'Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming'

[notsure]

Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming
Michael Bastasch
08/22/2016
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/gary-johnson-backs-co2-fee-to-fight-global-warming/


Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson said he’s no skeptic of man-made global warming and endorsed a “fee” on carbon dioxide emissions.

It’s all part of his “free market” approach to global warming, Johnson told the Juneau Empire in an article published Sunday.

“I do believe that climate change is occurring,” Johnson said. “I do believe that it is man-caused” and “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”

Johnson’s “free market” approach to global warming includes “a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon” to make those who emit the greenhouse gas pay the supposed cost of their actions, according to the Juneau Empire.

“We as human beings want to see carbon emissions reduced significantly,” he said, adding the U.S. only emits “16 percent of the (global) load” CO2.

Johnson said: “I don’t want to do anything that harms jobs.”

It’s not exactly clear how a “fee” on CO2 would be different than a “tax,” but Johnson’s announcement was picked up by environmentalists

Johnson’s carbon “fee” was touted by the group RepublicEN, a group of conservatives who endorse a carbon tax. RepublicEN has joined with environmentalists to promote a carbon tax as the best way to tackle global warming.

But they’re basically alone on the right, as most conservative groups see a carbon tax as a fool’s errand, and the Republican Party explicitly rejected a carbon tax in its 2016 platform.

“We oppose any carbon-tax,” reads the 2016 platform. “It would increase energy prices across the board, hitting hardest at the families who are already struggling to pay their bill in the Democrats’ no-growth economy.”

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told campaigners at the American Energy Alliance (AEA) in March he opposed a carbon tax.

“The Obama administration committed an overreach that punishes rather than helps Americans,” Trump answered in AEA’s survey. “Under my administration, all EPA rules will be reviewed. Any regulation that imposes undue costs on business enterprises will be eliminated.”

Republicans have been increasingly concerned about attempts to get a carbon tax through Congress. GOP lawmakers often argue taxing CO2 would amount to an energy tax that would raise the price of everything, hurting the poor.

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a carbon tax bill last year to raise $2 trillion over 10 years and reduce CO2 emissions 40 percent. Whitehouse has also called on the Department of Justice to prosecute those who disagree with him on global warming.

Johnson’s campaign did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

[FSP-Rebel]

Gary "Al Gore" Johnson. Is he a libertarian on anything?

[specsaregood]

Can we move news about this guy out of the Liberty Campaigns section yet? He belongs in the dump with Hillary and Trump news.

[specsaregood]

Gary "Al Gore" Johnson. Is he a libertarian on anything?

He wants to sell you pot and tax it.

[dannno]

Maybe he is trying to help Trump get elected :confused:

[CaptUSA]

Didn't we already do this??

[undergroundrr]

Maybe he is trying to help Trump get elected :confused:

He takes more votes from Hillary than he does from trump. Consistently true.

[spudea]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

[jllundqu]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

Your argument is based on the idea that carbon dioxide is 'toxic waste'. Forgive my bluntness, but what I am exhaling right now aint fucking toxic.

[William Tell]

“I do believe that climate change is occurring,” Johnson said. “I do believe that it is man-caused” and “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”


Then why are you calling for a Carbon "fee" (not a tax, just like Obamacare) you pathetic little statist troll?

[dannno]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

You obviously don't know how plants work.

[puppetmaster]

Still wondering how this guy is believable at all. He is even worse than Trump. He is making Trump look better and better even after reading all the anti-trump posts here.

[bunklocoempire]

The best of both parties! Happy days!

http://i.imgur.com/WCogpqnm.jpg?1

500 years later, indulgences are here again baby! Wooohoooo!!

http://i.imgur.com/q1YOO3l.jpg

Watch out for those black holes, Gary.

[Natural Citizen]

He takes more votes from Hillary than he does from trump.

No, he doesn't.



Consistently true.

No, it isn't.

[euphemia]

What else dumb is he going to say? I wish he would just put it all out there once and for all so people will quit saying he's Libertarian.

[juleswin]

I am no purist or one issue voter but how many things does this man has to get wrong for him to deserve the Trump treatment. Free market way of dealing with carbon pollution? wtf is that? Also just because you put free market in from of it doesn't make it right. I am sure there is a free market way of collecting taxes but I don't want to hear any of it.

[AuH20]

Gary Johnson is a caricature of a libertarian. Carbon dioxide control? Has he gone mad? I could understand something about habitat preservation, but he's actually pushing carbon dioxide nonsense with no focus on solar activity?

[Natural Citizen]

:cool:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iVDHiOEBvw

[AuH20]

He takes more votes from Hillary than he does from trump. Consistently true.

But doesn't Stein offer far more to these types than Johnson?

[William Tell]

But doesn't Stein offer far more to these types than Johnson?
Johnson is trying to change that. Hence this thread.

[undergroundrr]

No, he doesn't.

No, it isn't.

Yes, he does. Yes, it is.


Right now, pollsters that include Johnson and, less frequently, Stein are showing Clinton with a slightly smaller lead than pollsters that test only Trump and Clinton. You can see this by looking at the national polls taken since June 1. According to the FiveThirtyEight polling database, 18 pollsters have taken a national poll that asked about the presidential race with only Clinton and Trump offered as an option and in a separate question asked about the race with at least Johnson included. Here is the average margin by which Clinton is ahead of Trump in those polls, with and without third-party options...

... The majority of pollsters (12) have Clinton’s margin over Trump shrinking when at least one third-party candidate is included. The difference in margins, however, varies among pollsters, and a few, such as Ipsos, have Clinton’s lead rising by the tiniest of bits when at least Johnson is included. Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/

Do you for some reason want him to take more from trump?

[undergroundrr]

But doesn't Stein offer far more to these types than Johnson?

No, he's playing for moderates. She's playing for the far left.

[Natural Citizen]

Do you for some reason want him to take more from trump?

You're projecting. Again. I support Castle. In fact, I go out of my way to make that known. It's right there in my sig-line. Is it not? Sure it is. I know this becase I put it there.


