Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



No Danger From Man-Made-Global Warming
Raymond Richman, 12/20/2018

President Macron’s imminent fall from power in France did not result from his proposed tax increase but because it was to be spent foolishly on addressing man-made-global-warming. Federal government, state government, and increased private expenditures wasted on man-made-global warming over the past two decades, nearly a trillion, yes a trillion dollars, on subsidies, tax credits, and private expenditures that accomplished nothing but made Gore and many others rich beyond belief. Most climate scientists believe that fossil fuels do bear responsibility for a small contribution to global warming. But the largest contributor is solar activity, which should not surprise anybody. And in less than a century, fossil fuels, a limited resource, will be displaced naturally by other energy sources.

In November, 2015, Craig IdsoRobert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer – wrote Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: Idso is a scientist who has published widely on carbon dioxide emissions, Carter was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia from 1981 to 1998, and Singer, is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. Heartland Institute’s Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) published Climate Change Reconsidered in 2009, an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made-global- warming. As economists, we believe that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent world-wide to subsidize wind and solar power, the production and purchase of electric vehicles, and subsidizing solar panels and insulation of buildings, was entirely wasted.

The UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is using climate change as a political instrument to change the balance of political power around the world. Its support has little to do with the science of climate change and its causes. The UN agency’s leaders are aiming at the elimination of the USA as the leading industrial nation. Other UN agencies seemingly acting from the purist motives have been weakening American foreign policy. The Taliban in Afghanistan were eliminated easily because U.S. troops were welcomed by the population who reacted against the Taliban’s ban on the growing of opium. The Taliban was financed and resurrected as a fighting force when it reversed its anti-opium policy and we stupidly adopted an anti-opium policy at the UN’s suggestion and banned the growing of opium, even using American troops to destroy the crops in the fields. And for what? All of the Afghan opium is sold in Asia. As a result of our involvement in the anti-opium policy, it is we whom the Afghans now want out of their country amid growing support for the Taliban.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. 

A mountain of evidence for this view is contained in “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.”  Written by Gregory Wrightstone of Pittsburgh, the book puts climate change into a geologic context of billions of years — a perspective derived from the author’s 35 years as a geologist. He states humans have thrived in previous periods significantly warmer than our modern age, most recently in the 13th century when Vikings farmed Greenland and citrus grew in England. Conversely, people have suffered during cold periods such as the Little Ice Age (1290-1850), which was marked by famine and disease.

Man has many tools to offset the undesirable effects of global warming which poses no danger to human existence and has benefits as well. What man needs to worry about is global cooling which could be catastrophic.  

Your Name:

Post a Comment:


Comment by Bob Hanks, 3/12/2019:

Goodness, what a sweeping conclusion. For evidence to the contrary, please view my response to the additional posting of the same name.

No danger to human existence? The scientific evidence does not support this, even a cursory look at scientific conclusions is quite opposite. Am I now to believe that 97% of Climatologists are wrong, that the primary U.S. Scientific Societies are all wrong as well?

All thats at stake are our future generations and there continued existence. You will not even admit there is a possible danger?

I for one am quite concerned.

 




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Jun 2019
    May 2019
    Apr 2019
    Mar 2019
    Feb 2019
    Jan 2019
    Dec 2018

    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term

    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Last 100 Years
    Politics
    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]