McCain and Climate Change: Sci-Fi as Policy

McCain is science challenged

McCain is science challenged

Senator McCain, his science and environmental advisers are scientifically challenged and obviously unaware or oblivious to the facts:

- that even as CO2 increases the global temperature has leveled off since 1998 and even cooled slightly in 2007.

-A number of US, English and Russian scientists using computer models are forecasting a cooling period for the next decade or longer

-3000 thousand Argo monitors that have been recording and reporting the temperatures of the oceans since 2003 have found no evidence that the oceans are warming

-the Arctic ice has returned and the Antarctic ice cap is colder and increasing.

- the polar bear population is increasing according to Canadian authorities.

Conclusion- There is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes the earth to warm.

In his support for Cap and Trade, which is a scam advocated by Enron(before its demise) and other energy trading companies and those who support stifling the American economy, the Senator is pandering to the Al Gore Global warming groupies and is giving energy traders, who already set the prices for crude oil and petroleum products and a bureaucratic international group almost total control of the economy of the United states. This is economic insanity

Patrick49 of NY @ May 13, 2008 22:02:23 PM

Hoax and CO2

Please study the percent of CO2 man produces compared to the amount that the earth itself produces. You will find that the earth through the many volcanos in the oceans, and some on land produce by far most of the total amount. Man cannot stop enough production of CO2 to make a difference.

How do you "Chicken Little" folks explain the earths many warming and cooling cycles throughout its billions of years of existence? Oh yes, how stupid of me. Cavemen did it!

Frank Ellis of VA @ May 13, 2008 21:43:19 PM

Is this a joke?

If this is representative of Pethokoukis's columns, his editors need to verify his resume. It says nothing about the subject of its title, and is, at best, a rant against basing policy on uncertain economic forecasts. Yeah, so what do you suggest, James? Tarot cards?

Bob of TX @ May 13, 2008 18:50:12 PM

"So without amazing breakthroughs, to even come close to such goals as reducing carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050—when, keep in mind, the economy could be four times as large as it was a decade and a half ago—would require draconian decreases in economic growth tantamount to a global depression."

Irony: making jokes about assumptions while making an assumption.

of CO @ May 13, 2008 18:13:31 PM

Paying for health care will ruin the economy...

To the author of the article. You may as well claim that wasting your resources on treating your diabetes will ruin your earnings potential. If we do grant that global warming is real, is a problem, and that carbon emissions are the cause, then there is little else to do other than to reduce carbon emissions. If we don't do that then the planet will be destroyed and we will all have greatly diminished lives and much more damage to the "economy". So, first of all, the question to ask is, what is the cost of doing nothing? Now, if you "don't believe" in global warming or that human activity causes it, then this is a mute issue. Of course in that case taking any action would be a waste. You're article however, assumes that global warming is real and will have negative impacts, but you just think that doing anything about it is a bad idea if is "harms the economy". That's the most irrational view I've heard, again, like saying that you don't want to to get medical treatment for a debilitating illness that will kill you because paying for the treatment would put a dent in your spending habits.... Don't make much sense do it???

Jeff of CO @ May 13, 2008 17:39:52 PM

The Cost of No Action

The cost of not addressing climate change far outweighs the cost Lieberman-Warner. We are already seeing climate change impacts on agriculture, forestry, tourism, and other economic sectors. We are already seeing damage from storms, droughts, and warmer climates.

Get a clue. quit saying "We can't", and start saying "We can!!"

Jim Wentz of OH @ May 13, 2008 17:37:01 PM

James,

I'm a big fan of your blog, but this sentence "First, I would guess that such studies probably use the same economic logic that also somehow shows massive tax increases to have little effect on economic growth" really caught my eye.

Huh? That seems like a shot in the dark.

I'm guessing that the former CBO head knows a little bit more about modeling than you do. If you have a specific complaint, please list it. You mention the assumptions re nuclear and cost containment. McCain is a big supporter of nuclear and investing in cost containment. Admittedly, this has less credence coming from someone who doesn't support nuclear, but since McCain does, I think its fair to premise his support on studies that assume his policies. The real outlier among the studies is the NAM one.

DCLawyer of MD @ May 13, 2008 17:23:45 PM

WV educational system fails again

"socalled" carbon dioxide subject? "hasty dicission" to cap carbon emmissions? Thomas Mitchell, please follow your own advice and do some research on what at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science have to say about the anthropogenic causes of global warming, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize (along with the International Panel on Climate Change) for a reason. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with their main conclusions.

TXCourtney of TX @ May 13, 2008 17:08:22 PM