The reality is that Clinton is leading Trump. What does that tell you? Hm? What?

By all means, though, keep pimping the liberals.

Heh. Actually that's something else about your pollsters. When November comes and goes, Johnson will be lucky to see 2% of the vote. Remember who told you that. Because when he does, I'm going to come back here and show you, the all-knowing, all projecting, undergroundrr, master of bullsht, that it's all that he got.

[undergroundrr]

Again. I support Castle.

Darrell Castle is awesome.

[euphemia]

Gary Johnson is not even a characature of a Libertarian. He is a socialist liberal along the lines of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

[dannno]

But doesn't Stein offer far more to these types than Johnson?

Not if Johnson actually has a chance of doing something.

[euphemia]

Johnson has no chance of winning over thinking liberty people. He has every chance of winning over liberals and socialists.

[undergroundrr]

Johnson has no chance of winning over thinking liberty people. He has every chance of winning over liberals and socialists.

A generalization, but correct.

[Occam's Banana]

[Johnson] takes more votes from Hillary than he does from trump. Consistently true.


Yes, he does. Yes, it is.


Right now, pollsters that include Johnson and, less frequently, Stein are showing Clinton with a slightly smaller lead than pollsters that test only Trump and Clinton. You can see this by looking at the national polls taken since June 1. According to the FiveThirtyEight polling database, 18 pollsters have taken a national poll that asked about the presidential race with only Clinton and Trump offered as an option and in a separate question asked about the race with at least Johnson included. Here is the average margin by which Clinton is ahead of Trump in those polls, with and without third-party options...

... The majority of pollsters (12) have Clinton’s margin over Trump shrinking when at least one third-party candidate is included. The difference in margins, however, varies among pollsters, and a few, such as Ipsos, have Clinton’s lead rising by the tiniest of bits when at least Johnson is included. Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/

Do you for some reason want him to take more from trump?

According to that, it's a mere one percent difference on average - and that's with respect to the inclusion of any third-party candidates, not solely Johnson.

But even if it regarded Johnson only, one percent is well within the average margin of error of the polls from which this result was derived.

In other words: Johnson makes no statistically significant difference in the delta between Clinton and Trump.

In other other words: The citation you provided fails to support your assertion.

[Spikender]

Gary Johnson is a caricature of a libertarian. Carbon dioxide control? Has he gone mad? I could understand something about habitat preservation, but he's actually pushing carbon dioxide nonsense with no focus on solar activity?

He's not even a caricature. A caricature to me is overblown and ridiculous. Gary Johnson is a cardboard cutout of a libertarian with a scared statist cowering behind it puffing on a roach.

[Anti Federalist]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

If CO2 is a "toxic waste" (it isn't), then you are emitting toxic waste every second you breathe.

CO2 taxes, fees and regulations will be the ultimate control on you.

Nothing you do, short of committing suicide, does not emit CO2.

That is why globalists and futurist liberals like Johnson, love them some CO2 regulations.

Everything you do will be subject to regulation, taxes and controls.

[euphemia]

The EPA (a legitimate use of government according to Johnson) dumped toxic waste into a river.

[Suzanimal]

It’s not exactly clear how a “fee” on CO2 would be different than a “tax,”

If he calls it a fee, he can say he didn't raise taxes.

[euphemia]

If he calls it a fee, he can say he didn't raise taxes.

And once he does away with the military, he will have more money for the legitimate use of government, according to Johnson, and more money to give back to the people.

[undergroundrr]

And once he does away with the military


Military troops favor Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president over Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, according to a new survey.

Johnson garnered 38.7 percent of the active duty vote, versus 30.9 for Trump, and 14.1 for Clinton, according to the survey, which was conducted via the popular military personality Doctrine Man.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546-poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops

[euphemia]

I get that misused and overcommitted military people want to come home. They have misplaced their loyalty if they favor Johnson. He is as socialist as any candidate we have ever seen. He isn't hiding the fact that he would bring home the military to save money so we have more money to give back to the people.

[Occam's Banana]

Nothing you do, short of committing suicide, does not emit CO2.

And it gets worse - post-suicide, you're gonna start emitting other so-called "greenhouse" gasses.

But that's an easy fix. We just need to levy taxes fees on corpses ...

[Krugminator2]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian? No. You have to penalize or restrict pollution. No one owns the air or water so there is no incentive to take care of it. The problem is a carbon tax on top of the zillion other costly regulations already in place. There is zero chance that the EPA will be eliminated and replaced with taxation.

And it isn't even clear that a carbon tax will be effective. It will likely just make US business even more uncompetitive with the rest of the world.

A carbon tax is probably a horrifically bad idea but there are a lot bigger things to complain about with Johnson than this.

[Natural Citizen]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian?

It's not authorized. It's unconstitutional. Taxes are Limited for Liberty. Now you could try to make a case for Article 1, Section 8 about General Welfare, but congress isn't authorized to tax and spend as it pleases, regardless of what it "thinks" serves the General Welfare. Congress does not possess unlimited, sovereign power to tax the people. And, actually, General Welfare was put into context as a means to restrict arbitrary taxing and spending if you read it right.

[William Tell]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian?

Yes, incredibly so. Much like the property tax is un-libertarian. In a libertarian society, a person who grows his own food could live hypothetically live his life without having to be a part of the system. Even if you have sales tax, if he provides for himself and doesn't sell anything he wouldn't need money. Property tax makes this impossible, you need money to pay your yearly rent.

A carbon tax would likewise make everyone a slave. Of course all taxes have their negatives but it really doesn't get more evil than a carbon tax, except maybe having a tax on life itself. It basically is though.

[Natural Citizen]

Of course all taxes have their negatives but it really doesn't get more evil than a carbon tax, except maybe having a tax on life itself.

