Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science.This press release supports the idea that CO2 is more of an indicator of Global Warming than a cause, which supports previous posts on the subject. (CO2 Again and Gore - It's CO2)
“The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” [USC geologist Lowell] Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”Evidence is mounting that reducing carbon emissions (mainly CO2) will not have a serious effect on Global Warming. Yet as evidenced by the recent remarks of Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), we need to increase taxes to prevent Global Warming by controlling CO2 emissions. Congressman John Dingell Proposes 50-cent Gas Tax Hike to Fight Global Warming is available from FoxNews.com. Here's the summary of the article ...
Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.Another Democrat who wants to raise taxes for more "Big Government", Great. Representative Dingell has been in Congress since 1955, and is Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Let's repeat the proposed areas of tax increases and credit reductions.
—A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.From the way Congressman Dingell frames the issue, the reader comes to the conclusion that the increased tax revenue money would be used to reduce Global Warming through Carbon Emission Reductions. But here is where the Congressman would allocate the increased taxes.
—A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.
—Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.
Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills. [emphasis mine]I don't follow the Michigan Democrat's reasoning. He claims we need to reduce Carbon Emissions to control Global Warming, which we have just seen probably is not dependent on these emissions. Then the increased Tax Revenue will partially reduce payroll taxes, highway construction, mass transit, Social Security and health programs!? What do these issues have to do with Global Warming? And won't highway construction increase the vehicles on the road, thereby increasing Carbon Emissions?