Previous 11 - 20 Next
I agree it underwhelms. Perhaps Camp was trying for something that might possibly pass in Congress? Republicans are notoriously poor at articulating and selling their ideas.
Although Obama was a child in 1968, he is a 1960's radical. His heroes and mentors all are products of that era. His mother subscribed to the same ideology.
You're right that the Arctic icepack is floating, but the Antarctic icepack is mostly on the continent. However, the Antarctic ice is increasing, not melting and continent has no chance of becoming ice free.
Chapman has repeated the false "97%" consensus claim, so what do we expect?
Since the planet isn't getting warmer, that's one more thing not to worry about.
Yes, homeownership would become more affordable. But the people who recently bought homes or who are selling their homes might become upside down or see thousands in losses. We need a plan to deal with that.
When need to end the distortions caused by the tax code. Reducing the deduction on home mortgages would lower the price of homes. In other words, the current mortgage deduction increases the price of homes. This deduction, like many, should be eliminated. But how to eliminate it without upsetting the apple cart. People who purchased a home recently or who plan to sell their homes could see the resale value fall by tens of thousands of dollars are more. W need a plan to make a transition to phasing out these deductions as smooth as possible.
In response to:

Stop Being Stupid!

The Teleprompter Speaks Wrote: Feb 27, 2014 2:11 PM
Left wingers say stupid things all the time. You could base your career in reporting on Biden's gaffes. They never stop. Obama doesn't know which coast our Atlantic ports are on. Obama, born in Hawaii, thinks the island chain is in Asia. Obama thinks there are 57 states. (The only subject Obama knows less about than geography seems to be basic economics, btw.) But we all know the difference is if a conservative or Republican says or does something stupid, it's late-night talk show fodder. A democrat does something, it's ignored.
The risk from doing nothing approaches zero. The climate simply doesn't work the way the climate-fear mongers claim it works. The cost of trying to prevent it, however, are astronomical. Let's say I'm wrong and there is a risk. Which costs more -- turning our entire civilization on its head or mitigating the effects? If you said mitigating the effects is cheaper, you are too smart to write an opinion column.
There is absolutely zero evidence for any of the claims that carbon is going to cause a climate disaster. There is absolutely zero evidence the climate works the way the models claim it works. There is a great deal of evidence that the models are wrong. The entire thing is falsified by actual physical evidence. When theory and observation does not match, it means the theory is wrong.
"Even if climate change turns out to be overblown, there's no real downside in a carbon tax. We merely would have traded a tax that reduces good things, such as work and investment, for a tax that reduces bad things, such as environmental harms and hazards. If done in a revenue-neutral way, it would more likely speed economic growth than slow it." Wow! Do we understand the Carbon Tax is not an "instead of" tax, but an additional tax? And it's a false conflation to compare carbon emissions with real pollutants. If the intention to is to reduce pollution, do that. Don't hide it behind something else.
Previous 11 - 20 Next