the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

@#$%

Posted by Jeff Id on June 21, 2010

You knew it was coming.


Dems-ready-for-big-push-on-global-warming

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., told CNN’s “State of the Union” he believes there are 50 senators who would vote for a compromise bill that would require the energy utilities to pay for carbon pollution and an additional 20 who are undecided.

At this point, they are all in the same program — money and power for themselves.  I flatly don’ t belive they give a crap about America at this point.  They just forced the most disingenuous and immoral health care bill through despite the fact that nobody wanted it and now they are back on the alleged climate bill which is nothing more than another money and freedom grab by the political class.

“You have got to get to 60 to pass anything in the Senate,” Lieberman said. “We need half of the undecided, and we can do it.”

Momentum for passing such a bill has increased, Lieberman said, now that President Obama has made energy and climate legislation a priority in the wake of the Gulf oil spill disaster.

Lieberman (a moderate) which is nothing but code for ‘opportunist’, is leading the charge.
Obama didn’t call for limiting carbon emissions when he talked about energy reform legislation in his Oval Office address last week, but his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said on ABC’s “This Week” that Obama wants a bill that “deals fundamentally with the environmental degradation that happens from carbon pollution.”
No Obama didn’t call for limiting carbon emissions directly (in this single speech)  but he absolutely needs cap and trade to go through.  He needs it badly enough that he will push it through even more vigorously than health care — you watch — and when he does, that’s when the theft becomes standard.  Welcome to Chicago politics America, of course nobody’s paying attention.
Lieberman said he would back Lugar’s proposal, “together with a carbon pollution cap proposal … that begins with the utilities sector of our economy pricing carbon in it, I think that’s a significant step forward to a better, safer country.
America, you get what you deserve.  You get what you vote for, and just let me know how it goes when you’ve had enough and try to reverse it..

83 Responses to “@#$%”

  1. PhilJourdan said

    Unfortunately, not all voted for it (47% did not vote for Obama, and many did not vote for clowns in congress passing the new taxes).

    I do understand why the democrats are rushing for it. They see their time as being very limited to get any radical legislation passed, regardless of its validity. But it always puzzles me why republicans do. Taxes once enacted never go away. It would seem the prudent thing to do would be to wait and see what all the “hoo-haw” with the forced data is going and indeed if we are really warming, or just enjoying a sunny day.

    But then rationality does seem to elude those in congress daily.

  2. Mike Jowsey said

    In New Zealand our carbon tax (“Emissions Trading Scheme”)comes into effect on July-1 and is a blanket tax on energy, mining, industry and petrol. In a few years it will ramp up to include agricultural emissions (cow farts). There is a protest march being organised in Wellington today, but I don’t expect it to be widely reported. In fact, I don’t expect it to be well supported – seems the population at large is blithely unaware of the ramifications. Smug, feather-nesters in parliament are forging ahead (of the rest of the world) regardless of their election promises to do the opposite.

  3. The scariest part of his message: “Momentum for passing such a bill has increased, Lieberman said, now that President Obama has made energy and climate legislation a priority in the wake of the Gulf oil spill disaster.”

    The Climategate scandal had destroyed the chances of passing that energy and climate legislation.

    Then, by a strange coincidence, a massive oil pipe exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Oil erupting into the Gulf has received as much news coverage and TV footage as the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and nearby buildings on 9/11 (another strange coincidence).

    It is indeed a strange world, Jeff.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  4. Sam said

    When it comes to cap and trade, there are two groups of people out there. The first group of people knows nothing about economics, or climate, usually both, and they either are indifferent or support the bill (environmental activists, and many other Americans). The second group understands either economics, or climate, or both, and either hates the bill (conservative/libertarians/other) or knows it won’t work and supports it anyways (politicians, scientists, and economists) for other reasons.

    There is no group that understands both economics ans science and truly believes this legislation will work as intended. If someone out there reading this believes they fall in that group, then let’s talk about it. I think it will soon be obvious you don’t understand economics, or climate, probably both.

  5. Robert E. Phelan said

    Sorry, Jeff, but I take strong exception to the characterization of Lieberman as a “moderate”. His support for a strong military and Bush’s War on Terror policies (including the invasion of Iraq) may give that impression, but his real concern in that arena is the security of Israel… a concern I do share, by the way. I supported Joe when the terror threat was our biggest concern and he was the candidate most likely to succeed in Connecticut. In every other sphere of public life he is a radical progressive. Particularly alarming is his involvement, along with his best friend John McCain, in GLOBE International.

    The man is a menace and needs to be replaced.

  6. Jeff Id said

    #5 Fair enough. I hate the SOB, he needs to be removed as bad as 99% of the congress/senate.

  7. kdk33 said

    Energy bill is way worse the health care. At least health care can be constrained – there are some sectors of the economy that you just can’t describe as health care. But energy?! That’s just about everything.

    And once they have can control over energy, then they get to pick and choose winners in EVERY sector of the economy. Couple that with “comprehensive” Wall Street regulation.

    I’m blown away that this is hapenning. We spent the better part of a generation defeating people who wanted spread exactly this. Once they are vanquished, we adopt their policies. Thirty years ago, everybody (it seems) knew why free markets worked and central planning failed. WHAT WENT WRONG!

    Elections in November.

    The challenge will be finding republicans with the integrity/gonads to run on “repeal”. They’ll be no more reluctant to relinquish power than demorats.

  8. #5 At the core, Joe Lieberman and Al Gore are identical twins.

  9. Thoughtful Tom said

    #4 I will take that challenge. I suspect what we will find is you believe in conspiracy theories. Start with a rational policy:
    The Cantrell/Collins Cap and Dividend
    A not-so-great web site that describes it is
    http://www.capanddividend.org

    You tax what you don’t want.

  10. Jeff Id said

    #9 I take it that you don’t believe people ever conspire?

  11. Jeff Id said

    Cap and dividend is a tax on everything, not just natural gas. It’s a tax on every single thing – with the opportunity for a government/private group to skip a couple percent off the top — of everything.

    BTW, there is nothing rational about it. Prices are already up too much and adding more makes as much sense as grabbing your ankles to fly.

  12. PhilJourdan said

    #9 “You tax what you don’t want.”

    That is absurdly false. Indeed once you tax something, you have a fiscal obligation to make sure that thing never goes away. That is why with all the information we have on tobacco, the government has never moved to out right ban it (when other less noxious substances are automatically banned quickly).

    Taxing an item is penalizing the users, but supporting the producers. They have no choice. When has government done with LESS?

  13. kim said

    Furthermore, the case for not wanting CO2 is not made. Taxing plant food when we have almost no understanding of its effect on climate is madness.
    ===========================

  14. kim said

    And honey, the Chinese and the Indians certainly want what goes along with that CO2 and that is improvement of the human condition. They were asked to tax that and they wisely refrained.

    Now, when will wisdom strike you, TT?
    ===================

  15. kim said

    You are going to have to deal with that calculus eventually; it is demonstrated improvement in the human condition versus hypothetical, and so far undemonstrated, damage to the environment. Let’s get real, here, the BRICs are.
    ====================

  16. Retired Engineer said

    Cap and Trade by any name you chose is nothing more than a tax. How else to support all the “necessary and vital” programs of Government?

    I recall an estimate here or WUWT that C&T, fully implemented, might reduce warming by 0.1 degree C. So we wreck the economy for a tenth of a degree? And when the Earth cools all by itself in the next few decades, the Warm and Tax specialists can claim success. When it warms up again, in 30 or so years, most of them will be dead and won’t have to explain. Anyone still alive can blame it on Bush.

    @#$% indeed. (or perhaps {snip!})

  17. Thoughtful Tom said

    #10
    I firmly believe that people are too stupid to hold together a conspiracy. Someone will run to the press, or get in a snit and tell the authorities. And the AGW is a conspiracy folks would have us believe that 97% of publishing climate scientists are in on it. And even the editors of various respected journals are in on it. And the NSF.

    #11
    Well, yes and no. Oil is in everything that is transported to you – so that is the yes. But during the 2008 gas spike, shippers were quick to put a “fuel surcharge” that was larger than the entire cost of fuel – not just the 2008 run up. That didn’t kill the economy. I find the “being responsible about this issue will kill the economy” crowd a bit disingenuous.

    #12
    Given that most Americans don’t even pay income tax – and that the government is approaching a debt crisis – I find it hard to follow the argument that we aren’t taxed enough. I personally hold to the notion that you get what you pay for. Those who want to have foreign wars for oil, to see our American Vets well cared for, who expect the US government to “do something” about the Gulf Oil spill should be willing to pay for it. The way you pay for it is taxes.

    I for one am sick of (and sickened by) the “don’t tax but still spend” free lunch Republicans (and by Democrats of the same stripe, but for various reasons (ahem -Reagan) – Republicans seem more susceptible to this particular perversion of good government).

    As for taxing things you don’t want. We do tax income and we don’t tax capital (well hardly). And what do you know – we have notably high unemployment, but no real problem with capital (unless you want to buy a house with a credit score lower than a pitcher’s batting average).

    I can’t be the only person who realizes that if you tax carbon, American ingenuity is going to be sparked into high gear to avoid that @^#$! tax. I, for one, am a believer in focusing American innovation on the problem of CO2 (most likely) making our planet somewhat to very uncomfortable for our children.