Ha. Funny you mention that. Consider what you say here about a tax on life itself in context with gene editing, Patent Law, and a SCOTUS which acts administratively and outside of the parameters of checks and balances. Now, there's a reason that the language switched from genetic engineering to genetic editing. Reason is, by theirown admission, that it can't be regulated. And I'm certainly no fan of regulation. But there is a fundamental difference in what regulation means in a Man-over-Governmnent scenario versus a Government-over-Man scenario.

[Krugminator2]

Yes, incredibly so. Much like the property tax is un-libertarian. In a libertarian society, a person who grows his own food could live hypothetically live his life without having to be a part of the system. Even if you have sales tax, if he provides for himself and doesn't sell anything he wouldn't need money. Property tax makes this impossible, you need money to pay your yearly rent.

A carbon tax would likewise make everyone a slave.

Pollution is aggression. You can't put toxic waste in the water people drink. You have to have pollution rules. If a factory pollutes that is incurring a cost that can't be easily solved in the courts. The way to deal with the problem is either through regulation (which is essentially a tax) or a direct tax.

A carbon tax only taxes those who pollute, so I don't see how that makes everyone a slave.

I don't support a carbon tax because the people pushing it tend to be very anti-capitalistic. I see a carbon tax similar to a VAT. Economists like them but they probably get abused in practice.

St. Milton addresses this at 8:50. He doesn't endorse the idea but says it is within the bounds of reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSumJxQ5oy4

[euphemia]

All these fees and taxes are a slippery slope. At what point is the balance between producing necessary goods and pollution? As Thomas Sowell says, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

[r3volution 3.0]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

If CO2 emissions did constitute pollution (i.e. cause property damage of some kind), it would be perfectly justifiable to force the people emitting the CO2 to compensate their victims (as with any other pollution or other type of property rights violation). Given the impossibility of identifying which specific CO2 emission caused which specific tort (cow fart in Wisconsin contributes to something or other 1500 miles away), normal civil litigation is not really possible, and a tax might be a plausible alternative: victims wouldn't be compensated, but at least violations would be deterred.

This is a common view among market economists, which is not entirely without merit, and I'm sure this is what Gary had in mind.

The problem is that we have no idea what (if any) damage is actually being caused by CO2 emissions, so the tax rate would be arbitrary.

Until and unless we have that knowledge, a tax makes no sense.

So I'll have to disagree with Gary on this one.

....continuing to support him though as he's on balance still infinitely better than Trumpllary.

[presence]

So, what is the better way? It is to remove the impediments that are blocking progress.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313509

Best way to fight "carbon emissions" is to stop subsidizing the oil industry; the biggest subsidy, and rarely mentioned in context is state military protection of private oil rigs and tankers, shipping lanes, middle eastern oil fields, etc.; the tax payer funded global oil security apparatus which also happens to be one of the biggest consumers of oil.

2nd best way to fight global warming is to completely deregulate the auto manufacturing industry, suddenly 100+ mpg transportation would become the norm.

3rd best way eliminate uncle's control of #muhroads


3 easy steps, no taxes required and I guarantee drastic reductions in US carbon footprint.



It seems little or no analysis has been applied to the third option: “Reduce existing market distortions’. There may be significant advantages of that option, such as: avoid the need for bureaucracy, world government and the compliance cost of measuring, monitoring and reporting emissions (for all GHGs) and disputation.https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514

[r3volution 3.0]

He is as socialist as any candidate we have ever seen.

Yes, socialists are always talking about returning to the gold standard and cutting federal spending 43%.

Straight out the Communist Manifesto no doubt.

[William Tell]

Pollution is aggression. You can't put toxic waste in the water people drink. You have to have pollution rules. If a factory pollutes that is incurring a cost that can't be easily solved in the courts. The way to deal with the problem is either through regulation (which is essentially a tax) or a direct tax. Grilling a burger is not aggression, I'm sorry. But it's the kind of thing that would be subject to a carbon tax. Now, if I grill with some toxic substance that actually causes real harm to my neighbors then I am liable. Having simple logical property rights would clear up that sort of thing. The idea that every time we emit carbon through some activity that we are sinning against humanity and so we need to pay uncle Sam for indulgences is stupid.


A carbon tax only taxes those who pollute, so I don't see how that makes everyone a slave.

Taxing carbon output classifies us all as polluters.

[Natural Citizen]

Straight out the Communist Manifesto no doubt.

A few of his openly stated positions actually are. Would you like to go over them? I gotta few minutes to kill. That's really all it'd take.

[Krugminator2]

Grilling a burger is not aggression

Taxing carbon output classifies us all as polluters.

No one classifies it like that and I am certain Johnson does not.


Having simple logical property rights would clear up that sort of thing

No it wouldn't actually. That is the whole reason for the need for a tax or regulation.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=negative%20externality%20examples

[Natural Citizen]

I am certain Johnson does not.



Here's the thing about the government having unlimited power to arbitrarily tax. It's the potential danger of it that is worrisome. The potential danger of unlimited power to arbitrarily tax is the fundamental reason for constitutional safeguards that provide protection against such over-reach.

Rev actually made a pretty good point about CO2 not being able to have its danger truly measured. Same thing goes with having unlimited power to arbitrarily tax. The dangers of unlimited power also cannot be measured.

[William Tell]

No one classifies it like that and I am certain Johnson does not.


Are you saying we do not all "pollute" with carbon every day?

[Krugminator2]

Here's the thing about the government having unlimited power to arbitrarily tax. It's the potential danger of it that is worrisome. The potential danger of unlimited power to arbitrarily tax is the fundamental reason for constitutional safeguards that provide protection against such over-reach.

OK



I don't support a carbon tax because the people pushing it tend to be very anti-capitalistic. I see a carbon tax similar to a VAT. Economists like them but they probably get abused in practice.

[Natural Citizen]

Why are you pushing the issue, then, if you don't support a carbon tax?

[Danke]

Grilling a burger is not aggression, I'm sorry. But it's the kind of thing that would be subject to a carbon tax. Now, if I grill with some toxic substance that actually causes real harm to my neighbors then I am liable. Having simple logical property rights would clear up that sort of thing. The idea that every time we emit carbon through some activity that we are sinning against humanity and so we need to pay uncle Sam for indulgences is stupid.

