeze even more out of the middle and lower classes.  I can tell you, that such a strategy will not work in terms of rebuilding an economy.
    And you can't demand companies hire people...
    I agree.  So why persist in the myth that giving them more cash will create jobs?  The only way jobs will get created is when the consumer has enough money to spend to increase demand.  If there's no money to the consumer, the supply-side is beginning to realize that they can't survive either.  However, with government protections, they are able to continue to reduce costs by outsourcing and trying to exploit overseas markets.  Of course, anyone with a modicum of sense, will recognize that businesses grow by increasing profits and market share, not simply by cutting expenses (other than on their own bonuses, of course).  Eventually there will be nothing further to cut.  At that point, we all lose.
    MikeCrow
    First I don't really disagree with you, but I think the area gets gray with "poorly run". I think a small number of people bet really big there couldn't be a big drop in the housing market, invested poorly and put huge companies at risk. After seeing the fallout from Lehman Brothers, they decided letting another 5-10 of the biggest banks in the US(world?) fail might be bad, and I agree with that. I think the auto loans were in the same vain as welfare, a helping hand that they're making good progress in repaying. I too think the credit card companies are crooks. But I don't know how much the mortgage money and the credit card money mix. And I also agree with your comments on home loans. -------------------------------------------- But I don't see increasing tax rates as being a good thing. The Gov can't tax it's way to a balanced budget. The Gov can't spend it's way to a good economy. The Gov can't give money away and make a good economy. What the government can do is make it easier and cheaper for a business to add people and grow. I don't think Obama-care does that, I don't think his energy policies do that, nor his environmental policies (and no I'm not suggesting we pollute everything either). But encouraging business is the only way we have a chance to fix the budget. And yes you are right that what the financial guys are doing blows, but there are a lot of other business that are slowly digging themselves out, and they will slowly add employees. But I also don't think 'insourcing' manufacturing jobs back is going to be more than a short term bump. Over the next decade or 2(?), technology is going to eliminate huge numbers of manufacturing jobs. Look, if I could selectively overtax the guys making 100's of millions at the banks on homes and credit cards, I would. But the way I see it is (most) everybody says anyone making more than some amount they think they'll never get to deserves to be taxed more, who should get to pick the amount? Plus, taxes are the biggest obstacle to a person moving up the socioeconomic scale, well after paying a total of 45% taxes in 2000 that's my opinion anyways.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    But I don't see increasing tax rates as being a good thing.
    No they aren't, but when the only issue is simply raising them back to the levels pre-Bush, it seems like an insignificant argument.  Whether anyone likes it or not, raising taxes is the best vehicle for bringing in revenue to bring down the debt.  There's no question that spending cuts have to occur, but we can't keep looking at the lower classes as simply being "entitled".  How much do we spend in the "War on Drugs"?  How much do we spend on "pork" projects?  How much do we spend corporate subsidies for money they should be spending (this is classic in the oil industry where they can post record profits and still collect taypayer dollars)? 

    I agree that the health-care issue isn't being properly done.  As I've stated elsewhere, the best solution is to eliminate the insurance companies and force the medical profession to face charging rates that the market can bear.  However, this is another case of an industry being protected by government, while those without means are simply frozen out of the competition because of unfair advantage.  Another factor here could be to exclude companies from providing health care insurance.  Let everyone provide their own (and for those that want to argue that it is part of their wages, then let companies provide that cash differential so you can purchase your own).  It is only when people actually have some "skin in the game" that they will take this stuff seriously.
    But encouraging business is the only way we have a chance to fix the budget.
    I think we have to encourage business, but we also can't be  held hostage to business.  Too often, this is interpreted to mean that the government engages in actively helping businesses.  This is wrong.  The government should simply minimize the obstacles to business that exist (including those that businesses place against start-ups).  Quite frankly any company that is "too big to fail", shouldn't be allowed to exist.  If such companies are to exist, then they should pay into an "insurance" type fund so that they maintain an amount of cash to help offset the possibility of future bailouts.  This may seem totally unreasonable to some, but I would argue that any company that is "too big to fail" is also too big to be managed properly and society shouldn't have to absorb the risk of such companies.