    (BTW – one counter to that is the low hanging fruit for “innovation” is to burn a lot of biomass – better than fossil fuel in that it is current cycle carbon, but not necessarily “good for the environment” compared to a high efficiency gas appliance))

  18. kim said

    TT, there are a very few who conspired; for the rest of humanity it has been ‘An Extraordinary Popular Delusion and a Madness of the Crowd.

    You only see taxes as the way to deal with the debt crisis? There is a whole half of this nation who can see budget cuts as the correct answer to this crisis.

    Here is the calculus you are ignoring about fossil fuels. It is ‘demontrated improvement in the human condition vs hypothetical and undemonstrated damage to the environment. Your taxing carbon will inevitable damage poor people around the world. The Chinese and the Indians get it. Why don’t you?
    ===================

  19. kdk33 said

    Thoughtful Tom

    1)
    “I firmly believe that people are too stupid to hold together a conspiracy.” I think you’re the only one who suggested a conspiracy. As far as AGW goes, it isn’t conspiracy it’s perverted incentives: academics need funding and publications, alarmists papers get published, alarmists studies get funded, published academics are respected/credentialled so get more of the above, nonbelieveres learn to toe the line. NOT a conspiracy, just perverted incentives acting on human beings.

    2)”Oil is in everything that is transported to you” Yes. Plus everything that is manufactured. Plus every service that is provided for you. A tax on energy is, in fact, a tax on everything. And it gives government ridiculous authority to pick winners and losers across all sectors of the economy.

    3) “Given that most Americans don’t even pay income tax… I find it hard to follow the argument that we aren’t taxed enough” Hmmmm, for a thoughtful Tom, I don’t think you thought about this much. Think transfer of wealth. One can argue economic theories; perhaps you find socialism or central planning appealing – that’s a different argument. Here you’re making an elementery logical error.

    4) “I for one am sick of (and sickened by) the “don’t tax but still spend” free lunch Republicans” AMEN

    5) “I can’t be the only person who realizes that if you tax carbon, American ingenuity is going to be sparked into high gear to avoid that @^#$! tax.” For some reason, lots of people think government can creates incentive to innovate – NOT TRUE. There is incredible incentive to find ECONOMICAL alternative energy source – the guy that does will be a zillionaire. A tax will not alter the incentives, it will just raise the price of carbon fuels to be on a par (or higher) than other energy sources. This will be a profound drag on our economiy and will impact each of us dramatically IMHO (see #2).

    6) “the problem of CO2 (most likely) making our planet somewhat to very uncomfortable for our children” Says you. This is the debate. Care to offer evidence that this is true, that it is actually a problem.

    7) “burn a lot of biomass” Right. Consider ethanol: please calculate the percentage of american farmland we’d have to devote to corn for ethanol to replace gasoline – not oil, which is much much larger; just gasoline. Then ask yourself: how important do I find food. Get back to me when your done.

  20. See also the belated concerns of former Astronaut/Senator John Glenn about our government’s decision to retire our shuttle fleet and rely on Russia for travel to the International Space Station.

    http://www.physorg.com/news196348493.html

  21. PhilJourdan said

    #17 – “We do tax income and we don’t tax capital (well hardly).”

    Again you are wrong. America taxes capital higher than most First world countries. And you are trying to create a straw dog argument. Since now you are going off on a tangent. The governmment requires income to tax (who said anything about a republican?).

    #17 – “I can’t be the only person who realizes that if you tax carbon, American ingenuity is going to be sparked into high gear to avoid that @^#$! tax.”

    They already have a way. And it is done for anything that is taxed. They pass the tax along the demand chain. So they do not pay it, the buyers do! And when was the last time you told your power company what to do and they took you seriously?

    Think man! Just look around you and stop buying the sound bites!

  22. Jason Calley said

    Thoughtful Tom says: “I firmly believe that people are too stupid to hold together a conspiracy.”

    Tom, I am sorry, but that is a very illogical thing to say. “Too stupid?” All people? Even scientists? We know that about 1/3 of the people in Federal prison have been convicted for conspiracy crimes — conspiracy to distribute drugs, conspiracy to launder money, etc. Apparently a LOT of people attempt conspiracy and get caught. Do you really believe that EVERY attempt is caught and convicted? You do realize that conspirators do not universally turn themselvs in? How can you possibly know how many conspiracies are never detected or convicted? Wouldn’t you need to know the ratio of conpiracies caught to conspiracies not caught? I would think that any rational person would say that our legal system is not 100% efficient at finding, trying and convicting conspirators. Maybe you ought to use a bit more thought… :)

  23. Thoughtful Tom said

    # 18
    Kim, I am glad to see your rhetoric has advanced past “CO2 is plant food” – even if your underlying understanding of the issues has not. You may think the policies of China and India, in regards to building coal plants is enlightened. I think they are following the very dangerous practice of looking only at the next quarter. What good is all this “low cost” energy when rising oceans increase the salt content of the rice paddies, thus making them inhospitable to growing rice, that feed the people?

    A longer view is needed. One that takes into account the impacts of pollution of the much-vaunted coal plants.

    #19
    Please read Jeff ID @#10. Do you really believe the pablum you spout regarding incentives? How much would Exxon pay you to disprove it? Even if “science” were completely perverted, as you claim – real knowledge could still continue with funding from vested private interests. These interests have, of course, put out huge funds in the hopes of doing that. As that failed (see Heritage Foundation et. al.) they are reduced to a FUD campaign. (by and large I except tAV and a few other sites that are having interesting discussions – I am speaking of WUWT and that class of “skeptic”).

    Your 2 – see my response to #11 above.

    Your 3 – you appear to want to say something – can you go ahead and say it?

    Your 4 – thank you for acknowledging a point of agreement – it makes it easier to keep conversations civil, and hopefully useful.

    Your 5 – see “your 2″ above :>

    Your 6 – the problem I see with the skeptic world view (even the enlightened skeptic on tAV) is while you can pick apart a few studies (Mann, for example) and point out a few places where the data doesn’t completely support the AGW theory – you have not, to my knowledge, ever put forth a competing, comprehensive theory that explains the glacial cycles, current warming, past cycles, etc. So we are faced with overwhelming evidence that it is as the AGW folks claim, and isolated bits of evidence that perhaps the theorized feedbacks will be slightly less positive than predicted. So to move this issue forward – what observations would cause you to view the AGW argument significantly more favorably? What observations would cause you to view the skeptics more favorably? (for me I like ice mass/volume – it is big, it is important, it is measurable (all measurements on a global scale will be somewhat problematic).

    Your 7 – whoa! This is your straw (corn) man! I have been against ethanol from day one. That is just a cynical payment to big agriculture from the Feds. Waste of time, money and resources. My point was that the simple cap and dividend policies I suggest will lead to a rush to burning wood and other untaxed carbon sources for heat, as well as moving us more quickly to solar, wind and other renewable based energy sources.

  24. Thoughtful Tom said

    #21
    I don’t understand your first point. It isn’t my best (nor my only) argument, but I don’t follow where you are going with it.

    None of you have responded to the fact that if you want governmental services, you need to pay for it with taxes. If you don’t want governmental services you should vote in folks who cut the size of government. Since Clinton, no one has either cut the size of government, or even cut the rate of growth of government. Let’s just be honest on this point – all these late-to-the-tea-party folks are both humorous and so blatantly hypocritical it sickens me.

    Your 2nd point seems to ignore economics in a competitive economy. Consider 2 companies that offer equivalent products, for the same price, and differentiate on marketing and therefore end up with roughly a 50/50 split of the market. What will happen when the price of energy goes up due to a tax? One company discovers a way to reduce their costs of doing business (by lowering energy usage and/or using untaxed renewables) and therefore lowers their price and gets to 65% market share. Then the other company retaliates by conserving even more and using more renewables and gets to a lower price point and achieves a higher market share – and on and on. Do you share this understanding of competitive business economics? Or is it different where you are?

    (and I actually convinced my local (and very large) monopoly utility that I could provide their state mandated RECs cheaper than how they were doing it. They instituted a new program to take advantage of what I had to offer (I realize most of you reading/posting here think RECs are a thing of the devil – I obviously don’t)).

    So, yes, I would encourage you to think and move beyond the sound bites. I eagerly await you in the land beyond sound bites.

  25. Thoughtful Tom said

    #22
    I find conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorists mostly boring and shallow.

    At a minimum it excludes rational argument, as you need only appeal to a conspiracy to prove any point you would like to make.

    Why are 1/3 of all prisoners in jail on conspiracy convictions (your numbers) – not because people are too stupid to pull of conspiracies (especially large scale ones) but because THEY want you to believe the conspirators are caught so even BIGGER conspiracies go on unnoticed!

    Sorry, I am not going to spend much time on such weak sauce. By all means, start thinking and come up with some interesting, rational points to discuss (hopefully that move beyond the predictable cheap shots at my avatar)

  26. kdk33 said

    Thoughtful Tom

    You seem to not understand the difference between a market price increase and an articial price increase imposed by (our) government via tax and how that would our ability to compete.

    You also seem to be confusing amount of tax and number of people who pay.