Taxing carbon output classifies us all as polluters.

And people that benefits from more CO2 should owe producers like you when you grill.

[William Tell]

And people that benefits from more CO2 should owe producers like you when you grill.

That makes more sense actually. But you won't see a politician advocate that because it doesn't help them.

[anaconda]

No, he doesn't.




No, it isn't.

Polls say Johnson hurts Hillary.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-poll-hurts-hillary/

[Natural Citizen]

Polls say Johnson hurts Hillary.



About Polls (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499254-About-Polls-They-re-Bull-Pucky&p=6283665&viewfull=1#post6283665)

[anaconda]

About Polls (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499254-About-Polls-They-re-Bull-Pucky&p=6283665&viewfull=1#post6283665)

What is your explanation for Johnson having a net negative impact on Trump?

[RandallFan]

Fidel Johnson

[GunnyFreedom]

Everything I have seen since the General started says Johnson is pulling 2 to 1 from Hillary over Trump. And it make sense -- just listen to him. I think he's campaigning left of Jill Stein... :eek:

[Suzanimal]

An easy start to reducing pollution would be to drastically downsize the US government and it would save money.


Edited to add: The #1 polluter is the US government.

[fedupinmo]

It's not authorized. It's unconstitutional. Taxes are Limited for Liberty. Now you could try to make a case for Article 1, Section 8 about General Welfare, but congress isn't authorized to tax and spend as it pleases, regardless of what it "thinks" serves the General Welfare. Congress does not possess unlimited, sovereign power to tax the people. And, actually, General Welfare was put into context as a means to restrict arbitrary taxing and spending if you read it right.
If you read it right, the general welfare Clause is merely a declaratory statement qualifying the reasons to collect taxes and extends no new powers.

[Occam's Banana]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian? No.

Yes. There is not and cannot be any such thing as a libertarian (or non-"un-libertarian") tax.

[Suzanimal]

768084968891219968

[FyreLyon]

He can put as much lipstick on that pig as he wants but a tax is still a tax. Had Johnson proposed this while running for the GOP nomination four years ago he would have been laughed off the debate stage!

[undergroundrr]

I can accept it as a transitional step. GJ is very vocal about ending the IRS and moving to a fair tax. Again, I hate the fair tax unless it's seen as transitional. GJ is a pragmatist. He's going to look for ways to head toward a balanced budget. Collecting revenues can be seen as part of that picture.

But if a carbon tax got stacked on top of everything else, that's all bad.

On the other hand, industrial pollution is damaging to the property and person of other businesses and individuals. It violates the NAP. Ron Paul has alluded to how, early in the industrial revolution, business and government colluded to relieve factories of responsibility for pollution damage. Libertarians have been poor at coming up with a solution for it and so the carbon tax and other progressive schemes fill the gap.

[Occam's Banana]

768084968891219968

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Suzanimal again.

Dear Gary Johnson, There Is No "Free Market" Carbon Tax
https://mises.org/blog/dear-gary-johnson-there-no-free-market-carbon-tax-1
Tho Bishop (22 August 2016)

There are few things less popular in American politics than raising taxes, which is why there is a longstanding tradition of American politicians finding ways to avoid using the “t” word.

While it’s not surprising to see these sorts of political shenanigans from two parties that have a history of using Orwellian word games to grow government (like the charmingly named Patriot Act), it’s extremely unfortunate to see Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson resorting to the same tactics.

During an interview with the Juneau Empire (http://juneauempire.com/state/2016-08-21/third-party-first-pick-gary-johnson-addresses-alaskan-issues-interview), Gary Johnson was asked his opinions on climate change:


“I do believe that climate change is occurring. I do believe that it is man-caused,” Johnson said.

To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.” That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.

What’s interesting is that while Gary Johnson tried to distance himself from calling his proposal a tax when talking with a newspaper in the “red state” of Alaska, he was more honest when discussing the idea in an editorial newsroom that looks more favorably on taxes, the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gary-johnson-libertarian-transcript-20160729-snap-story.html). Along with crediting the free-market, and not the regulations of the Obama administration, with the decline of the American coal industry, Governor Johnson said he was “open also to the notion of a carbon tax. That it does have an impact, that it ends up being revenue-neutral.”

While it’s nice of Gary Johnson to not want to grow the government coffers with a carbon tax, unfortunately that detail doesn’t make this proposal any less concerning, nor any more “free-market.”

After all, it is impossible for a president or legislature to impose a “free-market” tax (or fee) on anything. Considering the explicit goal here would be an attempt to try to use government tax collectors to alter the behavior of carbon-dioxide emitters, it’s difficult to see this as anything but government intervention. Though this pattern of confusing intervention with the free market might also explain why Gary Johnson frequently credits the free market, and not the Obama administration’s regulatory burdens, for the decline of the American coal industry.

Johnson also tries to follow the common trick used by some “conservative” carbon tax advocates (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/410905/carbon-tax-has-something-everyone-irwin-stelzer) by describing their tax as a “price on carbon.” In his interview with the Juneau Empire, Gary Johnson describes his proposal as a “market cost.” Of course calling an arbitrary government-imposed penalty on carbon emission a “market cost” is as disingenuous as not calling such a plan a “tax.” As Dr. David Henderson pointed (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/a-carbon-tax-is-not-a-price) out in responding to such rhetorical games:


[C]arbon already has a price, or, more exactly, multiple prices. Natural gas has a price; oil has a price; coal has a price. And their prices are related to the valuable carbon component of those fuels because it’s carbon that makes those fuels valuable. Just as there’s no such thing as a free lunch, carbon is not free.

In his defense, Governor Johnson admits that he isn’t up on the finer details of what he envisions in a carbon tax, telling the LA Times, “I have really just come on board with recognizing that there are a lot of people that are embracing this, that I value their opinion.”