    There are obviously few perfect solutions, and it isn't likely that we'll hit on the magic combination in a set of blog postings.  However, we need to re-evaluate our economic models so that we stop viewing economics as only occurring at the corporate/business level.  Economies operate on entire societies and not merely segments of those societies.  Until we get a handle on how such monetary flows should occur, we need to stop behaving as if the only criteria for success is Wall Street.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Gerhard, have you ever thought about going into politics? If not then why not?
    Make love not war
    Gerhard Adam
    Why should I go into politics?  Do you think I need to increase the number of people that would dislike me?
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Do you think I need to increase the number of people that would dislike me?
    Even if you did I doubt if you would care. Why should you go into politics? Because I think you would probably be a really good politician, one who could bring about some positive and effective changes and policies. You might get assassinated though, so forget it :(
    Make love not war
    Gerhard Adam
    Well that was certainly a short career.
    MikeCrow
    Surely, by increasing the taxes on oil and petrol,the price will then better reflect their true cost to society, and this will also give new, less harmful technologies a chance to compete?

    European Governments have been over taxing gas for decades, and what has that gotten them?

    Very high gas prices.
    Shoebox sized cars for people of normal income (if they even have a car).
    Really cool cars for the very wealthy(who don't care how much gas costs).

    And no new technologies for powering anything.

    No thank you!
    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    It's been strange reasoning that we should make government more reliable on industries we intend to kill, but common thought.    More taxes on gas, making government need that revenue to fund other things, will lead to less gas, claim some.  Likewise, more taxes on cigarettes and alcohol supposedly reduce those, except they don't when governments become increasingly dependent on them and have to keep them around for the revenue.

    What's really funny is how governments get revenue from those sources and then donate part of it to awareness campaigns against those sources.

    Regardless, any hidden tax that is never voted on and accountable to no one yet unfairly singles out poor people should be a bad thing, yet people who claim to care about the poor make a show of going after 'the rich' when the solution to giving poor people more money is to not tax them so much when they buy food or gas or clothes.

    California is the perfect example of how a progressive government ignores its own data. Because of a deadlocked legislature they could not renew a higher sales tax that was meant to be temporary (though we all knew it would be permanent) and it expired and now tax revenues are ahead of their projections even with the lower tax.  People spent more because they were happy about lower taxes, even in the most progressive state in the US.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    European Governments have been over taxing gas for decades, and what has that gotten them?Very high gas prices.Shoebox sized cars for people of normal income (if they even have a car). Really cool cars for the very wealthy(who don't care how much gas costs).
    Well, it would be interesting to compare the average amount of car pollution per capita between countries with matchbox size cars and countries with truck-size cars like America.
    And no new technologies for powering anything.
    Yet, but they definitely have more incentive to find cheaper alternatives to their more expensive petrol than the people who have cheap petrol and who don't hardly even have to worry about the cost of driving long distances or pooling cars. In Australia in the cities, we also have transit lanes for cars with 3 or more people. The other lanes in our cities, believe it or not are often full of diesel guzzling, massive, expensive 4 wheel drives with only one person in them. 

    Surely cutting down on car size and car useage and the resultant pollution has to be a good thing? The very wealthy will always be able to afford really cool cars and maybe these massive, expensive, environmentally unfriendly, 4 wheel drives should be forced to display a large sticker on their rear end, like the cigarette packets saying 'VERY UNCOOL POLLUTING MACHINE'. 

    I personally am really looking forward to one day owning an environmentally friendly, now very expensive, second-hand Jaguar sportscar when my much loved small and very niftyToyota Celica SX finally expires, which might not be for a long time as they were very well made, though my horses like testing this out.







    Make love not war
    Hey Dressler ... go outside once in awhile.
    Clouds make it colder. That's climate change.
    The reason: they reflect sunlight back into space before it can deposit its energy into the earth's atmosphere.
    A prolonged increase in cloud cover, for whatever reason, will decrease the earth's average temperature.
    Not real complicated.
    CLOUD may tie total cloud cover to cosmic ray levels known to vary with the solar cycle. Jury's still out on the whole process. However, it is totally reasonable to assume that the solar cycle will affect the earth's average temperature at some level.