    “you have not, to my knowledge, ever put forth a competing, comprehensive theory”. This is argument from ignorance. Skeptics inability to prove alarmists wrong is not evidence to support the alarmists position. See, for example, alien abductions. It’s interesting, very interesting, how often this gets offered up.

    See if you can follow the logic: We know that climate can change without influence from human CO2 emissions. We know that there are important climate drivers we can neither predict nor model. Climate may be changing now. Human CO2 emissions are not required to explain why. If you think CO2 is ALSO affecting climate, please offer some evidence in support of that position. Otherwise, spare me the logical fallacies.

    “Do you really believe the pablum you spout regarding incentives?” Yes, in fact, I do and very much so. These same incentives drive the free market – in which I also believe. It is goverment perversion of these incentives (see Fanny and Freddie) that gave us a real estate bubble. Ditto for global warming via government funding.

    You seem to be invoking the evil oil company meme. Are you suggesting funding for skeptics is anywhere near the funding available for alarmists?

  27. Jeff Id said

    #25 I find that people who deny the possibility of conspiracy to typically be the type who believe pulling the right government lever is the answer to everything. They typically enjoy the machination of imagining perfect governments working to solve problems and in my experience miss the bigger picture.

    For instance you wrote:

    “What will happen when the price of energy goes up due to a tax?”

    Followed by two beautiful examples of companies overcoming artificial government hurdles through renewables – whatever those are – that somehow magically fix the price problem and everyone is happy. I don’t know if you work in industry but I spend a great deal of my time trying to reduce costs as is. So I’ll tell you a bit about the reality of business. If companies are not currently using magic ‘renewables’, it is because they are more expensive. If they were not, we would already use them.

    Therefor if this good natured politician pulled exactly the right energy lever to increase costs on the current goods such that they exceeded the cost of ‘renewables’, of course the company would make the right choice and buy the ‘renewable’. Again, assuming whatever the hell ‘renewable’ is actually exists.

    So the net result is that even through the methods you describe above, the net cost of the product has increased. It’s guaranteed. The only option to solve it would be some conservation – of fairly significant magnitude when you consider the effect of a 10 or 20 percent tax. After all when energy costs so much already, just which company hasn’t already worked to push the limit of what they can do? They all have Tom, it’s already done. So your magic concept is nothing but a price hike on ‘everything’.

    Another important point being missed here also is everything includes renewables, they are a thing after all. — ‘Renewables’ use energy during production so the cost of producing the ‘renewable’ will also go up.

    So now you will have two competitors forced to sell their products at higher prices, well US competitors anyway because China isn’t stupid enough to tax their energy any more. So of course these competitors will sell LESS of their product because money doesn’t appear from nowhere. If it is a non-essential product, it will be much more affected. LESS jobs, less wealth, less quality of living.

    Since we’re talking about the glorious benefits of money forfeiture, just what is that price hike in exchange for is my question. What benefit would we get? By the IPCC numbers – ZERO! All carbon production has to be eliminated 100%, according to consensus science. The whole argument of taxation of fossil fuel is a misunderstanding of the premise and problem posed by the consensus duma. Carbon stays resident for 1000 years. Improving efficiency is therefore a waste of time because we cannot prevent crossing their claimed thresholds. It cannot happen with today’s technology. If you believe the IPCC, we need to switch energy sources and the only source even close to working is Nuclear. NOT wind, NOT biofuel, NOT solar – yet, NOT geothermal on and on. Run the numbers if you don’t believe me, I have.

    I don’t write posts on this because it attracts this kind of discussion and the whole thing is based on misunderstanding of the ‘science’ proposed by the IPCC. Now of course scientists do beleive that we need to tax energy, again missing all of the above. But they all have their own views and tend to ignore the 1000 year CO2 mantra, which sounds far more scary than 30 years of residence time and is therefore preferred by the political scientists.

    Too many exaggerations, too many lies, too much crap has come from climate science to make claims that we should tax energy. When people start writing about how companies will overcome it and live in a bluer world, I call bullshit. Taxing energy for improved climate is stupid.

  28. kim said

    TT, @23. Oh, you are funny. The Chinese and the Indians have figured out, as you apparently have not, that CO2 is likely a minor climate determinant rather than the major one touted by the IPCC. Nonetheless, they hoped to use the developed West’s carbon guilt as a means to shakedown the West. When Obama conspired with other Western leaders to deal the poorer countries out, those poorer countries announced their outrage about it, to cover their disappointment over the failure of the shakedown.

    And, I predicted the failure of Copenhagen for just this reason in the Summer of ’08. So g’wan outa here with your failed paradigm, that CO2=AGW, the precious conceit of a Western elite.
    ===========

  29. kim said

    And just a hint to the thoughtful. When you start a post such as #23 with such a careless insult, instead of the effect you think it has, you prepare the reader for a poorly argued follow-up. Such a follow-up isn’t a necessary sequel to such an introduction, but rhetoricians recognize a weak start.

    Better, really, just to make your points. You sound weak when you make such an unsupported allegation about my understanding of this whole business.

    I’m a master at snark, but it is beginning to be counterproductive in these debates. Even I, though, know better than to be as clumsy with my insults as you are.
    ================

  30. kim said

    And, TT, you are still dodging the calculus I point out in #s 15 and 18, that the trade-off is between a demonstrated improvement in the human condition and a hypothetical damage to the environment.

    So why do you want to make everyone’s lives nastier, shorter, and more brutish?
    ==================

  31. Philemon said

    War is a racket.

    The people who buy bonds pay based on the promise of future payments from the taxpayers.

  32. kim said

    Spurn my bounty for
    Nasty, brutish, and so short?
    Merciful Gaia.
    ========

  33. PhilJourdan said

    #24 – “None of you have responded to the fact that if you want governmental services, you need to pay for it with taxes.”

    We are paying for it! I bet that almost 100% of the people on this forum pay TAXES. What you are trying to say is that we do not pay enough. And I gave you 2 examples of how we are paying MORE. But the basic falacy of your premise is that you think what you want, we must want as well. When it is evident that we do not want MORE government services. Yet you cannot understand (as you admitted) or comprehend that.

    You are like the greedy kid. More is never enough. You always want more, but do not want to pay for it. But then you think you have found the golden goose. AHA! OPM – Other people’s money. Well, let me give you one clue. There is no law that says you cannot pay more in taxes than you owe. So how much more have you paid than what was due?

  34. PhilJourdan said

    #18 “Your 2nd point seems to ignore economics in a competitive economy. Consider 2 companies that offer equivalent products,”.

    Uh, no, you are. or perhaps you are thinking that there will be graft and corruption? The tax will be applied to ALL companies. So ALL companies will pass it on. So that blows your competition out of the water. Do not believe me? Check your phone bill. There is competition now. so you can get phone service from X, y or Z. but every one of them has those blasted taxes (not part of the advertised price either) that YOU pay.

    You do not need a degree in economics, but you do need to do 2 things to understand your shortcomings in this area. #1 is pay bills. If you do not, of course you love OPM! #2 is understand them.

  35. Billions of tax dollars ($$$ x 10^9) were spent on the 1969 Apollo Mission to the Moon and the Galileo Probe that entered the atmosphere of Jupiter in 1995.

    NASA actively hid or manipulated experimental data from both missions that showed the true nature of Earth’s heat source: The Sun [See "Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion" http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf ].

    The tap root of the Climategate scandal has been sprouting and growing in NAS (the group with control over NASA by budgetary review) almost from the time Former US President Dwight Eisenhower warned of this danger to a free society in his farewell address to the nation on 17 January 1961: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former Principal Investigator
    for NASA’s Apollo Missions

  36. Thoughtful Tom said

    #26kDK33
    You seem to work hard to not understand the economics example I provide.

    As for past climate change – we are having the kind of heating that historically took thousands of years, and in the past has been precipitated by increased solar activity. Yet solar activity now is at a low point. The same for El Nino – the normal climate variation (on a global scale) is being over-ridden by the AGW signal. That isn’t even particularly controversial.

    So not really sure what you were hoping to communicate.

  37. Thoughtful Tom said

    #27 Jeff
    This seems to be the heart of that post
    After all when energy costs so much already, just which company hasn’t already worked to push the limit of what they can do? They all have Tom, it’s already done.
    I own a business that is all about efficiency. We find better ways to do our work on a regular basis. Looking at the issue on the table – renewable energy – consider hotels/laundromats. Hotels and laundromats hot water usage patterns, volumes and timescale (they intend to be in business for multiple decades) make them great candidates for solar thermal systems. These systems would pay for themselves, and within 10-20 years (depending on 3rd party incentives or not) pay for themselves.

    The fact that these businesses have not done that is a notable counter to your claim that it has already been done.

    That might be true for your company. It is not true for all companies, and certainly not for most companies where I live.

  38. Thoughtful Tom said

    #28 Kim I have no idea what you are talking about.
    #29 Kim – uhhh – you started it.
    #30/18 Kim
    Actually, I did respond to it. The “wisdom” you find in coal plants for rapidly growing Eastern populations founders on higher, more acidic oceans which make rice paddies inhospitable to rice and seas inhospitable to current ocean life.

    That directly counters your statement: “Here is the calculus you are ignoring about fossil fuels. It is ‘demontrated improvement in the human condition vs hypothetical and undemonstrated damage to the environment.”