With that being the case, I’d suggest Gary Johnson listen less to “free market” economists like Greg Mankiw (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-carbon-tax-that-america-could-live-with.html), and instead look into the work of people like our own Robert Murphy. Not only has Murphy outlined the dangers implicit with entrusting government to combat climate change (http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Murphyclimate.html), but has illustrated the specific fallacies embedded with the very idea of a revenue neutral-carbon tax (http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2012/Murphycarbon.html):


Proponents of a carbon tax swap deal are right when they claim that the gross harms of a new carbon tax can be partially offset if its receipts are used to reduce other taxes. However, they typically leap from this true claim to the unjustified conclusion that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will be a "win-win" for the economy — by reducing distortions from the tax code as well as providing environmental benefits. On the contrary, it is theoretically possible and empirically likely that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will impose more deadweight loss on the economy, offsetting at least some of the potential environmental benefits.

And in case if Gary Johnson would like to further brush up on what real free market solutions look like, most of the Mises U 2016 lectures are now available on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnB2WIYmC2I&list=PLALopHfWkFlE7yG_OQeKW7Ri43_V5gKr1) and SoundCloud (https://soundcloud.com/misesmedia/sets/mises-university-2016).



"Dear Gary Johnson, There Is No 'Free Market' Carbon Tax (https://mises.org/blog/dear-gary-johnson-there-no-free-market-carbon-tax-1)" by Tho Bishop is licensed under CC BY NC ND 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)

[timosman]

Does the military need to pay the carbon tax while waging wars around the planet? :confused:

[AuH20]

767980745461669888

[undergroundrr]

Does the military need to pay the carbon tax while waging wars around the planet? :confused:

You will find no lack of ultra-left wing sites pointing out that the MIC is the biggest polluter on the planet. And on that point they seem to be absolutely correct.

[AuH20]

You will find no lack of ultra-left wing sites pointing out that the MIC is the biggest polluter on the planet. And on that point they seem to be absolutely correct.

See Viegues, Puerto Rico.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J5x7v2J9I4

[Anti Federalist]

Johnson and Weld are liberals, not libertarians.

[Occam's Banana]

[I]ndustrial pollution is damaging to the property and person of other businesses and individuals. It violates the NAP. Ron Paul has alluded to how, early in the industrial revolution, business and government colluded to relieve factories of responsibility for pollution damage. Libertarians have been poor at coming up with a solution for it and so the carbon tax and other progressive schemes fill the gap.

No they don't. In fact, they serve only to further entrench and exacerbate the problem - as does the EPA, for another example. In fact, the EPA (of which Johnson approves) is one of the primary tools government and business colluders use to limit (or even eliminate) the liability of polluters and prevent property owners from being made whole.

All that any of these gimmicks do is allow NAP violators either to "get away with it" altogether or to foist any resulting expenses upon consumers and taxpayers at large. That is exactly what will happen with any so-called "carbon tax" (or "fee" or whatever other euphemism Johnson et al. might care to use). Consumers and smaller producers - much to the detriment of both, and especially the latter - will end up paying, while the feds make bank and the politically-connected bigger producers benefit from the anti-competitive effects (among other things), thereby strengthening even further the unholy alliance between big government and big business. Why any of this is to be considered "practical" or "pragmatic" by libertarians is beyond me ...

[undergroundrr]

No they don't. In fact, they serve only to further entrench and exacerbate the problem - as does the EPA, for another example. In fact, the EPA (of which Johnson approves) is one of the primary tools government and business colluders use to limit (or even eliminate) the liability of polluters and prevent property owners from being made whole.

All that any of these gimmicks do is allow NAP violators either to "get away with it" altogether or to foist any resulting expenses upon consumers and taxpayers at large. That is exactly what will happen with any so-called "carbon tax" (or "fee" or whatever other euphemism Johnson et al. might care to use). Consumers and smaller producers - much to the detriment of both, and especially the latter - will end up paying, while the feds make bank and the politically-connected bigger producers benefit from the anti-competitive effects (among other things), thereby strengthening even further the unholy alliance between big government and big business. Why any of this is to be considered "practical" or "pragmatic" by libertarians is beyond me ...

Your points are valid, and I respect your building your case. But GJ has been a consistent pragmatist, so I don't see why people act so surprised and outraged when he says he's open to tinkering with the system to nudge it toward freedom.

What you have is a guy who does think that environmental issues are in the government's court because as he's said, "You don’t have deep pockets to go up against Chevron."

Let's try to build the bigger picture.

Gary Johnson addresses corporatism: “In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators and personal choices will ultimately bring about the environmental restoration and protection society desires,”

As for the EPA, my understanding is that in NM he actually had a history of using it for what it's supposed to do, prevent pollution. Whether he did it fairly and whether legitimate businesses were unjustly shit-canned deserves in-depth study. My knowledge ends at what he's said about it. Whatever problems one has with GJ, I haven't seen him to demonstrably be a lying snake, so I'll presume he's in earnest until proven guilty.

GJ: "Do I want to eliminate the EPA? No, I don’t want to eliminate the EPA. I think there’s a 43% largesse built into most government that a 43% in federal spending will really, will really bleed out the largesse. But the EPA for example, there are polluters. And as Governor of New Mexico, I saw it. And if it wasn’t for the EPA, they’ll still be polluting to this day. But because of the EPA, we’re able to shut them down. And I as governor was able to use that agency to be able to do that. So government has a role to protect us against individuals that would do us harm, and that’s businesses that would do us harm, and government has a role to provide for a strong national defense that we are not threatened militarily and that our way of life ends up changed."

Again: "Government exists to protect us against individuals, groups, and corporations that would do us harm. Rules and regulations should exist to accommodate this. The EPA protects us against those that would pollute, and without them a lot more polluters would be allowed to pollute."

And Johnson the pragmatist again: "There are bad actors who would pollute our water supplies and our air if allowed to do so, and we must have laws and regulations to protect innocent Americans from the harm those bad actors would do. However, common sense must prevail, and the costs of all regulations must be weighed against the benefits. The government should simply stay out of the business of trying to promote or 'manage' energy development. The marketplace will meet our energy needs in the most economical and efficient manner possible – if government will stay out of the way."