    That the downsides to an economy dependent on fossil fuels take longer that a fiscal quarter is not under dispute. That a fossil fuel economy is a LONG TERM “demonstrated improvement in the human condition” is greatly disputed.

  39. Thoughtful Tom said

    #33 PhilJourdan,
    You almost get it. The greedy kid is the Republican party, who (while the whole time deriding Democrats for being the “Tax and spend” people) have become the party of “don’t tax and spend.” Note I do not therefore support Democrats. I support intelligent, honest politicians. Those being a rarity, I support the politicians closest to that minimum standards. A few decades ago that was typically a Republican. Not so lately.

    I reject free lunch Republicanism. If you are honest in the debate you would acknowledge that the only President in modern times to even lower the rate of growth of the government was Clinton. That seems hard for you.

    Everyone is in favor of cutting someone else’s benefits/services. Are you willing to reduce your parents or your own social security/medicare benefits in your (I am guessing new found) desire for a balanced budget?

    That seems a good test if you are serious about solving the problem or are more of a tea party type.

    #34 PhilJourdan
    Please read my post #24. You did not follow my statements, and I don’t want to debate your lack of understanding. You are confusing an unavoidable tax (“Federal communication fee”) with a tax that simply makes a viable alternative more affordable. And I claim this will spur innovation, business processes and efficiencies that dampen the minor increase in costs.

  40. David JP said

    Hi Jeff,

    I’ve been trying to honor my promise to spend less time at the computer after work, and more time playing ball with the sons out in the yard. I noticed the new post on Obamacare, but I’m not going to add anything this time to the health care reform debate. Besides I haven’t changed my mind since writing the earlier guest post on the health care reform proposal.

    However, I will break my promise this one time since you asked: “…….just let me know how it goes when you’ve had enough and try to reverse it.”

    So, here is my list of preferred US Constitutional reforms. Do with it as you please, but be advised that if I don’t participate in the discussion, it means I’m spending some quality time with the family:-)

    First up are the reforms I’m not so fond of:

    A) line item veto – this one gives the president even more power, and I think the president already has too much power as it is. The line item veto may do some good, but I’d rather attack the problems we have in Congress directly.

    B) term limits – I don’t see how this proposed reform will help good representatives to do good work. It’s a punitive suggestion. Although it may help out indirectly, I would prefer a solution that enables the good representatives to make a difference. Right now good representatives cannot make much of a difference.

    The reforms I like:

    1) Sunsetting clause in the Constitution by amendment – All of our laws should expire after a set time. Only the Constitution itself should remain unchanged until the people have decided to change it. It’s obvious to me that the founders forgot to expire old laws so that new generations would not be burdened by mistakes of the past. Although a disciplined congressional body would tackle such responsibilities without complaint, there is no way we can get a tribal bunch of human beings (our current batch of representatives) to do this necessary job. So make it automatic instead. I suggest that laws should last a maximum of 30 years. After expiration, a new congress will have to vote to renew.

    2) No separation clause in the Constitution by amendment – This idea is always being sent around in a spam/chain email. Change the Constitution by amendment so that congress cannot give themselves those wonderful perks that are separate from the rest of us. They should be paying into social security just like we are. If they want golden parachutes, then the private sector is the place they can go to get them.

    ***3) Up/Down automatic bill (again Constitutional amendment) – Each congressperson and each Senator should have a single automatic up/down, unmolested bill. They only get one in their respective house. So the most a person could have as a representative of the people is one in the House, and another if they manage to become a Senator. This bill is their chance to improve the country by offering a solution that doesn’t have any pork or special interest piled on to muck up an otherwise good idea. Right now there is little opportunity for a freshman congressperson to get a good bill on the floor for a vote without the excesses. I think there should be a way for a new representative, who is trying to do good, for one important moment, to force all the others in Congress to either agree or disagree on a single bill. This idea may not prevent the bad apples from continuing the ugly behavior we see today, but it would provide an incentive for good ideas to be considered directly. This is the main problem I think needs to be solved in Congress, and I like this idea the best for Congressional reform. I’d much rather see this than term limits.

    4) State Up/Down automatic bill – This is similar to the above #3, but the bill originates from the States in a way that I freely admit I haven’t figured out yet. I haven’t convinced myself that this idea is practical, so help me out if you can think of a way to make this work. Basically, I would like to see States that don’t have gerrymandered congressional districts offered a chance to also introduce an Up/Down bill to the floor of the House. Perhaps it could be one bill per election cycle per qualified State? Question I have is how to measure whether or not a state would qualify for the bill? How can the States with good/fair congressional districts be rewarded with this extra Up/Down bill? I’m not familiar enough with how the congressional districts are drawn to know if this idea will work. But I do know that I dislike the way things are done today.

    Obviously, our representatives are unlikely to initiate any of these reforms themselves. And if I remember my history correctly, no amendments to the Constitution have been started outside of Congress. But there is a first time for everything!

    Cheers

  41. Kan said

    TT #37 “That might be true for your company. It is not true for all companies, and certainly not for most companies where I live.”

    Tom is right. He knows more than everybody else engaged in the day to day tasks of running a business (well except maybe Obama, the lawyer, he knows a lot as well).

    See, if we only listen to Thoughtful (and smart) Tom, then all those really, really stupid business people would be so much better off. See, they do not know how to cut costs, and need some serious guidance to look in the right direction. Whoa, look, none of them know what their energy costs are doing to their business costs!

    Wait, here is an idea. TT, Since you know so many companies in your area that are wasting money on unnecessary expenses, why don’t you consult with them, in return for a % of the savings? You’d be rich and be saving mankind from itself. Remember global is local my boy.

  42. Thoughtful Tom said

    “Wait, here is an idea. TT, Since you know so many companies in your area that are wasting money on unnecessary expenses, why don’t you consult with them, in return for a % of the savings? You’d be rich and be saving mankind from itself. Remember global is local my boy.”

    Uhhhh. dude. That is what I do for a living. Which is how I know there are efficiencies to be gained.

    How is it that this bastion of libertarian/extreme right wingers can’t get that Americans can and will improve?

    You might consider a carbon tax an artificial barrier to wealth or even a burden on growth (of course, if the rest of us are right it will do nothing but preserve our children’s future), but the notion that American businesses will somehow fail to thrive because of a big bad tax flies in the face of history. Show me the period of time when we had no taxes.

    Right now more Americans pay less tax than they ever have. And given the sky-high deficits and both political parties inability to stop spending (and the tea parties and all other 3rd parties inability to get elected) the stronger argument is for higher taxes. Perhaps a deficit reduction tax?

    Perhaps you should try being “Thoughtful Kan” with your next post.

  43. kdk33 said

    TT

    “we are having the kind of heating that historically took thousands of years,”

    So, the hockey stick is the evidence you find most compelling?

  44. kdk33 said

    TT

    “the normal climate variation (on a global scale) is being over-ridden by the AGW signal. That isn’t even particularly controversial”

    Just thought this one was worth repeating.

  45. kim said

    TT, K#38.

    Acidification is exaggerated, the system can buffer this small aliquot of CO2. Your alarmist scenario about food in China depends on accelerating sea level rise, not demonstrated. You seem not to be able to escape the shackles of Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.

    We can argue over the meaning of ‘long term’ for the long term. It is indisputable that fossil fuel has improved the human condition historically. Whether the aliquot of CO2 we are releasing in this ‘Great Leap Forward’ will ultimately be beneficial or harmful to the human race is undetermined at present, but you show little to no proof of harm, so far.

    I also believe that the feedback mechanisms of this earth will fairly rapidly deal with the increased CO2 from man, once we’ve transitioned to other energy sources because the value of the structure in hydrocarbons becomes higher than the value of the energy in them.

    Your fears are based on the imaginative output of inadequate computer models. Your fears are failing to appear in the real world.
    ======================

  46. kim said

    TT @ #42.

    There you go: ‘Deficit Reduction Tax’. Why didn’t we think of that before. Is there no end of the innovation these wonderful progressives can think of? Let’s see Obama’s Harvard transcripts; there have got to be some upper level economics courses mixed in with all the Constitutional Law this fella absorbed.

    You know, TT, that Obama has already broken his promises about raising taxes on the Middle Class and Poor. It’s only going to get worse.

    Finally, It’s a bit amusing to hear you talk about how Americans are undertaxed because half of them don’t pay taxes. Do you now propose taxing that half? Are you being ignorant or disingenuous? Do you have any idea how bad you make yourself look with that phrase ‘deficit reduction tax’?

    I’ve little doubt that we’ll hear the phrase repeatedly from one side of the Congressional aisle. There is no shame, from them, or from you.
    ======================

  47. kim said

    TT, I’ll try to make #28 a little simpler for you. At Copenhagen the less developed made requests on the more developed that were not granted, and you could see that result coming a mile away. Obama unnecessarily embittered the process with his Chicago style dealing.
    =====================

  48. Jeff Id said

    #37 TT, I own a business that is all about efficiency. We find better ways to do our work on a regular basis.

    So Tom, I assume businesses pay you for this service, right? I can see where the tax you propose would further benefit you, at least in the short term, but if businesses are already paying you for the service, what possible reason can there be for additional tax? Other than line your pocket of course.

    later you said — “You almost get it. The greedy kid is the Republican party”

    What a load of crap. First, I agree that bush and the republicans didn’t stop growing government – that is the main reason they are gone despite what they would have you believe. But when you combine the fact that tax cuts didn’t lower the %gdp collected with the fact that democrats have expanded government control of every avenue they can, you have to be nuts to have this opinion. Look at what Democrat policy did to the housing market and the Obama stimulus which was nothing buy payoffs to unions.