And for a little more insight on why he favors the carbon tax: "You know, I'm accepting that global warming is man-caused. That said, I am opposed to cap and trade. I think that free-market approach. Hey, we're all demanding less carbon emission. I think we're going to get it."

Again, we're talking about a left-leaner (which is why he takes more votes from Clinton). The right wing approach has been to just let things take care of themselves. You and I know that in an entrenched corporatist system that ain't happening. So the right-wing way has been to just lie back and relax and enjoy the pollution.

I'm an ancap and I don't want to see any carbon taxes or energy departments or any of it, but I allow myself ideological space for a transitional approach. GJ has been very consistent in his direction with this. He's also pretty fluid without flip-flopping, so don't be shocked if he's considering another "idea worth considering" next week.

[jmdrake]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

http://i.imgur.com/leymwyW.png

Can I sue Al Gore for dumping toxic waste into your brain?

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes. There is not and cannot be any such thing as a libertarian (or non-"un-libertarian") tax.

If libertarian means anarcho-capitalist, that's true.

But I'd include both anarcho-capitalists and minarchists in the libertarian category.

It's just semantics, but to define it the way you're implying results in absurdities like Ron Paul or Mises not being considered libertarians.

[jmdrake]

I can accept it as a transitional step. GJ is very vocal about ending the IRS and moving to a fair tax. Again, I hate the fair tax unless it's seen as transitional. GJ is a pragmatist. He's going to look for ways to head toward a balanced budget. Collecting revenues can be seen as part of that picture.

But if a carbon tax got stacked on top of everything else, that's all bad.

On the other hand, industrial pollution is damaging to the property and person of other businesses and individuals. It violates the NAP. Ron Paul has alluded to how, early in the industrial revolution, business and government colluded to relieve factories of responsibility for pollution damage. Libertarians have been poor at coming up with a solution for it and so the carbon tax and other progressive schemes fill the gap.

Except CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT POLLUTION! Seriously who but the brain dead liberals on the planet believes that? CO2 is a naturally occurring as oxygen and water. And technically water is much more of a "greenhouse gas" than CO2. So those hydrogen cars that emit water vapor? They will be taxed next as will your tea kettle.

[specsaregood]

Johnson and Weld are liberals, not libertarians.

Who would have thought the LP candidate would propose taxing feeing you simply for breathing. But hey, tax that and the pot smoking and we'll be halfway to covering the deficit. Can't afford the permit to breathe? No problem, off to the soylent green factory for you.

[undergroundrr]

off to the soylent green factory for you.

Thankfully he wasn't in office in NM long enough to implement that program. :rolleyes:

[Occam's Banana]

Yes. There is not and cannot be any such thing as a libertarian (or non-"un-libertarian") tax.
If libertarian means anarcho-capitalist, that's true.

It's true even if "libertarian" does not mean (only) "anarcho-capitalist," per the following ...


But I'd include both anarcho-capitalists and minarchists in the libertarian category.

So would I. As I said several days ago in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499651-Gary-Johnson-Just-Detonated-His-Own-Candidacy):



Terms like "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are what I call "genus" words (which denote broadly defined categories), while terms like "Constitutionalist" or "anarcho-capitalist" or "Objectivist" are what I call "species" words (which denote particular and more stringently defined kinds within a given genus). In this regard, I like Walter Block's presentation of libertarianism as three concentric circles, the smallest of which is restricted to those who accept and adopt the Non-Aggression Principle (such as Murray Rothbard and Block himself). The next circle contains the innermost, as well as minarchists and strictly-limited-government types (such as Ludwig von Mises, Ron Paul and Ayn Rand). The third and broadest circle encloses the first two and is extended to subsume classical liberals and other generally pro-freedom/pro-market types (such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek). The more a person is willing to tolerate deviations or departures from the NAP, the further out on the radius that person is - until at some imprecisely defined point, he or she is no longer within the ambit of libertarianism at all.

It's just semantics, but to define it the way you're implying results in absurdities like Ron Paul or Mises not being considered libertarians.

But it doesn't imply any such absurdity. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises are people. Taxes (of any kind) are not. The kinds of considerations that define people as being "libertarian" (or not) are not the kinds of considerations that define things like "taxes" as being "libertarian" (or not).

To repeat something else I said in the same post from which I quoted myself above:



[W]hile things like carbon taxes, basic incomes, etc. may by some standard be considered "better" than (or at least "not as bad" as) whatever we may happen to have at any given moment, they are nonetheless fundamentally anti-libertarian in nature. An income tax rate of X%, for example, is certainly and clearly preferable to an income tax rate of Y% (where X < Y) - but this does not mean that income taxes are (or in any way can be) "libertarian." Discounting values of "zero," there is not and cannot be any such thing as a (more or less) "libertarian" income tax. There likewise cannot be any such thing as a (more or less) "libertarian" carbon tax or basic income.
One may be a "libertarian" and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind). But to the extent that one does so, one moves out by just that much along the radius of the Blockian circle, until eventually ...

[undergroundrr]

But to the extent that one does so, one moves out by just that much along the radius of the Blockian circle, until eventually ...

As in Walter???

[Occam's Banana]

But to the extent that one does so, one moves out by just that much along the radius of the Blockian circle, until eventually ...
As in Walter???

:confused: "As in Walter," what?

If you are referring to his "Libertarians for Trump" nonsense, that is a matter of strategy, not of substance.

As foolish or counterproductive as that (or any other) strategy may be, I was referring to categorically anti-libertarian policies (such as a tax of any kind). This was made clear in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, which you elided: "One may be a 'libertarian' and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind). But [...]"

Strategies are value-neutral and are not susceptible to being denoted as "libertarian" or "not libertarian."

So far as I know, Walter Block does not endorse any kind of tax or other categorically anti-libertarian policy.