    This statement is not thoughtful at all Tom. You get an F

  49. PhilJourdan said

    TT#39 – “You almost get it. The greedy kid is the Republican party”

    No, you do not get it. I do not give a rip for republicans or democrats I stated a fact. That you do not agree is your right. But as I also stated, you can VOLUNTARILY submit more money to the government than you owe. There is no law against it. So the question remains, have you? Or are you just pontificating on OPM?

    TT Again – “Please read my post #24. You did not follow my statements, and I don’t want to debate your lack of understanding. You are confusing an unavoidable tax (“Federal communication fee”) with a tax that simply makes a viable alternative more affordable. And I claim this will spur innovation, business processes and efficiencies that dampen the minor increase in costs.”

    No, all taxes are unavoidable. They are going to be paid. And the payor is going to be the consumer, period. You are trying to say that the “green companies” will not charge you a tax. Yes they will, since their prices will reflect the fact they are not as efficient as alternatives, but are being SUBSIDIZED by YOUR tax dollars – in other word, cutting off one end of the blanket and sewing it on to the other end to make it longer.

    For some odd reason you have this mistaken impression that all money is the governments and through some magnanimous gestures, they allow us to have some of it. So when they allow us to have less of THEIR money, that is just paying the price. So basically your premise is flawed.

    I do not fault you for not wanting to debate me. I do have an advanced degree in Economics, and you apparently took only the entry level course. I would suggest as your second course one that deals with the money multiplier and how it is reduced with taxes. You might learn something.

  50. Thoughtful Tom said

    #43 KDK 33

    So, the hockey stick is the evidence you find most compelling?

    Actually not. My claim relies on some paleoclimate data, but not any hockey stick.

  51. Thoughtful Tom said

    I also believe that the feedback mechanisms of this earth will fairly rapidly deal with the increased CO2 from man, once we’ve transitioned to other energy sources because the value of the structure in hydrocarbons becomes higher than the value of the energy in them.

    “feedback mechanisms of this earth will fairly rapidly deal” – this is an claim of low climate sensitivity to increased green house gases and land use. How, then, did we get into and out of the last ice age? Are you a LIA and MWP believer or skeptic? Or do you somehow mean something else by this?

    Your fears are based on the imaginative output of inadequate computer models. Your fears are failing to appear in the real world.

    I will admit that climate change fits with my intuition of what happens when you dump untold billions of tons of a warming agent into a previously stable system.

    I have many times stated that global ice volume is the metric I choose as my indicator. If the skeptics are right, ice volume should be in a random walk within some reasonably narrow band. If AGW is right, then ice volume should be on a long term decline. As far as I know, decline is the current long term trend.

    What is your metric? What will tell you the skeptics are right? What would tell you the AGW folks have the better analysis? (I find it interesting that very few people respond to this question – it seems the heart of the matter.)

  52. Thoughtful Tom said

    Finally, It’s a bit amusing to hear you talk about how Americans are undertaxed because half of them don’t pay taxes. Do you now propose taxing that half? Are you being ignorant or disingenuous? Do you have any idea how bad you make yourself look with that phrase ‘deficit reduction tax’?

    I’ve little doubt that we’ll hear the phrase repeatedly from one side of the Congressional aisle. There is no shame, from them, or from you.

    Your comments suggest you are in favor of deficit reduction, but not through increased taxes (ie a return to the Clinton level of taxation, or (if you really want to end the deficit – Reagan level of taxes)).

    I am not sure if you are really ignorant of the tax situation, or if you are just trying to score ideological points. This country went way overboard on tax cuts. Take a moment and look at the facts:

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

    At the same time, we didn’t cut expenses, rather, we raised them. Thus the annual deficit and the growing debt. So based on your ideology – you probably want to cut “benefits”. So what program that you currently benefit from do you want cut? Medicare/Social Security for yourself and your parents? Government research (which funds great innovations which make America a world leader)? The military?

    Everyone wants to cut programs – but very few people want to cut programs they benefit from – thus identifying themselves as, at best, hypocrites.

    For the record – while I think the US needs to raise taxes to cover expenses incurred by our wars and ending the recession, I think cutting future social security benefits is at least part of a comprehensive social security solution.

  53. kdk33 said

    “Actually not. My claim relies on some paleoclimate data, but not any hockey stick.”

    So, in conclusion, you offer no evidence whatsoever. Which makes your AGW claims more credible than your economic assertions.

  54. kim said

    TT @ #51.

    No, I don’t think you understand very well, and I’m not sure if it me poorly explaining it or you incapable of understanding it. My belief that ‘feedback mechanisms of the earth will fairly rapidly deal with CO2 from man’ is a statement of belief about the residence time of anthropogenic CO2 and says nothing about climate sensitivity to CO2.

    Ice ages? My good man….look up Milankovich cycles.

    You admit, your intuition tells you that because something is different it must be bad. Sad place to live, pal.

    Climate is never stable. The earth does seem lately to have two temperature points above which and below which it does not go, spending much of its time at one point or the other, with rapid transitions between them. You have supplied no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with those transitions, or that this aliquot of anthropogenic CO2 will change that scenario.

    @ #52. Well, I disagree. It is more likely to have healthy deficit reduction from the reduction of taxes engendering greater revenue with increased growth than to increase taxes and get lesser revenue from decreased growth. Take PJ’s suggestion about reading up on the money multiplier.

    And ‘Deficit Reduction Tax’ still makes me snicker. You gave away a lot with that one.
    =====================

  55. Kan said

    TT from #24

    “(and I actually convinced my local (and very large) monopoly utility that I could provide their state mandated RECs cheaper than how they were doing it.”

    Then follows with from #37
    “Looking at the issue on the table – renewable energy – consider hotels/laundromats. Hotels and laundromats hot water usage patterns, volumes and timescale (they intend to be in business for multiple decades) make them great candidates for solar thermal systems. These systems would pay for themselves, and within 10-20 years (depending on 3rd party incentives or not) pay for themselves.”

    I did not miss your job description. What I also did not miss is that you need to have the carbon tax in order to make your solar panels cost effective (or state mandated rules). The main problem with this is the tax on the equipment (assets) is going to be an immediate out of pocket money on a rapidly depreciating basis. The only way to overcome this is with tax credits (just a tax redistrubution). Then in 10 – 20 years they get a payback.

    You couch your arguments as being for the children (cute), but you really want the carbon tax for the same reason that everybody else wants some favor – basic greed.

    Thoughtful enough?

  56. Thoughtful Tom said

    Responding to my statement “You almost get it. The greedy kid is the Republican party” you respond with this:

    What a load of crap. First, I agree that bush and the republicans didn’t stop growing government – that is the main reason they are gone despite what they would have you believe. But when you combine the fact that tax cuts didn’t lower the %gdp collected with the fact that democrats have expanded government control of every avenue they can, you have to be nuts to have this opinion. Look at what Democrat policy did to the housing market and the Obama stimulus which was nothing buy payoffs to unions.

    This statement is not thoughtful at all Tom. You get an F

    Jeff, your comments don’t really deserve a response. However, you have shown a willingness to deal with what is, rather than what fits your ideology in the past, so I will give it a shot.

    The “F” I have earned is for failing to toe the prevailing ideology of tAV – a grade I accept and am in fact honored to receive as while I agree with some parts of the ideology, on the whole (and mostly in the climate arena) I find it dangerous to my and my children’s future.

    Here are the facts:
    The only policy that ever touched the deficit was PAYGO. It happened under a Democratic Congress (Bush Sr. signed it). The Republican party controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2002, Bush Jr. was President. That is when PAYGO died.

    Since Reagan, the Republicans have had the public and cynical view that the correct policy was “Starve the beast.” Specifically increase federal spending and decrease taxes until government must shrink. We are in the end game of that Reagan policy right now. The tea party is the obvious result (although where all those misguided souls resided during Bush Jr is still a mystery).

    Tax cuts do NOT reduce the deficit. They increase the deficit. Taxes are NOT higher than they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. They are LOWER.

    http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft507.pdf

    The only party, in living memory, that can lay claim to fiscal responsibility is the Democrats (and that claim is at best tenuous – Obama will need two terms, a roaring economy and a change in spending habits if he is to be a data point on the plus side of that ledger).

    The Republicans’ marketing is that they are for fiscal responsibility. Their actions indicate otherwise. There is value in seeing what is.

    BTW – “the Obama stimulus which was nothing buy payoffs to unions.” seems particularly ideologically driven. What data supports that claim? Do you think that anyone who works is in a union? Did unions really receive 787 billion dollars?

    If I did my maths right, and every single vote that Obama got was a union vote (not possible because unions are so small) then, in your world view, each vote cost $12,177.07. Did they sell out cheap or get a good deal? Interesting perspective. It feels a little light on the reality bit.

    (sorry there is just so much in your paragraph above that doesn’t withstand scrutiny) “No loss of GDP” – Bush’s recession caused the US economy to shrink by 6% in the first quarter of 2008 (and again in 2009).

    I am sure you can pull some logical gymnastics to claim the recession was not a result of tax cuts for the wealthy and an unfunded war (deficit spending crowding out private investments and our large debt making us beholden to the Chinese of all peoples!). but I for one am not buying. And I certainly don’t buy that on January 21, 2009 Bush’s recession magically became “Obama’s recession.” Others might forget what the Republicans did to this country. I will not forget.

  57. kim said

    Actually, Thoughtful One, you’ve given me some clues, and maybe I can help. I really can’t help much about the economic stuff, because we differ ideologically and philosophically, probably irrevocably, and I’m far from expert.

    On climate, however, it seems clear that you are just overly relying on the power of CO2 to work as a greenhouse gas in our climate system. It is not surprising that you have this viewpoint; it is the belief of the IPCC and until just a few years ago, wasn’t challenged much. Nonetheless, the IPCC’s conception is a fairly new idea, two to three decades old, and it replaced a paradigm of natural climate change, to which I believe we’ll return.

    So bear in mind that this idea of CO2 dominance in climate regulation is a fairly recent thing. Well, how was this mistake made? They took Arrhenius’s basic theory, dressed it up with enough water vapor feedback to fit the warming of the last quarter of the last century, presuming that the temperature rise was from the rising CO2, and came up with the IPCC’s conception of climate sensitivity to CO2.

    First of all, do you see the circularity of this process? If the temperature rise of the last quarter of the last century was from natural warming, not CO2 rise, then the correlation of the two was coincidental and not causal.

    Well, there are two other times in the last 150 years with a similar rate of temperature rise, during which CO2 was not rising. The conclusion most sensible is that all three temperature rises were from natural cycles, and that CO2 has little or nothing to do with it.

    The IPCC’s conception of AGW is simply the grandest ever example of the logical fallacy of ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

    If you can break your addiction to CO2 belief and consider other processes, you may see that there is more to this business than you’ve absorbed already. Above all, remember that mankind’s understanding of climate regulation is really very primitive, at present.
    ========================

  58. kim said

    I hate it, but you force me back into economics. Look up the perversion of the Boston Fed Study which led to bad policy in the CRA. Look into who stopped the regulation that Bush tried to get on the banking and housing industry, and look at which party has benefitted from Fannie and Freddie slush.

    It is ludicrous for you to blame Republicans for the housing part of this mess.

    But like I say, our economic differences are probably unbridgeable. You actually say some sensible things, like that Obama is going to have to moderate his spending, and that the promise of Social Security is going to be only partly kept.
    ================

  59. kim said

    Well, TT, now I’m not so sure how thoughtful you are. Do you not notice that deficits were dropping in the Bush times, with the tax cuts, until the banking and housing crises hit?

    Now I blame the housing crisis on the Democrats, as it is pretty clear that they are the perps. The banking crisis cannot be all the fault of the Republicans, because it is worldwide.

    So we have deficits dropping with lower taxes until the Democrats’ housing time bomb detonated, and you want to blame Bush and the Republicans? Historians are not going to see it your way.

    Heh, with the trainwreck Casey Jones Obama is leading us to, historians are going to call the Bush years, the Good Old Days.

    So will your grandchildren.
    ===============

  60. kim said

    Also, we climate skeptics, better climate agnostics, are sick and tired of alarmist guilt trips about their grandchildren. If carbon is encumbered it will raise the price of energy and diminish the human condition ongoing, to include your grandchildren. Furthermore, if we are wrongfooted into expensively mitigating a warming that isn’t happening instead of adapting to the cooling that is happening, then there will be Hell to pay, and the payment will come with the accompaniment of Apocalyptic Horses drumming hooves. We won’t have to worry about deficits, we will have starvation, disease, and war.

    So lose the guilt trip. If you could lose your carbon obsession you might lose your fears, too.
    =================

  61. Thoughtful Tom said

    This is in response to
    PhilJourdan

    I do not fault you for not wanting to debate me. I do have an advanced degree in Economics, and you apparently took only the entry level course. I would suggest as your second course one that deals with the money multiplier and how it is reduced with taxes. You might learn something.

    In the vernacular – wtF?!
    1) You are on a skeptic site – “appeals to authority” are verboten, less you run into the buzz saw that the overwhelming majority (over 95%) of learned climate scholars tell us AGW is the correct theory.

    2)This is a blog! Everyone is an expert about EVERYTHING!

    I do challenge you to point out my mistakes in economic analysis. You may disagree, based on your ideology, but you won’t find any actual faults in my economic analysis.

    As for debating – I missed your invitation to debate. I have advanced my arguments and countered yours. You have repeatedly not understood what I am saying. Sadly that counts for debating on most blog sites. What is it, exactly, that would make you think I do or don’t want to debate you? Just a strange thing to say in your 3rd or 4th response. Maybe you mean something else?

    (quoting me)
    TT#39 – “You almost get it. The greedy kid is the Republican party”

    No, you do not get it. I do not give a rip for republicans or democrats I stated a fact. That you do not agree is your right. But as I also stated, you can VOLUNTARILY submit more money to the government than you owe. There is no law against it. So the question remains, have you? Or are you just pontificating on OPM?

    This paragraph doesn’t really hang together. If I paid $1 more than required then my opinions are not “pontificating on OPM”? Each individual’s taxes are such a tiny portion of the federal budget that any discussion of the federal budget is, in effect, a discussion of OPM.

    TT Again – “Please read my post #24. You did not follow my statements, and I don’t want to debate your lack of understanding. You are confusing an unavoidable tax (“Federal communication fee”) with a tax that simply makes a viable alternative more affordable. And I claim this will spur innovation, business processes and efficiencies that dampen the minor increase in costs.”

    No, all taxes are unavoidable. They are going to be paid. And the payor is going to be the consumer, period. You are trying to say that the “green companies” will not charge you a tax. Yes they will, since their prices will reflect the fact they are not as efficient as alternatives, but are being SUBSIDIZED by YOUR tax dollars – in other word, cutting off one end of the blanket and sewing it on to the other end to make it longer.

    How do you avoid gasoline taxes? Ride a bike. You did say you have a degree in economics didn’t you? Maybe I should have gone to your educational institution. I could have received better grades and not had to work as hard.

    OK you are still lost on the point of my two business example. It has nothing to do with what the produce. They make widgets. The both sell them for $100 each – as that is the fair cost of all inputs, with a reasonable return to the business owner. More importantly, that is what consumers are willing to pay for the product. The widgets are not a “green” product. Now an evil, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, jack-booted Nazi, Chicago thug, foreign born and teleprompter requiring man is elected to a high office (this is all hypothetical of course).

    Through his evil ministrations he causes a 10% “tax” on carbon to exist in the world.

    Company “A” sighs and passes on the tax to its customers, now charging $110 and losing about 9% of sales (because they were already at the Pareto optimum for price).

    Company “B” increases its price to $110. At the same time it reviews its energy usage and realizes it can conserve in both building baseline (different lighting, insulating the envelope, upgrading to more efficient computers, etc.). On the production size, they realize the motors they have been using for the last 20 years could be replaced with more energy efficient models, that the final wash can be done with solar heated water.

    Total savings are 40% of their current bill. Now all of this is possible pre-tax, but human nature favors the status quo. No one had taken the time to research the issues (like most companies, putting out fires and making sales has the day-to-day priority). And some marginal investments (upgrading the heating plant) that didn’t make sense at pre-tax energy costs, now pencil out as making sense.

    After they make those changes, they have two choices – their savings are such that they can match the price of their competitor, gain market share by telling what they are doing “for the environment”, pay the carrying cost of the capital and make more money, or they can lower their costs and gain market share. They split the difference – lowering compared to post-tax, but not going all the way to pre-tax prices.

    Company A has industrial spies and some amount of common sense. They observe what Company B did and match them. They also add solar PV panels (benefiting from a utility incentive (the dreaded OPM!) that brings the economic payback to within 10 years for a PV system with a 30 year minimum life).

    They undercut Company B’s price.

    Company B installs PV and adds wind.

    They end up with prices ~5% higher than pretax, a more sustainable business model, and a world their children can live in.

    (And if you did the carbon tax my way (www.capanddividend) – your consumer would get the money back and could use it to fund personal investments in more efficient technologies (or more widgets). That demand will drive innovation, and my 40% number will get easier and easier to afford.)

    Now it pains me to write such pie-in-the-sky pablum. But it is also true. We have become fat dumb and happy with our fossil fuel economy. That economy is destroying the environment. Achieving a 20% CO2 reduction by the end of the decade would require little more than conservation (the low hanging fruit that pays for itself within 5 years).

    When skeptics ignore the actual benefits of renewable energy and conservation (aka mitigation) it weakens the skeptic position and makes it easy to counter that the skeptics are simply driven by their ideology.

    For some odd reason you have this mistaken impression that all money is the governments and through some magnanimous gestures, they allow us to have some of it. So when they allow us to have less of THEIR money, that is just paying the price. So basically your premise is flawed.

    PhilJourdan takes a might swing and YES! PhilJourdan delivers a TKO to his own strawman! Yessiree PhilJourdan’s strawman isn’t going to be getting up soon. I bet PhilJourdan’s strawman thinks twice before challenging PhilJourdan any time soon. PhilJourdan sure made an impression on his strawman here tonight!