(If you are not referring to Block's "Libertarians for Trump" nonsense, then I don't have the vaguest clue what you're getting at.)

[r3volution 3.0]

One may be a "libertarian" and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind)

Ah, I understand your definition now.

However, I'd argue that taxation per se is not unlibertarian. Taxes to support a minarchist state are not unlibertarian - they serve to minimize aggression (the alternative to the minarchist state being not anarcho-capitalism [which is impossible] but another type of state [which would, by definition, be more aggressive than a minarchist state), and anything which serves to minimize aggression is libertarian. Putting aside the debate over anarcho-capitalism, granting me arguendo that it's impossible, would you agree with this reasoning? If the minarchist state is the best possible form of social organization, the one which every libertarian should attempt to establish, nothing essential to its existence (like taxes) can be unlibertarian?

P.S. Mises reasoned similarly:


Thus, peaceful human cooperation, the prerequisite of prosperity and civilization, cannot exist without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e., without a government. The evils of violence, robbery, and murder can be prevented only by an institution that itself, whenever needed, resorts to the very methods of acting for the prevention of which it is established. There emerges a distinction between illegal employment of violence and the legitimate recourse to it. In cognizance of this fact some people have called government an evil, although admitting that it is a necessary evil. However, what is required to attain an end sought and considered as beneficial is not an evil in the moral connotation of this term, but a means, the price to be paid for it.

Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, p. 97

[undergroundrr]

:confused: "As in Walter," what?

I just wasn't aware of the concept of Walter Block defining some kind of consensus libertarian target ala the Nolan Chart.

If I disagree with the validity of evictionism does it move me away from the center? Totally off topic, I know.

Despite his follies, I don't disrespect him. It just seemed a little out of left field.

[Natural Citizen]

If you read it right, the general welfare Clause is merely a declaratory statement qualifying the reasons to collect taxes and extends no new powers.

Which means...it served as limitation on the power to tax. As I said. Again...what is authorized. Consent. Just powers. Congress lacks the power to decide what is the General Welfare. They lack the power to decide such things arbitrarily.

For clarity read Federalist no 83, 17, 31, 45 and 10 that contain language specific to the taxing clause. The Federalist Papers are the authority in matters of understanding the constitution for its specific intent. Congress does not possess "general legislative authority." It is granted zero power to exceed its constitutional authority or responsibilities at the expense of the American people's income or other money or property. Zero.

The only way they could possible weasel around it would be to say it's a matter of national security. Which, interestingly, they're beginning to say that climate change is a matter of national security. The fact that they're even using that particular language now should suffice as proof that they fully know that it is unconstitutional and that they lack the taxing power. They're trying to weasel around their lack of taxing power by using that language.

[r3volution 3.0]

...dupe

[Occam's Banana]

I just wasn't aware of the concept of Walter Block defining some kind of consensus libertarian target ala the Nolan Chart.

The "Block circles" device doesn't purport to be any kind of dispositive "test" like the Nolan chart. It's not nearly as "neat and tidy" as the Nolan chart pretends to be; nor was it designed as a recruiting or proselytizing tool, as the Nolan chart was.

It's just an informally illustrative device he's used in a few presentations I've seen over the years, as part of Block's answer to people who ask him whether folks like Milton Friedman are "really" libertarians or not.

Just off-hand, I can't find any of the videos in which he uses the device. I did find this brief clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGqghRu0KrY) (part of a longer interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n4eNTINmk8)) in which he identifies Hayek and Friedman as libertarians, though he doesn't go into the "circles" thing. (However, it should be noted that in other more formal and rigorous contexts, such as this paper (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Is-Milton-Friedman-a-Libertarian-.pdf), Block denies that Friedman is a "libertarian" and identifies him as a "classical liberal.")


If I disagree with the validity of evictionism does it move me away from the center?

I'm sure Walter would be the first to say that it would not. He has, for example, explicitly acknowledged Rothbard's disagreement with him on "evictionism." The whole abortion issue, in this context, revolves around whether and how the NAP should apply to the unborn vis-à-vis mothers. Even those at the very "center" of Block's circles can disagree over the answers to such questions.

[euphemia]

When I boil this down, there is no way this is not another transfer of wealth. In my opinion, taxes and fees should never be used to engineer economic output or personal behavior. When some kind of social or economic change is the goal, then it is a tax, and it is a transfer of wealth.

[anaconda]

Does the military need to pay the carbon tax while waging wars around the planet? :confused:

And don't forget the depleted uranium recycling fee.

[TheTexan]

I sometimes act like I might vote for him, to impress my hipster friends.

I wouldn't actually ever do it of course - he's way too libertarian for my tastes

[undergroundrr]

Here's Gary Johnson's position:

"If any of you heard me say I support a carbon tax...Look, I haven't raised a penny of taxes in my politicial career and neither has Bill [Weld]. We were looking at—I was looking at—what I heard was a carbon fee which from a free-market standpoint would actually address the issue and cost less. I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that.

"And I support a person's right to choose, so when it comes to vaccinations we should be able to make the decision whether we want to vaccinate our kids or not. I choose to vaccinate my kid and you never say never. Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine." - Gary Johnson, Aug. 25, 2016 (http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again).

[GunnyFreedom]

The Constitution does not allow mandating vaccines for a "Zombie Apocalypse" either.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm sure Walter would be the first to say that it would not. He has, for example, explicitly acknowledged Rothbard's disagreement with him on "evictionism." The whole abortion issue, in this context, revolves around whether and how the NAP should apply to the unborn vis-à-vis mothers. Even those at the very "center" of Block's circles can disagree over the answers to such questions.

As for me, I do not believe "evictionism" is valid at this point in time, but I do believe that it will become valid one day when we are technologically capable of gestating a fetus in artificial wombs. It will become valid when a child can be removed from the womb and gestated artificially without harming it. Until that point, "evictionism" is invalid because that child did not ask to be conceived, it is not there of it's own free will.