  62. Thoughtful Tom said

    @ #52. Well, I disagree. It is more likely to have healthy deficit reduction from the reduction of taxes engendering greater revenue with increased growth than to increase taxes and get lesser revenue from decreased growth. Take PJ’s suggestion about reading up on the money multiplier.

    I will respond to this point then I must beg off for a few days. I am procrastinating from packing for a trip.

    You are alluding to the Laffer curve and trickle down economics. This was actually the official policy of the American government during the Reagan years, and given the financial pain it inflicted – it is pretty much 100% debunked. The the Boy Bush tried it AGAIN and it failed AGAIN (see the Great (Bush) Recession 2007-2010).

    Your replies are interesting. You use shorthand references to a lot of stuff that isn’t true, speaking as if it is the accepted wisdom of the ages (like using the “it is the sun”/Milankovich cycles argument – even though the two pre/early industrial warmings occurred during strong solar activity, and the current warming is occurring during an unusually strong solar minimum).

    I do appreciate the occasional positive feedback. It makes it easier to respond to the issues, instead of just tossing you onto the “blinded by ideology” pile and moving on.

    I do hope you are right in your blase attitude toward warming. That is why I came to this site – I wanted a reprieve from the ugly future AGW proponents offer. While I have found a few isolated refutations of AGW theory and evidence, I still have not seen a credible explanation that covers the vast majority of available evidence (well, excepting AGW).

    What physical evidence will confirm to you that are right, or cause you to reconsider your position in regard to climate?

    BTW – M2 and M3 money is a fascinating subject. It is why I studied economics. Your local credit union or bank can make money out of thin air! I personally think the economic paradigm of constant growth through exploiting natural resources is not viable for the long term. I don’t have an answer, but I am starting by reducing my personal resource exploitation.

    What happens when the resources are used up? What limiting resource will go first? Should we now be planning and working (and making money in the process) to develop a new economic paradigm? None of my professors had answers to those questions. Maybe “PJ”, with that advanced degree, can provide some insight.

  63. kim said

    Son, I know your climate analysis is sophomoric; I assume it’s the same for your economic analysis. WTF, did you look up ‘money multiplier’?
    ==================

  64. kim said

    Sadly, I can’t find where I say ‘It is the sun’. And yet, you say I do.
    ==========================

  65. Thoughtful Tom said

    Kim,
    This is exactly what I mean – . You invoke “Milankovich cycles” and don’t realize that is a fancy name for “it is the sun.” And you call my arguments sophomoric!!!!

    Do you know how the concepts of money multiplier and M1, M2 and M3 money inter-relate? If not I (sincerely) suggest you stick with the climate theory – you at least know some of the jargon.

    What physical evidence will confirm to you that are right, or cause you to reconsider your position in regard to climate?

  66. kim said

    No, Milankovich has to do with the position and attitude of the earth. It has nothing to do with changes in the sun, but only in our relationship to it. I understand this better than do you.
    ==================

  67. kim said

    Incidentally, I do think ‘it is the sun’, but I don’t know it, and I hadn’t said so when you said I had. Now, take my advice and read up on Milankovitch cycles. And please, expand your mind beyond its CO2 obsessions. There is a lot more to climate regulation than this weak greenhouse gas.

    Physical evidence of any sort is going to be unconvincing to me until we have a lot better understanding of the theory of climate regulation. Rebound of temperatures to anywhere near what the IPCC projects, and continued progress on that path might tend to convince, but it’ll be years before that happens.

    I’m expecting two decades of mild cooling from the concatenation of oceanic oscillations and a century or more of possibly severe and deadly cooling if the sun’s present behaviour is presaging a new Grand or Lesser Solar Minimum. I think the likelihood that our grandchildren will live in a cooler world is a lot greater than that they will live in a warmer world. So pack that in your suitcase, and travel with it.
    =================

  68. kim said

    And once again, Thoughtful One, your last question has given me another clue. You are convinced of the dangers of CO2 because of the physical evidence. Well, I will say to you that that physical evidence is evidence of warming. For the last 20 years that warming has been attributed to CO2, but some of us doubt it while still acknowledging evidence of warming. It is the attribution of the warning to CO2 which is in doubt, because natural cycles explain it better and because no one can prove CO2’s actual effect in the atmosphere. The attribution is from theory and from models, which are imagination. Observations are calling this theory into question, both from analysis of cloud feedbacks and from the lack of temperature rise as CO2 rises.

    Fundamentally, CO2 has a greenhouse effect. We don’t know what it is, but we can be pretty certain that it is much smaller than the alarmists would have us believe. We can not possibly make good policy, economically and socially sane policy, without a better grasp of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. It’s just that simple.
    ==================

  69. Jeff Id said

    [self snip]

    Hey Tom, are you sure we’re being taxed less?

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2015&units=p&state=US&chart=F0-total&local=s

  70. kdk33 said

    “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc”

    I like this.

    Not to go too far off topic, but I think a diversion from TT (you know he’s just needling you) is in order. I’ve never been a fan of global average temperature metrics. I’ve decided it causes more trouble than I thought – especially with regard to models. Almost all of the model performance evaluations I’ve seen examine the models ability to predict… global average temperature. As if that were the whole story, or even the most important part of the story.

    Even if the average temperature incrased 5 C, it would mostly occur by raising night-time lows, winter-time lows, and temperatures at high latitudes. So, the temperature itself isn’t gonna kill anybody and will probably be a benefit in many places. The scary stories are all the consequences of that warming (flood, drought, storms, sea level, diversity loss (egads!)).

    So a true model evaluation would look at how well models predict the scary stuff. And how consistent is the scary stuff across the different models. And this might lead us to understanding how the models differ in their inputs and mechanistic descriptions of “climate”. Instead, we get focused on temperature and miss the important stuff (IMHO).

    And temperature is easy to fit. Throw in some adjustable parameters (climate sensitivity), fit the model to a period of increasing temperatures, throw in some areosols to fudge post war cooling, you are guaranteed a model that predicts increasing temperatures. And models could differ dramatically in their mechanistic descriptions, but since they’re all fit to temperature, they will all predict a rising temperautre, and if that’s all we look at…

    So, shouldn’t we insist on more sophisticated evaluations of climate models?

  71. GHowe said

    I score it- Kim 2, TT 1 Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!(Sound of vuvuzela)

  72. Jeff Id said

    Tom, I cannot resist your wrongthink.

    “They end up with prices ~5% higher than pretax, a more sustainable business model, and a world their children can live in.”

    It seems that you believe like most leftists that your mental masturbation will lead us all to your enlightened future but none of it is true. First you claim that 10% tax will result in a 10% price hike. Ever work for a living tom? It turns out that businesses prefer to make a profit. The you go on and on about all the wonderful things companies can do to save money, which they can ALREADY DO TO SAVE MONEY. WITHOUT YOUR STUPID TAX.

    haha.

    What will happen to the price of that PV cell when your massive 10% tax is enacted. What will happen to the price of corn, how many MILLIONS will starve because American food suddenly costs too much? When they cannot heat their homes or see doctors because they spent money on food? Why don’t leftists ever consider these things?

    Your colors have been shown Tom, you have a lightweight view of economics, an idealistic view of government, and your connection with that to — a world our children can live in — is the height of ignorance. Not only has it not been shown that CO2 is causing any problems but even if it had, conservation doesn’t fix them. Again, you miss the IPCC argument and flail around with your government levers blindly hoping an imagined result will somehow be avoided.

    I want a world where everything I do is not controlled by government, where I’m free to invent products and produce them such that I and others around me can make money — and keep that money rather than give it to greedy leftists who would control the car I drive, the doctor I see and even the food I eat. I own a green company, I don’t want one bit of help from the government in producing or selling my product, apparently unlike your company, we don’t need it. We sell because people want to save money – so they can make money — that’s it. No government need apply.

    I really think you are a fool Tom but I also know there is little hope for someone who spews leftist Marxist drivel having no basis in fact like it were a golden truth. Look around you, your ideas have already been tried — they don’t work.

  73. Kan said

    TT puts forth all these various arguments for the simple reason that he needs tax credits and a carbon tax to make his solar panels cost effective on a btu basis against fossil fuels.

    He would also like to have lots of research dollars given to his company to try to get the dang things more efficient.

    To be honest – there is zero difference between TT’s company and the oil companies. Zero.

    The underlying philosophy that most tAV readers hold – I believe – is they do not want to have government (at any level) as the sole arbitrator of what is holy and what is not.

    We would like to decide that for ourselves, thank you.

  74. Thoughtful Tom said

    Kim at 66

    No, Milankovich has to do with the position and attitude of the earth. It has nothing to do with changes in the sun, but only in our relationship to it. I understand this better than do you.

    You seek to split hairs here. It is the earth’s position and attitude in relation to the sun. I said “it is the sun” – yes there is a distinction, but it is a distinction without a difference.

    You keep claiming that you understand this better than I – I simply ask that you demonstrate that in your writing, rather than stridently claiming it is so as you post comments that do not support the claim.

    Kim @67
    You appear to be falling for the weak notion that the climate scientists only consider CO2, because, after decades of study, their findings indicated that CO2 (being shorthand for man-made greenhouse gases) was the variable that was forcing the current changes, and that it was the variable we have control over.