[euphemia]

No rep to give you, Gunny. Heroic post there.

[Occam's Banana]

As for me, I do not believe "evictionism" is valid at this point in time, but I do believe that it will become valid one day when we are technologically capable of gestating a fetus in artificial wombs. It will become valid when a child can be removed from the womb and gestated artificially without harming it. Until that point, "evictionism" is invalid because that child did not ask to be conceived, it is not there of it's own free will.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

You just perfectly described my own assessment of "evictionism."

I recall speculating way back in the day in an Intro Philosophy paper that a lot of abortion controversy might be mooted by technology someday.


[snip]

I'm going to get around to replying to this sooner or later ...

[GunnyFreedom]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

You just perfectly described my own assessment of "evictionism."

I recall speculating way back in the day in an Intro Philosophy paper that a lot of abortion controversy might be mooted by technology someday.

I also believe for reasons separate from politics, that no fetus will be viable for an artificial womb, until after the development of a placental blood gas exchange. I also pray that there are not very many mistakes in the learning of that, even if they never do know exactly why.

[GunnyFreedom]

Really, the way certain things tend to work in synchronicity with natural law, I would also expect the technology to only be feasible once the fetus has developed a placental blood gas transfer, and then the machine would likely connect via the fully operational placenta.

God does not tend to leave those kinds of things to chance, I think.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Maybe he is trying to help Trump get elected :confused:

Johnson is definitely driving sane undecided voters to the Trump camp when he spouts off with this kind of Communist dementia.

[nikcers]

Johnson is definitely driving sane undecided voters to the Trump camp when he spouts off with this kind of Communist dementia.

Then Trump says something twice as stupid and drives sane undecided voters back to apathy.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian?

Yes.


You have to penalize or restrict pollution.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. The very idea is a transparent lie. This lie is anti-life and anti-human. Only demonic statists peddle this garbage.


there are a lot bigger things to complain about with Johnson than this.

False. This carbon tax idea is at least as bad as the unConstitutional global-government TPP, and indeed probably worse. A huge-command-and-control taxing every aspect of our daily lives and the economy multiple times over? A penalty for breathing? GTFO. This is the most outrageous bullshit from Gary Johnson in his history.

[nikcers]

Yes.



Carbon dioxide is not pollution. The very idea is a transparent lie. This lie is anti-life and anti-human. Only demonic statists peddle this garbage.



False. This carbon tax idea is at least as bad as the unConstitutional global-government TPP, and indeed probably worse. A huge-command-and-control taxing every aspect of our daily lives and the economy multiple times over? A penalty for breathing? GTFO. This is the most outrageous bull$#@! from Gary Johnson in his history.

Are you just against climate science all together or are you just against the government force? I am very curious of the idea of man made climate change in the sense that I hope one day we are capable of it, and that we can go out into space, and essentially create climates for us to live in on other planets in other galaxies. To me I just see it as the natural progression of the human race, the Egyptians built pyramids that pointed at constellations because they thought that could make them go there.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I am "for" all science and against the anti-science lie that CO2 is a climate driver on this planet Earth.

[nikcers]

I am "for" all science and against the anti-science lie that CO2 is a climate driver on this planet Earth.

Are you sponsored by Genie energy?

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Are you sponsored by Genie energy?


What kind of asinine question is this?

Here's one for you:

Do you rape puppies?

[nikcers]

What kind of asinine question is this?

Here's one for you:

Do you rape puppies?

nope, see I am not afraid to answer lol

[timosman]

What kind of asinine question is this?

Here's one for you:

Do you rape puppies?

How you stopped raping puppies? FTFY

[GunnyFreedom]

What kind of asinine question is this?

Here's one for you:

Do you rape puppies?

It was an asinine question. A disbelief in CO2 driven AGW does not in any way shape or form imply 'shill for the energy companies.'

[nikcers]

Dog Rapist Beaten By Mob For Live Sex Broadcasts - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKSmZ9sOqo)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKSmZ9sOqo


4 days ago - A man who livestreamed himself forcing dogs into submission and then having sex with them has been stripped and beaten by a mob of angry animal rights ...


It was an asinine question. A disbelief in CO2 driven AGW does not in any way shape or form imply 'shill for the energy companies.'

I assumed it was real question. The question that I asked him was obviously a joke I just wanted to know how far down the rabit hole he went. Some people outright deny science, which is why we have images like this.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/265/jxtV0.jpg

[Natural Citizen]

I am "for" all science and against the anti-science lie that CO2 is a climate driver on this planet Earth.

Thing about science is that there really isn't any right or wrong answer to a given question. The very nature of science demands that we must continue to always ask questions.

It's batsht crazy to scribble up and enforce policy that is based on a theoretical answer to something. The policy is permanent and enforceable whereas the answer in relation to a specific theory is likely temporary and subject to change as more questions are asked with regard to said theory.

But...stuff like this is exactly why it is critical to demand answers from prospective and current leaders as to their position on science. Particularly given that they lead in a time when technology and science impacts policy and ultimately right and pocketbooks of The People.

[nikcers]

Thing about science is that there really isn't any right or wrong answer to a given question. The very nature of science demands that we must continue to always ask questions.

It's batsht crazy to scribble up and enforce policy that is based on a theoretical answer to something. The policy is permanen wereas the thoretica lanswer may be changed as more questions are asked in relation to a specific theory.

There is a loophole to your straw man, science says that when new facts come into the equation you adjust the hypothesis. Otherwise you are just against bad science.

[Natural Citizen]

There is a loophole to your straw man, science says that when new facts come into the equation you adjust the hypothesis. Otherwise you are just against bad science.

I tend to go by the good ol' handy dandy Boloney Detection Kit...


Baloney Detection Kit - Warning signs that suggest deception.

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?




Additionally...

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words (Zombie Apocalypse)

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway. It's too early for a bunch of back and forth dick waving. Heh. I'm going to go do some pushups and have breakfast. Maybe go out on muh porch and listen to the songbirds before the sun comes up.