    You can read here (among many other places) to satisfy yourself that mainstream climate scientists are well aware of the Milankovitch cycle, Maunder minimums, volcanoes, aerosols, etc.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
    (Milankovitch cycles)

    Thank you for responding to the question about what will convince you. It seems warmer temperatures will convince you. It looks like you are in luck!
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

    I agree with your likely counter that more time is needed to prove the trend. I hope you will at least allow that the evidence to date is consistent with the AGW theory.

    Note that this is happening during a La Nina and a notable solar minimum – taking some of the solar wind out of your “it is the sun” sails.

    Kim @68

    Observations are calling this theory into question, both from analysis of cloud feedbacks and from the lack of temperature rise as CO2 rises.

    Do you have any data or studies to support this, or do you wish it mightily to be so?

    I will grant you that you have arrived at the skeptics strongest argument – we don’t know the effect of feedbacks – but that argument itself is not that strong, given that (pre)historically climate sensitivity appears to have been 3C, that observations in relation to climate modeling from the 1980s seem to match up (models assumed ~3C).

    So the consensus appears to be 3C per doubling of CO2. What isn’t know is if a warming forced by greenhouse gases (as opposed to solar input/Milankovitch cycles) might trigger (via some mechanism that we are not aware of) a different set of feedbacks.

    It is, indeed, a slender reed upon which to so vehemently disagree with AGW.

  75. Thoughtful Tom said

    Jeff at 69

    Hey Tom, are you sure we’re being taxed less?

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2015&units=p&state=US&chart=F0-total&local=s

    Interesting graph. I personally think federal income taxes are a decent measure as I feel I have little to know control over federal taxation, whereas I have slightly more control over city, county and state taxation. I think your graph shows all taxation. Here is the graph from your site for US income taxes:

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=10-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

  76. Thoughtful Tom said

    Jeff @72

    It seems that you believe like most leftists that your mental masturbation will lead us all to your enlightened future but none of it is true.

    Your colors have been shown Tom, you have a lightweight view of economics, an idealistic view of government, and your connection with that to — a world our children can live in — is the height of ignorance.

    I really think you are a fool Tom but I also know there is little hope for someone who spews leftist Marxist drivel having no basis in fact like it were a golden truth. Look around you, your ideas have already been tried — they don’t work.

    Jeff, you write like someone whose ideology has been threatened. You can still be right winger and understand that climate change is a very serious threat. You can be a right winger and understand that market based solutions are a reasonable solution to the problem at hand.

    I have proposed that and nothing more. That it bothers you so much says more about you, than it says about the arguments I’ve presented.

    We have a problem – we are polluting the planet to an extent that the vast natural balancing systems of the earth are overwhelmed. The nature of the problem is economic – a missing price signal in pollution (the tragedy of the commons).

    The idea of adding in the price signal is not radical/Marxist/Communist/Socialist/one-world government or anything other than the application of capitalist economic theory to an un-priced externality.

    Your dystopian future is certainly possible with either action or inaction. To my mind it is much more likely with inaction.

    It used to be said that the skeptic blogs where a friendlier place to present ideas, and even respectful of non-troll posts. Your posts on this thread are a counter to that statement. To your credit you haven’t deleted any of my posts, but name calling and baseless attacks on anyone who doesn’t toe the line on the ideology of the board, or who heretically uses that ideology to address the problem at hand are at least as high here as on pro-AGW sites I frequent.

  77. Jeff Id said

    That it bothers you so much says more about you, than it says about the arguments I’ve presented.

    I’m calmer today but I think your views are too narrow. Pulling a lever which doesn’t need to be pulled is not a good solution to anything. In fact I think it represents a misunderstanding of the problem, the need for a solution, and represents an idealized view of the motivations of government.

    I will not be deleting your posts for your opinion, I never have done that here. In fact if you want to write your own main blog post you are welcome. Send it in doc form by email.

  78. kim said

    Tom @ 74.

    Not very good. It was a distinction with a difference, and sure, I’m aware that climate scientists are aware of Milankovitch Cycles. You are creating a strawman here, whether you realize it or not.

    Yep, it WAS warm. Now we have La Nina, the PDO, and Cheshire Cat sunspots. Yes, more time is needed to understand the trends. No, I don’t agree that the evidence so far is consistent with AGW. I see natural cycles only, the oceanic oscillations, around a gradually rising trend ever since the end of the Little Ice Age.

    Spencer and Lindzen and Choi, in particular, are using present observations to call into question the idea of water vapor being a large and positive feedback. Your paleoclimatology estimates of climate sensitivity are poor and controversial.

    Yes, we have hit on the key. What are the feedbacks, and what is the climate’s sensitivity to CO2? Despite your earnest wishes, we do not know that figure yet. Surely you must agree that without that information we cannot possibly make wise policy.
    =================

  79. kim said

    And, you badly underestimate the ‘natural balancing forces’ of the planet. This planet has successfully managed much larger aliquots of CO2. Calling CO2 ‘pollution’ is a polluted use of language. What would the plants say?

    Tom, about climate, I’d say you’ve been hoaxed by the hockey stick and by guilt. On that other stuff, I’d guess you’ve been hoaxed by Keynes. And, oh, the price we pay.
    ============

  80. Thoughtful Tom said

    Jeff @77,
    I appreciate that our views are very different than mine. I am sympathetic to some of yours. I appreciate a discussion/argument that focuses on ideas.

    I am interested in writing a cost of mitigation piece – but have not found the time yet to do so (and kudos to you for finding time/ways to keep your blog going).

  81. Thoughtful Tom said

    Kim @78
    Seriously? You are going to try to make hay with your “Milonkovitch cycles are not the sun argument”? You are not advancing your “I know more than you” cause.

    Here is a little thought experiment that might help you on this one (fill in the blank)

    Milankovitch calculated the climate impact of the earth’s eccentricity, tilt and precession in relation to the ___________.

    Just as your acknowledgement of points of agreements moves us towards respect for each other’s positions, falling on your sword over a distinction without a difference moves us away.

    Milankovitch cycles are a support pillar for the “it’s the sun” argument, not a different argument than “it’s the sun”.

    As for “natural cycles” and Spencer, Lindzen and Choi – this stuff is getting published, it is getting peer review (thus the whole “the climate industry only supports AGW!” argument is revealed to be pablum). Spencer’s natural cycle argument, as it was presented here
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/natural-warming/

    seems to me to only mistake cause and effect. At a minimum it fails to explain why we are significantly warmer now than any other time in the instrument era (and longer, depending on how cynical you are about paleoclimatology work).

    Linden and Choi 2009 is out there and we shall see if they hold up. It would be very surprising, in a subject as vast and chaotic as climate systems, if outliers didn’t exist.

    You do realize that believing in low climate sensitivity (ie significantly lower than the current consensus of 3C) and the hockey-stick breaking LIA and MWP are almost mutually exclusive?

    We again confront the problem that while AGW will undoubtedly continue to be refined as some open questions are answered (where is Trenberth’s missing heat, what is observed climate sensitivity, is there a tipping point (methane, albedo), exactly how will feedbacks playout) there is no viable alternative hypothesis that comes close to providing a satisfying answer to the climate puzzle we have before us.

    Policy: We are on the train tracks. A train is coming. You, consistent with your policy views, don’t move, as we don’t know the exact speed of the train. I move off the tracks. This isn’t even a Pascal’s wager type argument. We KNOW we are in trouble, and causing problems to earth’s systems. We know it will take our society a long time to change.

    I’m not sure I see a difference between those who argue for more study of climate change and those who argued for appeasement of Hitler. The tiger’s stripes will not change.

    Kim @79
    The last time this much CO2 was in the air dinosaurs roamed the earth and mammals were the size of field mice. This is a pretty weak argument for your claims. Do some research as to what increased CO2 does in drought conditions (a likely outcome for America’s bread basket in a warmer earth).

    And no, I don’t subscribe to your ideology – I am a pragmatist above all else. If you ever wondered whether Keynes works or not, consider that Obama’s 787 billion dollar stimulus pulled us back from the brink of a 2nd depression.

    Unlike most, I actually think we need to pay back the deficit spending. That we should do it with a tax, and I realize that tax will decrease growth for the duration of the tax. But the choices Obama had when he came to office where very, very few.

    Let’s see the tea party propose a limited tax, to be used to pay for the wars, the economic experiments, the tax cuts for the wealthy. Then sunset the tax. That is a plank I could support, but I predict they will instead call for tax cuts, which I pointed out upthread has been done to death.

    I have the simple (idealistic in Jeff’s opinion) view that if you want something – you should pay for it. With today’s “free lunch Republicanism”, that seems quaint – but the current don’t tax but do spend approach is not sustainable.

    Kim for what it is worth I sincerely hope you are right. I came to this site for a reprieve from the AGW sentence on our little planet. I have not see very many convincing arguments yet (I already pointed out the most valid counter I am aware of). But it sure would be nice if you were correct.

  82. kim said

    Just watch the thermometers, Tom.
    =================

  83. kim said

    And look, kiddo, the ‘it’s the sun’ people think climate is regulated by some variation in the sun’s output. Milankovich does not require this. It is a distinction with a difference, that you either can’t see or refuse to see, and frankly, I don’t much care anymore which it is with you.
    =================

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: