Accepting the global-warming inevitable

"reason to hope"? sure...
the global temp FELL about one degree in 2007...
which wiped out a whole century of warming...
and...
didn't the IPCC just agree to a new conclusion about their computer models?
that there will be a NATURAL COOLING for about the next TEN YEARS? so...
basically they're saying that their models were WRONG...
but after about ten years, their models will be right again...
WHAT A JOKE!
there is no "greenhouse gas" that humans can produce enough of to warm the planet...
hope that helps...

sun faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive God...

Irenaeus, I'm with you, man alive, I finally agree with Heretic! There is now absolutely no question: there is a God!

Easy on Rod; just a little epistemic arrogance. Unread books and all that.

sun faith hope joy peace to all...
Forgive Rod...

The latest climate predictions are now saying we will be facing at least a decade of global cooling. Lets burn those fossil fuels! :) On a more serious note, some very interesting work is being done on algal biofuels i.e. fuel derived from cultivated pond scum. Some algal species have 50% of their body weight in oil and they are the fastest growing plants on the planet. Algae can double in number in 24 hours. Per acre yields may reach between 10 thousand and 20 thousand gallons of diesel fuel per acre per year depending on the system. It could give the US energy independence and be grown on a tiny fraction of land currently used for crops or even be grown on non-agricultural land. Some species can grow using seawater or brackish water.

Ethanol had less to do with 'global warming hysteria' and far more to do with active lobbying by Archer-Midland. They were subsidizing Ethanol long before anyone ever heard the words 'Global Warming'.

And yeah, the algae based biofuels sound like a great direction for further research.

No more winter! No more winter!! Yay!! Hooray!! It means the growing season up here is going to be longer and our heating bills will be less.

Love it! "putting the cart a few solar systems ahead of the horse"

Watch Charlie Rose interview Michael Crichton to get the "reason" for Erin's antipathy to irrational fear :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noec6Xkx73k

BBC's "Horizon" version of the NOVA show here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkJUJ5-PL-0

0. Re. peak oil & AGW: does anyone know of AGW models that take peak oil into account?

1. Re. China & AGW: I agree that it's not terribly productive to zero out US GHGs while the ROW (third world in particular) keeps emitting them. Note that limiting US GHG emissions necessarily implies limiting imports from non-GHG-limiting countries (e.g., China), unless we want to see the remainder of our industrial base exported to such countries.

2. I agree we should R&D algae biodiesel; but I'm not overly sanguine about its near-term prospects. See here:

i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/05/algal-biodiesel-fact-or-fiction.html

...wherein the main author of the Aquatic Species Program's final report pours cold water on Dr. Biggs & other algae biodiesel advocates. This doesn't sound like off-the-shelf tech buried by greedy oil companies, so much as lab experiments that require lots of time & effort to scale up to reality.

3. Why I'm not worried about AGW:

futurepundit.com/archives/cat_engineering_climate.html

Erin, Irenaeus, mdavid, and G-heretic (wow) have all hit home runs here.

For as far back as anyone can tell, the planet has warmed, then cooled, then warmed, then cooled. What caused coastal erosion in Canada's maritime provinces about a thousand years ago? Why, none other than climate change. What caused the climate change? Automobiles? China?

We are doing some awful things to the environment: too many fertilizers on the land, airborne chemicals (from insecticide spraying) ruining our health, too many artificial boosters given to the animals we raise for food, etc. But if we think watching our carbon emissions is going to solve climate change problems, we really ought to think again. Climate change is part of nature, and always has been.

>>>If you have reason to hope in the face of booming China (to say nothing of India), please, let's hear it.

Nuclear power plants

In the end, whether or not global warming is manmade doesn't matter. Most of the things proposed are good on their own. After all, we're talking about not throwing so much away, reusing what we buy, buying less crap, using less energy, all of which (you'd think a group called CONSERVatives would be into this) are also good financial stewardship of your own money.

But the fact is, I don't think we even do that great at it. When it comes to China and India and such, they can't afford it, but when it comes to consistent action, and the West and the majority of our population, we not only resist because we 'don't believe in it', we not only won't do what could reduce our income or cause us serious effort, or mental energy..

You have people who won't toss a bottle into a bin that's right beside the garbage can. Who toss their cigarette butts on the ground BESIDE an available ashtray. The only thing it 'costs' is a second of thought before doing what is sheer habit.

Call me a cynic if you like. But at this point, I'm pretty sure that.. We wouldn't take those measures even if it would only cause most of us any serious INCONVENIENCE.

FYI, China already has overtaken us in terms of emissions.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/04/worlds_top_polluter_its_china.html

Thank you, God Is A Heretic, Iranaeus and M. David! Rod, I know you already follow too many websites, but I implore you to investigate "Watt's Up With That". The MSM seems determined to propagate the AGW scam, so you are not going to get anything approaching balance until you dig a bit deeper. The quiet sun is a far greater risk to human life and enterprise than any amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. Despite the infinite wisdom of the Supreme Court, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If the switch of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO to it's friends) to a cold mode coincides with an extended sunspot minimum, as may be happening this morning, we could end up paying people to generate as much CO2 as possible. Google "Maunder Minimum" for starters. Much scarier than anything the prophet Algore has proclaimed.

For rhetoric on this issue, no one matches the late Kurt Vonnegut:

From an interview:

DAVID BRANCACCIO: The planet is sort of trying to shed us as if we are some sort of toxin.

KURT VONNEGUT: Look, I'll tell you. It's one thing that no cabinet had ever had, is a Secretary Of The Future. And there are no plans at all for my grandchildren and my great grandchildren.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: That's a great idea. In other words a Cabinet post--

KURT VONNEGUT: Well, it's too late! Look, the game is over! The game is over. We've killed the planet, the life support system. And, and it's so damaged that there's no recovery from that. And we're very soon going to run out of petroleum which powered everything that's modern. Razzmatazz about America. And, and it was very shallow people who imagined that we could keep this up indefinitely.

Come now. Responsible use of the environment, pollution controls and restraint with non-renewables is bad for profits. Why look any further than that?

And then there's good ol' economic supply and demand. US consumption went down last month, (I heard on the radio-unconfirmed data!) due to rising costs. Even mean Republicans like me are cutting back; I drove the 15-passenger van as little as possible, because it gets 9 mpg city total*.

* Or 90 person-miles per gallon, when the whole family travels in it.

Scott, most of the measures to reduce 'greenhouse gases' DO reduce the crap we spew in the air. What do you think those gases are? No plant emits pure CO2.

All of the measures increase thrift, reduce cost, favor durability and a clean environment over the alternative.

Not a one I can think of doesn't stand on its own as a good idea, even without global warming.

And everyone has noted that 'global warming' does NOT mean necessarily hotter temps across the board.

Heck, one of the big (and fictional in case you're going to go over the science in it) films 'Day After Tomorrow' featured a big FREEZE as a consequence.

If you don't think the current weather conditions aren't in the news, I wonder what news you are watching, given we've already had 200 more tornadoes this year than the average.

And thanks for your Nigerian opportunity, I don't need the cash.

And there won't be an upcoming year with a higher temp to cancel out this ONE YEAR in North Dakota?

Who knows. What they do know is the pattern (not one year, but over the years) of ever increasing number and severity of extreme weather.

Little comfort to the hundreds who have died in Virginia, Arkansas, etc.

And there won't be an upcoming year with a higher temp to cancel out this ONE YEAR in North Dakota?

That would make it average.

That's the point, Aaron. Someone was pointing to a single year in North Dakota to cancel out an entire average.

My point was exactly that. One year is NOT an average. This year's batch of tornadoes was above and beyond. But it is also part of a progressive pattern more than one year in the making of ever increasing duration, frequency and severity of such weather.

But, again, for both of you, it doesn't matter. Every single item that is listed has merits on its own.

If Joe says that 'I always look both way for cars before I cross the street because it appeases the gremlins who offer me favor and good fortune upon street crossings'..' Does that change the fact that it is good common sense to look both ways before crossing the street?

Because it is a POLLUTANT. There's also laws aimed at a dozen other specific pollutants. PCB's, etc.

The optimal amount of it, as it is a pollutant, is none. Is there some reason why you think that having less would be a bad thing?

I finally got around to watching 'An Inconvenient Truth' yesterday, and Al Gore said something that was dead on: It's amazing how many people flip immediately from denying climate change is happening to denying there's anything anyone can do about it.

Well, there is. First of all, forget China. China, believe it or not, is a totalitarian nation of conformists. If the China government wants to change the entire direction of their nation, they can do it. And China, as is pointed out by Gore, in an extremely bad position regarding a rising ocean. They have literally a hundred millions people who'd be homeless if water levels rose 20 feet.

No, China's going to change. They have to. They've actually already started. Their automobile mpg is way up there. They have no compunctions about nuclear power plants.

Second, stop pretending this is a political issue. We need to start doing things now. Hell, we needed to do it ten years ago. We needed to do it when Carter said it.

The reason isn't what people think. The reason is that we are running out of cheap energy, which incidentally is a completely unrelated disaster that people have been happily ignoring. We need mass transit, we need renewable sources of energy, we need an electrical transport system for food, and we need them before we can't build them because we have no damn gas or electricity to move materials around.

Notice there's not a single word in last paragraph that has anything to do with climate change. Climate change is just the exclamation point on our century of burning through non-renewable resources while making no provisions for the future. It's the punchline that's going to require us moving tens of millions of people from their houses as they sink under the waves...right as we run out of fuel.

I don't know what the generation after Generation Y will be called, but I suspect it will be the 'Consequences Generation'.

But we can start changing things. We can work now to figure out how to operate a society without gasoline and burning things for energy, because there are two reasons that will destroy society in the next 30 years. The changes will require us changing how cities and suburbs operate, and actually embracing telecommuting and mass transit and local food.

But, I'm sure all the people here will continue to pretend this is some sort of political issue, and half the posts will be people arguing there is no climate change and oil will magically keep lasting forget, and the other half people arguing with them.

Several points:

1. We really have had cold weather for the past year, at least in England. In 2007, we scarcely had a summer, and this year Spring has only just started - many of the veg seeds that I planted in March rotted in the ground, and I've had to re-dig and re-plant. On balance, I still do TEND to think that global warming is both real and anthropogenic, but I wish there were more honest debate.

2. Why is there no debate about the ideal climate? In northern Europe, a temperature increase of a few degrees would almost certainly be a good thing - we could grow figs and oranges as well as apples and plums. Everyone seems to want to take their holidays on the Mediterranean. Is it rapid change that is a bad thing? Why is there no debate about this?

To look at this on a global level, one would have to decide what the ideal world is.
- To many greens, it is biodiversity, and, as tropical rainforests have the highest biodiversity, anything that makes the world hotter and more humid must be a good thing??
- Some might favour the world that could support the highest human population - what is the effect of temperature on that?
- Rod might favour anything that enables the dense settlement of Siberia, increasing the Orthodox share of the world's population.
- People who live in hot countries, and also Muslims, Afrocentrists, etc., are probably against global warming.
The list of optima is almost endless, but someone at least ought to have a shot at some calculations.

What are the absolute upper and lower global temperature limits for human life on earth? Could the earth warm up enough for us to grow wheat in Antarctica after the ice cap melts, or would such an increase lead to the oceans to boil at the Equator, say? Nobody seems to debate these issues?

3. There are other things about which debate seems to be prohibited. For example: a few years ago, when summers were getting warmer, a lot of English people started saying that, well, we really rather like England being more like the south of France. Climate scientists then said that global warming could shut off the Gulf Stream, by melting the Greenland Ice Cap, so NW Europe would actually cool, with England getting a climate like Labrador, at the same latitude on the other side of the Atlantic. Everyone I know then made the obvious comment, that, duh, general warming would probably make Labrador have a climate like present-day England, so local cooling would result in England having the climate that it does at present. Why does no-one say this on TV?

4. Having said all that, I agree with Karen Brown that most actions to prevent global warming are good things in themselves: consume less, recycle more, act against pollution (CO2 is mostly combined with other pollutants), use cars less, etc. My big difficulty is plane use, though - I do like foreign holidays.

The optimal amount of it [CO2], as it is a pollutant, is none.

Then we'd be a snowball.

Is there some reason why you think that having less would be a bad thing?

Huh?

So, here's a 'what if'.

IF (hypothetical, so no, I'm not going into how this would happen, since its very individual) YOU, the ones who don't think it is happening at all, were persuaded, however that could happen, that it was, it was at least partly caused by human behavior, and would have the effects it is supposed to, in that timeframe.. And no, unless you feel like it, this isn't about what it would take to persuade you, and definitely NOT about why you aren't at this point. Just about if you were...

What would you think should be done?

rombald
We really have had cold weather for the past year, at least in England. In 2007, we scarcely had a summer, and this year Spring has only just started - many of the veg seeds that I planted in March rotted in the ground, and I've had to re-dig and re-plant. On balance, I still do TEND to think that global warming is both real and anthropogenic, but I wish there were more honest debate.

Why is there no debate about the ideal climate? In northern Europe, a temperature increase of a few degrees would almost certainly be a good thing - we could grow figs and oranges as well as apples and plums. Everyone seems to want to take their holidays on the Mediterranean. Is it rapid change that is a bad thing? Why is there no debate about this?

That's why I don't call it 'global warming', but climate change. If magically all temperatures in the world went up four degrees and stayed there, and that's all that happened, there wouldn't be an issue at all, except in a few places already at the top end would be rendered more uninhabitable.

Climate change doesn't happen like that. Not only are parts of it non-linear, like the ice at the poles starts melting and will continue because less ice=less reflected sunlight=more heated water, but parts of it cause cooling.

With climate change, we can expect, ironically, shorter summers. But hotter. Much hotter, and drier, because warmer soil absorbs less moisture. Likewise, we can expect droughts...except those times we have torrential downpours.

You guys in England aren't going to experience any warming at all, because the big issue there is that the gulf stream may shut down. The gulf stream pumps warm water from the Gulf of Mexico and Africa to northern Europe, and allows you to live in the temperature equivalent of New England instead of the temperature equivalent of Siberia or Alaska, which you should be at that latitude.

Meanwhile, if it shut downs, North America is going to have to flee the east coast. Not because of the temperature or rising ocean levels, because we will be continually hit with massive hurricanes thanks to the now-immovable warm water sitting off our coast.

This isn't crazy, it's shut down before. It shut down, as 'An Inconvenient Truth' pointed out, when North American's glaciers melted all at once and flooded it with cold water. It restarted again 'shortly', but 'shortly' means a few hundred years. We, meanwhile, are watching Greenland melt, which is roughly the same amount of ice, fairly close to North America.

It's not global warming, it's not even climate change. It's climate randomness. It's, to use a somewhat odd analogy, like we're playing D&D with the earth, and we already assigned each region a climate...but climate change is going to make us re-roll the whole globe and assign each region a new, random climate. And throwing in a few decades of random storms as the climate tries to equalize in its new shape.

Hmmm...promising if true; I still would've preferred to see (say) a study averaging the MPGs of a representative sample of China's automobile fleet, but these sorts of regs are a good start.

That Star piece seemed a bit short on specifics. Regs & standards are cited, but no evidence WRT enforcement & compliance. China is said to be "investing heavily" in clean coal & alternative power...like what? And saying "[climate change] is embedded in the latest five-year plan", without indicating how closely previous five-year plans were adhered to, isn't terribly impressive.

It wouldn't surprise me if, over the next several years, China started displaying some "low-carbon" trends; as you say, they have a lot to lose from AGW. But until I do in fact see those trends, I'll remain skeptical.

As for the Middle East...all China needs to do is look at our current (mis)adventures there to realize that dependence on commodities from such a volatile region may well be more trouble than it's worth.

Again, reducing carbon is not going to hurt, is a pollutant (again, from man-made sources), and will help to reduce it.

Being humans, we can MULTI-task. We can do more than one thing at a time. Especially when both things can be done at the same time.

Reducing emissions reduces ALL pollutants. From PCB's, to carbon DIoxide, to carbon MONoxide, sulfur, heavy metals, the whole laundry list.

So, seems there's no harm you can point to, and plenty of good that can be done even if AGW were entirely false.

Fail to see why people get so ballistic about the idea.

Fail to see why people get so ballistic about the idea.

Because of the intensity that's gone in to the GW debate which has sidelined a lot more serious and more easily measured/modeled environmental pollutants. It's one thing to point to the effects of say sulfur dioxide and get people working against it. CO2 and the greenhouse effect, not so much. I can't tell you how often I hear people saying there doing thsi or that to reduce carbon and I want to scream at them that there's many more important environmental issues to worry about. The earth's been hotter, it's been colder and humans live in a wide range of environs, sorry if I feel pesticides, heavy metals, radioactive waste, lack of regulations etc is more important than some nebulous unpredictable change.

Other Jim, the concept is..

ANYTHING can be a pollutant. That plants breathe it doesn't change that.

Pollutant is like 'weed'. It isn't an inherent quality. Something in the wrong place, at the wrong time, or in the wrong amounts can be a pollutant, or it can be a weed.

A rose in a cornfield is a weed, a stalk of corn in a rose garden is a weed.

Soil in a garden is fine, even desirable. Soil in your jug of lemonade is a contaminant.

And CO2, in the wrong place, or in the wrong amounts, can be a pollutant.

And for Aaron, as noted, the same measures that prevent carbon ALSO prevent those other pollutants.

They prevent the heavy metals, they prevent the sulfur, etc.

But, the other question wasn't answered.

If.. and I don't care how this happens, you were to become firmly persuaded that it really was happening, and that human action was a significant cause, what would YOU support (if anything) to deal with the situation?

"Its not a bad thing to be frugal, to not be wasteful. To save rather than spend. To keep rather than throw away. To buy things that last rather than things that do not. To use less energy than less. To not put anything in the air, in the water, or in the food that you don't want to put in yourself, because that's where it ends up.

Again, all such horrible ideas. Socialist, you know."

No, those are great ideas. But when the state starts to use them as a scam to increase what they take from your paycheck, which is exactly what's happening, that's a problem.

Thing is, Rob G., not a thing HAS to be done by the government. All of it can be done voluntarily. THough the chances of that when people don't seem to even see the need is not bloody likely.

We have businesses resisting MONEY SAVING ideas because they might have to change what they're doing. We have people shipping jobs to the abovementioned China, and the almost as bad India to avoid having to deal with those 'good ideas'.

Not everything we need to do will necessarily save money. Some of it costs money. At least the part the businesses bear. (Its cheap to use toxic pesticides, and to keep more of your crop. Its expensive for the families who drink from that watershed, or eat that food to cure the cancer.. but CornCo doesn't pay that cost.)

Yes, appeals to greed are more successful, but it seems apathy, paranoia and inertia even overwhelms the power of the 'greed force'.

Erin asked a reasonable question that deserves an answer:

"given that weather and climate systems are complex, non-linear iterative systems with built-in predictability problems like most non-mathematically describable, generally non-repeated events, isn't the end result of any massive long-range prediction about such a system that such a prediction is in fact little better than a random guess?"

Seems reasonable, especially given what we know about weather prediction, but the answer is no. Why? Because although the number of factors influencing precipitation are many and too variable to readily quantify beyond ten days out, the factors influencing temperature are fewer, much better understood, and relatively easy to track. (For one, with "hindcasting," we can check models against the past, to see how well they perform -- with and without any given signal, such as solar variance, global warming, volcanic eruptions, etc.)

We've known that injecting CO2 into a closed atmospheric system will raise temperatures since l903; we've been measuring the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere -- which disperses uniformly at higher elevations -- since the l950's, and we've been seeing the warming trends accelerate since the l980's. Broadly speaking, temperature trends don't require weather prediction, because they follow the laws of physics.

Ask any climatologist about these questions, and this is one of the first things they will tell you: that we can project temperatures much more accurately than we can predict precipitation. Then they will start to talk about how long it will take before our atmosphere reaches an new equilibrium -- hundreds of years. We've launched an extreme makeover of the planet: we cannot stop that change, but we can moderate its speed. Shouldn't we try?

Those who say; well, the earth has been warmer than it is at present, and it has been colder -- what's the big deal? Well, they never mention that not so long ago all of North America was covered with a sheet of ice; and, the last time the atmosphere had as much CO2 in it as it does now, the Arctic could support palm trees.

Is that kind of radical change really what we want to leave to our children and grandchildren? Here's a good example, from the most recent consensus (AR4) report of the IPCC, as reported by Eli Rabbet:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/things-are-going-to-get-worse.html

ANY regulation, it seems, same as ANY tax will drive them away. Heck, having to pay their workers a decent wage and provide safe working conditions 'drives them away'.

Look at China, once again, to see what they consider, apparently, to be an acceptable level of worker safety, environmental safety, wage, and quality control. Heck, China isn't cheap enough anymore, since they recently considered paying their workers something and maybe pumping crap into their air and water may not be worth the money and.. big business is threatening the efforts and wanting to take their factories and, no, not go home. Find someplace even more lenient.

So, given we know they are perfectly willing to pollute until the air is literally brown and lakes can catch on fire and have no problem relocating.. what do YOU propose is the 'right balance'?

How much are we really willing to pay for 'cheap' goods?

Because you're right. As long as there isn't consensus multinationally on the most minimally acceptable standards of behavior for business, willing to do anything for a buck, and they have no accountability for the damage they do, they pass on everything to us.

They pass on the health costs, the environmental costs, the social costs. Our wallet is the least of the places their costs hit.

ANY regulation, it seems, same as ANY tax will drive them away. Heck, having to pay their workers a decent wage and provide safe working conditions 'drives them away'.

...So impose a tariff on imported goods, to compensate domestic producers for the additional regulatory & labor costs associated with Stateside operations. Admittedly tariffs have costs - e.g., the encouragement of a certain degree of inefficiency among domestic producers. But there's no such thing as a free lunch.

People believe in the existence of a free lunch quite as fervently as the drivers I encounter during my commute believe in cartoon physics. They generally refuse to be convinced otherwise until it slaps them in the face, and should they survive the slap sometimes not even then.

About weather "predictions": they don't exist. When one hears or reads "X% chance of Y", all that it means is that in the extant records, X% of the days whose conditions match those expected to occur during the period in question had an incidence of Y.

In the present climate of non-chalant science ignorance, I doubt that many will understand that and continue to complain about the weatherman being wrong.

Rob G
I also know that they tend not to clean up their messes unless forced to, so what is needed here is a balanced tax and regulation program that neither drives them away nor gives them a free pass.

The first step of that, as Karan Brown says, is to forget this 'free trade' crap and actually start charging tariffs based on environmental standards of the origination nation. Not even the standards of production of the specific product, the nation as a whole.

Free trade is the root of at least half our problems. Letting companies pick and choose one place to pay taxes, one place to mine the supplies, one place to produce the products, and one place to sell to...results in them picking the cheapest and most lax for every single one.

It's not just an issue of pollution or climate change, or an issue of human rights, or propping up dictatorships. It is, in truth, the cause of the fact the economy's been in the toilet for more than a decade (Although the housing boom managed to hide that fact.), because the American people aren't stupid and actually have laws to protect themselves from corporations. So they go elsewhere.

'Free trade' is possible the most disastrous idea the modern world has ever thought of, pushed by multinationals that wish to pick and choose which laws they follow.

And now someone's going to cry 'protectionism'. Laws designed to protect local companies from a company in Canada or France that is just working smart may not be a good idea, but laws that say 'Company A is, according to our laws, a good citizen, whereas Company B is not, according to our laws. However, as Company B is in China, we can't arrest them or shut them down, but we can charge them a tariff.' are good ideas.

Rob G,

No offense - 'cause you're a good guy and all - but if I see one more person write "corporations don't pay taxes", I will relentlessly seek them out and drag them feet first to my downstairs mix-up, and knock them over the head - with help from my ample supply of empty Bailey's bottles - until they see the light of the moon.

Seriously, dude. Read up on that one. Here's my net profit from spending thirty seconds with Google:
www(dot)bizjournals(dot)com/atlanta/stories/2004/04/12/editorial1.html

As an incorporated business owner, I assure you, we pay state, federal and local taxes. We even pay a "toilet paper tax", thinly disguised as, "business personal property tax", every year.

If I had salaried employees (instead of contractors) I'd be paying half of their FICA plus additional fees to the Industrial Commission to cover unemployment, Workman's Comp, disability, i.e., TAXES.

Oh and let's not forget: as a retailer, I'm automatically enrolled as an UN-reimbursed strong-arm agent of the state, obligated to collect (and turn over on a monthly basis) sales tax.

In small business, whatever net profit is left at the end of any given tax year becomes the additional tax burden of the shareholders of my corporation - that is, it's added onto personal income. (In big companies, it's called a stock dividend.)

All in all, it's a very complex tax picture. Big corporations get certain huge tax breaks, but is doesn't cover them all, as the above article (from the Atlanta Biz Journal) outlines. Small corporations benefit tax wise in other ways such as vehicle, home office and mileage deductions, among other things. If the allowable deductions do not eliminate the net profit, all corporations will pay on what's left over.

(Example: Fiscal year 2007: Exxon corporation paid $30 billion in taxes.)

"No offense - 'cause you're a good guy and all - but if I see one more person write "corporations don't pay taxes", I will relentlessly seek them out and drag them feet first to my downstairs mix-up, and knock them over the head - with help from my ample supply of empty Bailey's bottles - until they see the light of the moon."

LOL -- mm, believe me, I know what you're saying. My dad was a small business owner. My point is merely to contradict the notion that many people have that we can somehow magically lower prices and help the 'little guy' by "taxing the big corporations!" You hear this from the Hilobama and that crowd constantly. Corporations can, in fact, pass some of their tax burden on to the consumer; while this seems to be a fairly clear observation to anyone with a modicum of economic education, there are a lot of people who, surprisingly enough, don't realize it. Of course the Hilobama knows it, but the pitch to hit the big companies with taxes resonates with certain populists and with the economically illiterate. It's another way of creating/exacerbating the class envy that the left is so adept at exploiting.

As I understand it, when calculating the effective corporate income tax rate, the denominator is net earnings, not gross revenues.

'Net earnings' is nothing. They use all sorts of accounting tricks to make sure that nothing is ever 'earnings'.

Why are we taxed on total income (minus, admittedly, some deductions), while they're taxed on earning? Why don't they tax people on earnings? Hell, they tax us twice, one on income and once on spending, which means we're being additional taxed on the opposite of earnings, our spending. They get taxed on however much they have 'left over', and they have all sorts of tricks to make sure they don't, and we get taxed on all the money we get plus all the money we spend. (Of course, the rich have ways to make sure they don't 'get' any money either.)

But, back to the tax rate: You can't compare taxes on income to taxes on earning like they're the same thing. Even assuming that everyone made roughly 10% earnings like Exxon (Which I'm sure they didn't...remember, things like property improvements don't count.), considering the average tax rate is higher than that, we're paying more than 100% tax on net earnings!

See, the problem is, corporations used to have profits. They'd earn money, and they'd distribute it to their stockholders if publically owned or their owners if private. Now, they don't do that. The money doesn't go to the 'owners', it goes to the executives, which mysteriously doesn't count as profit, and mysteriously doesn't get taxed.

You can't compare taxes on income to taxes on earning like they're the same thing.

Okay, so I'll stipulate that Karen's 10% tax rate is a valid measure - hence, Exxon _is_ paying an unfairly low tax rate. My SWAG is that most other corporations are as well (at least by such a calculation). So, to mitigate this unfairness, we tax gross revenues instead of "earnings", and do so at (say) a 25-35% rate.

Query: Wouldn't this simply transform the corporate income tax into a (high-rate) sales tax?

The CEO's don't pay income tax on bonuses? Really? Y'all gone drunk the kool-aid.

Look, I'm no defender of corporate "greed", but tax advantages to large corporations exist for a reason, which is, to create jobs (and health, life, paid vacation and disability benefits to the employees - that is, YOU) in a local economy.

Nobody is stopping anyone in America from becoming an entrepreneur. Go ahead. I dare you ignorant malcontents (you know who you are) to try self-employment for a while. Discover for yourselves that there's no magic bullet. Put up or shut up.

Or, at least admit publicly, you prefer to suck the milk from the "greedy" corporate teat.

Franklin Evans - Thanks for the clarification.

I would only add that, as a practical matter, if a tax on revenues was imposed, I can't imagine corporations _not_ passing it on to the consumer. Faced with a 20% tax on revenues, for instance, an OEM would just raise its prices by 25%, so as to preserve profit margins, bonuses, etc. Other entities along the distribution chain would likewise adjust their prices.

Hence, economically, the end result of a tax on revenues would seem to be indistinguishable from a 25% VAT or 25% retail sales tax, except that you might end up with some double-taxation should "revenues" be defined incorrectly in some instances.

So, since corporations will always 'pass it on to the consumer', why tax them ANYTHING at all?

Hey, why charge them for utilities and supplies either, since they 'pass that on to the consumer' too?

Or maybe, whether they get taxed for it, or not, it gets passed on to the consumer one way or the other anyway.

If they don't pay their taxes, the things they are taxed for (road usage, emergency services, protection of our military, etc) is provided to them, same as everyone else, and they use it more. And guess who pays for that?

Not the consumer, the US CITIZEN.

At least, as a consumer, we have a choice. If they start to charge too much, we can not buy their stuff. If enough people don't buy their stuff, they lower their prices, or they go out of business, and we get our stuff from someone else.

As taxpayers, taking over their burden, we'd have no such choice.

So, do we?

I agree, Franklin, absolutely.

That is the point. They want deregulation in the name of something that doesn't exist, and that doesn't really exist. A free market is free for all parties.

Its free for the business, it is free for the worker, it is free for the consumer as well. When people talk about 'passing the cost onto the consumer' as if the consumer has no choice but to TAKE it, well, what's so 'free' about that market, in the end?

One way or another, everything gets paid for, and it gets paid for by real live people walking around, which are actual persons, not artificial legal constructs.

So, one way or another, people, whether the business owners, the workers, the consumers, or the taxpayer, people (real people) bear the cost of everything businesses do.

At least, last I checked, consumers have still one choice at their disposal. Not to buy what they make.

I agree.. but its still the consumer choice that made this situation.

But.. make the price an honest one, and make the consumers stand by it.

If the consumers want to base it on price, at least THEY are basing it on price. It IS still a choice (even if it is to do without.)

When it is passed on to taxpayers, even the most anti-Walmart (using that example) person still ends up supporting them against their will.

And, since the local blacksmith WAS local, at least the customers did know what he was doing to his animals, and they did have a few other options they could engage in.

They could confront him, they could socially ostracize him, even if they had to buy his services. They could buy the bare minimum possible, not work for him, and their opinion of his actions could reflect in the prices and services and products he got.

This is just a general comment to yours, Franklin, but Karen alludes to the intangible ingredient that influences consumer decisions, which is, customer service.

People will pay more for better service if they feel they are being fairly treated in the transaction. They will not pay more for the lack better service (or lack of convenience).

This is the mistake that Sears and KMart made which opened the doors for Wal-Mart's inevitable expansion. Wal-Mart's service is no better than Sears and KMart, but their prices are lower and that's where they got their market advantage.

That said, if somebody comes up behind Wal-Mart and offers better service at Wal-Mart's prices, Wal-Mart will suffer accordingly and be forced to adjust their business practices.

By the way, your example of the blacksmith is not applicable to these (overly) generalized discussions of macro-economics. That's why these online discussions drive me crazy - overarching principles get trampled underfoot by the EXECPTIONS to the truism.

There's another more tangible one than price. There's, oh... better products. There's better service when you are BUYING a service. There's innovation, there are whole new products and services.

But Walmart, if they beat their horses (using the example), they're being beaten in another country. We don't know about it. But since it isn't horses, and its air, and water, those horses (or chickens) eventually come home to roost with us, and we didn't (or claim we didn't) see it coming.

Oh, and this is assuming that such things as investor profit and employee, and executive compensation are such fixed costs that they can not be reduced when other costs are raised.

There are places the money could come from that don't directly involve the consumer.

The fact that we all know that won't happen has nothing to do with it not being possible, but that they won't drop a single dollar from their compensation packages in order to do so. Even if the corporation were to go down as a result. (And we all have examples of that.)

MM, I concede your challenge to my example... and as a mitigating factor I'll assert that I didn't intend my blacksmith example to be applicable to the modern reality. I do insist that it is a valid comparison point, if only to illustrate how things have changed, and how consumers are constrained but in different ways -- and in ways that are the same, albeit superficially different.

As for your other challenge wrt to service, I must express emphatic skepticism that such a thing would ever happen. Given your "at the same prices" premise, it is much easier to hire a 21-year-old who will "serve" you with a blank stare and mumbled words than a bright-eyed, asks about your kids, have a nice day type... at 25 cents above the minimum wage. The only thing that could bring Wal-Mart down is the commitment of consumers to buy products made by humanely treated people, under civilized conditions, paying them a living wage and with quality control that minimizes defects of any kind, let alone those that are dangerous to the consumer... and to be willing to pay the higher price for them no matter what Wal-Mart offers.

And, of course, the last choice is nobody is, people apparently don't need cogs and widgets as much as they thought they did.

Given the debt of the average US consumer, vs. the push to 'Spend so the terrorists don't win', and the push to frugality and such, I'm sure nobody would suggest buying unnecessary widgets just so corporations can pay more taxes, right?

The point being, that we have Widget and Cog Co, and we have dozens of mom and pop widget providers.

The tax burden, being equal, won't change the prices between various corporations in and of itself. If people need widgets, as the price of gas demonstrates, they practice thrift as much as they can, then they bite the bullet and buy the gas they NEED.

If they switch from Widget to Cog, therefore, it isn't due to taxes, it is due to one finding another way to cut prices (oh, you know, maybe reducing CEO compensation packages or something, for instance), or they provide BETTER widgets, or better service in providing those widgets.

Same goes for Mom's and Pop widget places.

But in either case, the consumer has a choice, including not buying widgets at all. In which case, the Corporation goes away (the way any business that provides something nobody needs) and so does the burden it is placing on the infrastructure, etc.

But I haven't heard any concern about employees losing jobs, losing compensation, losing benefits when Corps flatten wages, or move to other countries. That's tax revenue lost too.

Yes, I'd love to see that if a business, whether they are based here or not, either conforms to our standards of business practices, they pay tariffs that should eliminate (if they want us as a market, that is) the benefits of not conforming, or they don't do business here.

The fact is, corps are more than willing to spread the pain when something costs them. Whether taxes, or utilities, or their lobbyists. In cost increases, in cutting jobs and benefits. Lord knows not in compensation to their execs.

They are not, however, willing to spread the benefits of their profits beyond those same groups. Jobs go away, they don't come back. Wages go down, but they don't come back up.

The burden is theirs. Same as the cost of their utilities, or their supplies, or their employees. They pass those costs onto consumers too. We don't subsidize those costs by letting the tax payer.. well, actually, sometimes we do.

So, if they don't want to pay their way, how about we also get rid of any special government PERKS they get, and don't pay for? Not the stuff all of us use, including them. Just.. their own special little programs.

Their subsidies. Their studies, the government money spent to, say, paint wild salmon on airplanes in Alaska as a giveaway to both the Wild Salmon industry and that particular air transport company.

Heck, even the most modest estimate (Cato Institute) of private subsidies to particular companies (not even including industry wide) is around 87 billion a year. We could.. just eliminate it.

Of course, oh dear, then they get less money, which means they..mmm.. pass that on to the consumer, don't they?

We don't just have to cut their tax bill, we have to increase the amount of government money they get, after all, it keeps the prices low.

Well, the prices we can directly attribute to them.

If taxes are always being passed on the consumer, then why are we taxing consumers anything? Let's just tax corporations instead, they're easier to find and keep better records.

Somehow the 'but they'll pass the tax on to consumer' people never seem to make any sense to me. How is that worse than directly taxing people?

Well, except for the 'corporations will all leave the country' claim, but the solution there, as I've been screaming for years, is tariffs. It's worth pointing out that a good deal of them have left the country already. To compete, tax-wise, with tax haven is impossible. Either corporations need to pay taxes here, or they need to pay tariffs here, period.

Note I'm not actually suggesting the idea we solely tax corporations and not people, I'm saying that 'They'll just pass it on to consumers' is stupid. All taxes are passed around and put a drag on whatever exchange of money is being taxed. I just find it baffling that somehow it's unacceptable to indirectly tax people by taxing corporations, so we don't tax them much, so we have to make up the difference by ...directly taxing people. Huh?

Franklin, old buddy, I had been sitting here in amazement at your knowledge of taxes, wondering to myself, "Who knew; why the hell isn't this guy a fiscal conservative?"

Then you went and blew it (and answered my question):

"A union is the only force strong enough to offer a guarantee of benefits, and you only have to examine the history of labor unions in the US to see the comparison."

And

"Our society is too large, too complex, too expansive, to talk about 'market forces' and 'competition'."

I was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio, and later became intimately involved for thirty years with water-borne shipping (both economic and environmental regulation thereof on a national/international scale). Accordingly, I saw, up close and personal, the "strong force" and history of labor unions, i.e., how the trademark corruption and greed of strong labor unions killed the steel industry in Cleveland and elsewhere, causing large-scale, long-lasting collapse of entire economic systems, hardship, and loss of jobs to foreign producers. Ditto for the once proud United States-based shipping industry; like being forced by unions to retain the old 20-man gang (longshoremen) on a hatch that, with the advent of shipping containers, could have been handled with two men.

And today, ask a few hundred thousand former auto workers at plants across the country what the "guarantee of benefits" by their unions did for them. I had family in steel and auto industries. Their benefit packages were so good (for them, the union bosses and the Democrats) that they finally killed the geese that laid the golden eggs. Of course, local, state and federal tax revenues went down the tubes as well.

As for your statement that "Our society is too large, too complex, too expansive, to talk about 'market forces' and 'competition'.", my friend, Franklin, that is just flat wrong. One can see market forces and competition at work locally, nationally and internationally; in my water pollution work it saved my bacon more than once.

Please Lord, let it ever be so, lest we become Socialist Europe.

As for your question, Rod, chill out. Once we hit $8 per gallon of gas, we'll throw out the Democrats, produce our own oil and build nuclear power plants, like the ones in Ohio.

Cleveland, my good friend and honorable debating opponent, I promise I will not tire of reminding you that I am a fiscal realist. Both conservatives (as you've noticed) and liberals find reasons to be annoyed with me. ;-) When I've been silent on something, don't ever be surprised to challenge me on it and find me in agreement with you (some of the time, of course).

I come by my knowledge the hard way (as the John Houseman commercial put it), being on the compliance end of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. I'll never forget, my sixth month on the job in early 1977, being called into an office with my supervisor, the chief actuary and the chief documents attorney. They handed me a copy of a section of the new regs, and asked me what I thought it meant. ERISA was the most extensive (at least in verbiage) tax reform in the last century, possibly the largest in US history. It increased printed size of the Tax Code of 1950 by over one-third. Anyway, what I know about corporate taxes and VAT I learned from CPAs on the ground and in the trenches who depended on me to guide them through ERISA. I tutored actuarial students in pensions basics. I've dealt directly with the IRS and DOL on many issues. I knew* more than enough to be dangerous, as it were.

My perspective is that we all seem to understand that balance is needed, but we can't get away from the mechanical reality: corporate profits on one side (the greed epithet, applicable to some prominent idiots and worthy of the stereotype label) and the entitlement attitude on the labor side (also appropriately labeled greed, equally epithetical and, sadly, less worthy of stereotype status).

Global warming is a wild goose chase, not for the arguably shaky science involved, but because it serves to distract both sides from the very local reality: given free rein, corporations will tend to leave a scorched earth behind them (company towns and leveraged buyouts being excellent examples); given enough power, labor will tend to suck companies dry and blame them for going under (you already cited excellent examples there). I'll match your conservative cynicism and raise you one: neither "force", not corporate nor labor (union), has a shred of honor and ethics in them (any more, acknowledging very rare exceptions). They are gladiators, and we are the dirt of the arena beneath their feet. The dominance of one over the other is a grand cycle. Don't look up, because you'll get dizzy. ;-)

* I left the industry in 1990, having had two bellies full of Congress modifying or adding to pension laws about every six months during the 80s. My choice was to enter the seven-year grind of actuarial exams or set out in search of my sanity. Two things saved me: conversing with a then just-retired IRS commissioner, whose embarrassed answer to many a "what the heck does this mean" question was an honest "hell if I know", and telling me that there are laws covered by the 1950 Code that 40 years later were still being applied or enforced by temporary regs. The other was a trip down the elevator with my boss at 6:00am, our third all-nighter in a row, and me too tired to notice that I was thinking out loud: "what the f*@# am I doing here?" My boss, just as tired, turned to me and said: "I was just thinking the same thing." I signed up for programming at a trade school the next week. 13 months of night school later I was out of there.

So, got any ideas about that situation?

Other than biting the ankles of the gladiators as they go by? :-D

Define living wage. Clearly define it in terms of local/regional cost of living. None of this nonsense about mobility being a defining factor, because only a fool takes a job with a 10% increase over current salary in his current place of residence in a place where COL is 15% higher.

Make management and union reps sit down in a room (locked from the outside, with tepid water and chamber pots) and come to a consenus on standard salaries/wages for their industry. Have them agree on a protocol for increases based on COL and merit instead of making it a bargaining point at the end of the current contract. No more management give them the least possible vs. union get everything not nailed down, and hope that some middle ground can be found before the contract expires.

First point from those two: kill the notion that entitlement has any validity, along with making management equal partners in determining standards.

I'll leave it at that as a starting point. Bandwidth courtesy, and all that. ;-) My general point: no system of ethics can exist, let alone survive, without a clearly defined objective basis.

I have serious doubts that the management-union scenario would ever happen, so all I can do is commiserate with you about the rest.

One thought: happy employees spreading their joy by word of mouth is worth quite a lot in "free" advertising. I'm sure, no matter what else transpires, that it will be a process over time, not a measurable set of milestones.

Business ethics is enforceable only if consumers have ethics as well.

Per Franklin: "...given free rein, corporations will tend to leave a scorched earth behind them...labor will tend to suck companies dry and blame them for going under (you already cited excellent examples there)...neither 'force'...has a shred of honor and ethics in them [and] the government at every level has been the worst possible referee for a very long time...no system of ethics can exist, let alone survive, without a clearly defined objective basis...Business ethics is enforceable only if consumers have ethics as well.

Franklin, seldom have truer words been spoken on that topic. From over 30 years experience as a government referee whose job it was to protect the public interest, what you said is undeniably true. Here are the rubs:

1) Society allows corporations to exist because they are the heart of Capitalism--by far the worst system of economics ever devised, except for every other system ever tried, any time, any where save one (which I'll get to below). Corporations are designed by law to attract risk-taking because the private (non-invested) wealth of the shareholders is protected when the paint on a widget, without fault of the corporation, poisons and kills ten people. Thus, capital is attracted to risk and (hopefully) produces goods, services, jobs and tax revenues for society. Given free reign and secular ethics, however, the dignity and interests of workers tend to get forgotten, and pollution of the environment occurs in something like a direct proportion to the success of a corporation--success being maximum production at minimum expense; profit. Only a corporation's "good will" and reputation with consumers dampens that effect.

2) Society allows unions to exist, it is said, to protect the dignity of workers; the rest is strictly political, i.e., the higher the wages the unions exact, the more money for union bosses and the more "contributions" to the politicos who reciprocate with more union-favoring legislation. Given free reign, the higher and higher labor expenses of a corporation tend to produce less and less concern for both the environment and safety for the public (think airline safety since President Cater); but that's not the concern of secular unions. Eventually, the return on corporate investment becomes too little to justify the risk. Sayonara corporation, jobs and tax revenue.

3) Enter the government referees whose job it is to protect the interests of society--a many faceted thing, including goods and services, jobs and the environment. The "Exxon Valdez" oil spill was a case, in my humble opinion, of a union not allowing a corporation to can an alcoholic skipper (the dignity of workers, you know) who proceeded to ruin the reputation of the innocent corporation, as well as the environment along thousands of miles of shoreline. Not to mention the cost to you and me (consumers of oil, gas and plastic) of billions of dollars paid out by Exxon. The "government at every level has been the worst possible referee for a very long time", you said. Well, Franklin, that is an understatement when it comes to referees like the Justice Department who benefited society by getting back at the vile polluter.

So, Franklin, given the above rubs in our system, when you said, "Business ethics is enforceable only if consumers have ethics as well", you really hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, for all of us, society will never agree on just what system of ethics to adopt. As far as I know, only England, from about 1350 to 1536, lived under an economic system in which poverty was almost unknown, jobs and dignity abounded, widows and orphans were cared for and the environment was not despoiled because people lived too close to the land. There was a reason why "Merrie Olde England" enjoyed that happy time of shared ethics, but this is not the thread for me to extol that reason. Suffice it to say, again, Franklin, you hit the nail on the head.

Per Karen: "Umm.. last I checked, ship's captains aren't in unions. (Management, you know.)"

Well then read this, Karen:

Press Release
FORMER AMERICAN MARITIME OFFICERS SERVICE SHIP CAPTAIN CONVICTED OF RICO CONSPIRACY
February 13, 2007
R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alice S. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, and Gordon S. Heddell, Inspector General, United States Department of Labor, announced that a Fort Lauderdale federal jury convicted defendant James Lynch, 56, a former ship captain of the American Maritime Officers Service ("AMOS"), of RICO conspiracy.The AMOS is the political lobbying branch of the American Maritime Officers ("AMO") union, which represents upper echelon ship personnel, including captains...

Karen, I quoted the above portion of an official government press release to convince you, in words other than my own, that you are wrong about ship captains being un-unionized management. Moreover, just this year Exxon testified before the Supreme Beings Court that Capt. Joe Hazelwood, the Exxon Valdez skipper, was not management--one doesn't lie to the Supreme Beings.

Per Karen: "The [Exxon Valdez] skipper's fate was decided in a criminal court, not in a negotiation between union and management."

Karen, Capt. Hazelwood was fired by Exxon after the spill, well before his later trial. I don't know what, if any, role a union may have played.

Per Karen: "And not exactly sure what the constant insertion of 'secular' into the above post was supposed to indicate."

My use of "secular" (twice) was meant to distinguish the primary reasons corporations and unions exist: investment, profits and wages which are secular (i.e., commercial) concerns as opposed to more moral concerns. For the latter concerns, U.S. society has established all manner of government referees to see to safety, protection of the environment, fair bargaining, etc., which you will not find in secular, e.g., Communist, systems.

Per Karen: "Are you trying to claim that corporations might be run better if they were religious institutions?"

If by "better" you mean with more regard for fair wages, safety and protection of the environment, yes, that's what I am claiming. Thus my reference to "Merrie Olde England", a time when all the players shared the same ethic. James Bemis (California Political Review) called that period "perhaps the happiest society mankind has ever known."

But you are right concerning civilian captains. My experience is military, where they are definitely management.

Of course, you still have absolutely nothing to base your scenario regarding union involvement, Hazelton and the Valdez is concerned.

Well, Karen, assuming you won't see further posts here for a while, I hope you don't mind if I refer to you instead of address you directly.

Karen's rebuttal, valid on the surface, should be taken as an example of the larger problem, not evidence for specific evils on one side or the other. Unions protecting their members -- something that literally saved lives during the early decades since unions became established -- has become the banner for entitlement.

Let me be clear on this. With established processes to investigate, determine and if indicated sanction bad behavior -- that being defined by the breaking of rules any sane person could agree with -- from local arbitration up through the criminal and civil justice systems, it is emphatically clear that unions have taken on the function of protecting criminal behavior. Good companies gnash their teeth and hire good damage control people. Bad companies actively cooperate in coverups and hire lawyers with reputations for minimizing litigation settlement amounts. Guess which company has better profits. :-(

I'm not talking about the bad behavior of corruption, conspiracy, obstruction of justice. I'm talking about the teacher who any observer can see is not doing the minimum job, the steel worker who is on the job 4 hours out of the required 8, and management forcing employees to work longer hours than can possibly be considered safe (truckers, police officers, the list goes on...)

The push-me pull-you goes well beyond wages and benefits. Management -- often sympathetic to the workers' plight -- is forced to cut expenses while executives buy a second private jet or receive multi-million dollar bonuses. Union negotiators routinely squeeze the stone of companies who volunteer the transparent realities of the cost of doing business, and expect to get blood.

I don't really care who is to blame for an Exxon Valdez or too many near misses at airports. I do know that the remedies to those things, actual, reasonable preventative measures, are routinely thwarted by both company management and unions. Rise above specific examples. There is way too much blame available to go around.

Cleveland, some of us know that the bad refereeing is not because the referees are bad people, but because they are good people whose hands have been tied. Government reform is easy: put those good people in charge, give them the authority to implement their decisions, and get out of their way.

Actually, as an atheist, my point is that people have values who are and are NOT religious. That religious people can have bad values, as well. Many of the things that we are talking about are objected to by religious people (again, not ALL religious people, and not all the time, but nonetheless..), not just as a side issue, but sometimes even on religious basis.

Totally unobstructed capitalism (usually defined strictly from the management side, as if unions, if unregulated, aren't as much a market force as unregulated management) is sometimes touted as if it were a dogma. Any environmental measure objected to on religious grounds based on the arguments I listed above. That God is in control, or that humans were given dominion, etc.

PEOPLE have values. I know, I know, I'm an atheist, so despite anything I say or do, I am apparently an amoral beast who, without the influence or check of the still at least nominally religious majority would probably be the next Dr. Evil. *chuckle*

"Karen, you are confusing ignorance and sin with religious values.People who have some religious values can be ignorant and sinful. So what? Is that supposed to be news?"

Apparently, if shared religious values were supposed to bring about some kind of superior society. Europe had those shared values, and religiously based governments for thousands of years. Literally. And still only a century or two can be pointed out to have had that result. So, the religious nature of people, or their society can't be verified to be the cause. Not when a dozen other places with the same mix had decidedly less than ideal results.

"I am an orthodox Catholic, but that doesn't mean I think you are an amoral beast. To the contrary, I believe Christ suffered terribly and died for you; that He loved you and knew you before He knit you in your mother's womb; that He instilled in you His natural law, i.e., VALUES."

But, divinely instilled conscience, which I can say everyone from the Dalai Lama to Fred Phelps, from Bill Gates to Charles Manson to Osama Bin Laden, has does NOT make me a religious person. And that process, as the above list notes, has very spotty results, and can't be limited to a place, a time, a culture or a style of government. Being so universal, especially given its use with an atheist, makes it pretty much a wash as far as influence goes.

"The Eternal Power that created and watches over the heavens and the earth (Einstein recognized His intelligence); the Something that all people intuitively know is out there and search for all their lives; did all that, for you. Then He raised Himself from the grave to prove Himself, for you. An amoral beast? Quit insulting Him and His followers."

And everyone on that above list. So I am less than flattered, but thank you. And please don't assume what I intuitively know, or what I search for.

And what's with the pronoun capital with Einstein? He's smart, but hardly divine.

For Cleveland...

See above.

"Karen, the people and area you call Europe did not have, as you incorrectly alleged "... those shared values, and religiously based governments for thousands of years. Literally." Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is wrong.

Western civilization, contrary to what you infer, once it actually did attain the shared values of Christianity (albeit in a less uniform manner than Merrie Old England) achieved on a grand scale what the world never saw before: incredible advances in medicine and the other sciences, finance, freedom, dignity, music, architecture and commerce. You merely diminish the credibility of your argument by not admitting the historical fact that once the shared values of Christianity (honesty, trust, hope, charity and all other anti-secularist/law of the jungle attributes of a Christian society) were attained, all of those blessings were realized. You can admit that and still be an atheist, so why the sensitivety?"

First, please, let's avoid electronic empathic telepathy. There was nothing 'sensitive' about my comments. They were addressing the point.

They have nothing to do with being an atheist. Heck, I'm giving Christianity MORE credit than you are, by expanding the time frame. Certainly more than you are with the 'anti-secularist/law of the jungle' as if they were the same, and that the 'secular' can't include any of that list of virtues.

Europe was Christian LONG before the 12th Century. Europe was referred to as Christendom, and Christianity was the.. well, the only official religion, long before the 12th century. They'd already had a couple of crusades by then. All the nations had good Christian monarchs, the year governed by the Catholic calender (because, hey, since we're talking pre-Reformation, that's what we ARE talking about, right?) You can use the generic 'not REAL Christians' sort of argument, but all the nations of Europe were theocratic, if anything, even moreseo, at least from the 10th century on.

What was less Christian about the 11th Century than the 12th, for instance? Or the 10th? Or any time once you got 4 digits in the Western count of years?

"Per Karen, "But, divinely instilled conscience, which I can say everyone from the Dalai Lama to Fred Phelps, from Bill Gates to Charles Manson to Osama Bin Laden, has does NOT make me a religious person."

I repeat, is that supposed to be news? No one holds a gun to your head and makes you apply the principals of Natural Law."

I'm noting that according to the theology, that instilled conscience is universal. Therefore, when dealing with its influence, it is a wash. It'd be like pointing to a group in France and claiming that such and such thing happened there rather than here because of 'gravity'.

And none of the above is about how religious a person is. Again, even if the above were true, about divinely instilled conscience, I am still not a religious person.

I'm one of those apparently secular people incapable of, or even 'anti' such virtues of honesty, "trust, hope, charity".

And I still point you to the DeCosta post above.

Finally, I don't understand why you keep referring to the DeCosta post. I agree with what the man said, and as far as I can tell, it contradicts nothing I have said.

Cleveland, that was not funny.

Mr. DeCosta: I wish you well of your superstitions*. I truly and sincerely hope that you appreciate all of the science you contradicted when it saves your life, say by (eventually) predicting a killer earthquake, or the arrival of a tornado, in plenty of time for you to get to safety. I promise you, praying to God instead will avail you naught.

* I apologize for being blunt.

Better make it six paces, or be prepared to laugh. ;-) Or make it bean bag chairs, and we can both relax.

It is very obvious that the earth's crust has been cooling off since Jesus created the world. We also know that the earth's center is molten rock. The only change to this cooling off process,over time is what we know as "sun spots", which through history have had great effects on our weather.

I've bolded the unscientific parts. I must politely ask as well whether saying that "Jesus" created the world is an acceptable variation on Genesis.

If I missed the memo in which you asserted your being a young earth creationist, then I stand corrected in taking your comment as funny. I'll just add that when it comes to earthquakes and volcanoes, I personally prefer to take advice from plate techtonics experts.

Oh, and the end date for your utopian period made me curious. I couldn't think of a single secular influence that would've ended the religious government in England at that time.

Perhaps because it wasn't. Governments were religious (and note, RELIGIOUS, not Christian, unless that is the point you are making) before 1350, and remained so for centuries after 1500. So.. what was the reason for that date?

Ohhhhh... the Protestant Reformation.

Your pitch wasn't for a religiously run or influenced government. Not even a Christian one. It was for a Catholic one.

3rd line should read: "Karen, I intentionally avoided limiting..."

Per Karen: "Your pitch wasn't for a religiously run or influenced government. Not even a Christian one. It was for a Catholic one."

Karen, I intentionally limiting our discussion of Western civilization to Catholicism. In an earlier reply to Franklin I did refer to a Catholic society--"Merrie Olde England"--which most certainly was not the whole of Western civilization. The latter, broader, longer lasting Christianity-informed society is what you and I were debating. The proof of that is my May 11, 2008 7:44 PM reply specifically to you: "Western civilization, contrary to what you infer, once it actually did attain the shared values of Christianity (albeit in a less uniform manner than Merrie Olde England) achieved on a grand scale what the world never saw before: incredible advances in medicine and the other sciences, finance, freedom, dignity, music, architecture and commerce." You thus will have to concede that said broader society included the time before, during and after the Protestant Reformation; not just Catholicism."

Saying 'Western Civilization' does not necessarily include the time of the Reformation. Or, indeed, includes all time from the time of the Greeks and Romans, to bad old secular now. So, I had no reason to concede, given your timeframe, that you were willing to include the post-Reformation. It could, indeed, include, the Enlightenment also. But, when dealing with Catholicism (or, pre-Reformation, simply all of Christendom, until one limits it specifically to pre-Reformation), has at times achieved such advances, and at others, not only stifled them, but destroyed the advances of the past.

A mere century and a half of good times in a two thousand year religious history doesn't point to a cause, more like an anomaly. But it seems this one is unfalsifiable. Apparently, even the most unbelieving atheist's good qualities can be attributed to your deity. Of course, no responsibility for anything bad, even things that do the bad things directly attribute to matters of faith.

Its a great gig, it seems. I don't get that luxury.

"Let me conclude this point by congratulating you on your knowledge of history. Ninety-nine percent of Americans would not have known that "Merrie Olde England" was a Catholic society, top to bottom. Great Briton, apparently, never again will see those progressive, happy days. It has degenerated into a "Progressive", secular-run society where, if you want to count on 21st Century health care, you must come to still somewhat religious America."

Or most of Europe. Umm.. last I checked, they still have doctors. And the creating those advances (if you believe what many religious conservatives are touting), both religious and secular, are mostly not religious themselves.

I would suggest it is our liberty that allows such things, not our 'still religious' nature.

And you can NOT say that those people coming to America aren't religious themselves. Most of them are exceptionally devout. Devout Hindus, devout Muslims, devout Jews, devout practitioners of dozens of native faiths, as well as devout Christians who just happen to live in third world countries.

You do know that 'religious' covers more than Catholic Christianity.

And I have no doubt.. actually, I have good idea what my fate would be in your ideal society. Or should say family recollection. My grandfather is a refugee (or was, he'd be pretty old now) from Franco's Spain. And then had to deal with McCarthy's America a few decades later.

"Per Karen: "... if you aren't talking about atheists when you say 'secular', what are you talking about?"

I'm talking about a mix of a-religious and anti-religious governing policies that limit a society, such as the governing concept of a constitutional wall of separation. That concept is absurd on its face not only because it doesn't exist, but also because the Constitution and its informing document, the Bill of Rights, were written by theists in order to effect a government which acknowledged inalienable, God-given rights; NOT "rights" which a secular government could grant or take away at will. Nevertheless, there it is--secularism."

That's not what secular means. I have no idea what 'secularism' is.. I've never met a practitioner of it. But I will note those 'Creator' given rights were in the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights. That one starts 'We the People, in order to form a more perfect uion, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility..." (Thank you, Schoolhouse Rock).

Sorry, both me and my son are 'history geeks'.

Karen, we should be a bit consoled that YECs have little influence in policy decisions, and that those who do -- while having resistance to science of a lesser extent -- can be convinced that science is actually a sound basis for making policy decisions.

Cleveland... there comes a point in any science vs. theology discussion where the tire meets the road, the nose the grindstone... at some point, belief must find itself taking a back seat to science and doing it voluntarily.

Climate change is a fact of life. I don't care if it's called Global Warming or sun spots. What I care about is that my society and the vast majority of the rest of the world -- albeit for different reasons -- refuses to take action until after a catastrophe happens. If the policy makers believe they cannot trust scientists enough to make changes, I can respect that (whilst grieving). If policy makers believe that God will provide and that is enough for them, then I want them out, and I want them out now. That was very baldly and simplistically put, but there it is.

As for unscientific statements... Mr. DeCosta, the core of the earth is solid iron, not molten rock. The earth's crust is a steady-state phenomenon, with dynamics of change over long periods of time. Saying it's "cooling" is a frivolous statement, like calling it hard, or dirty. The sun spot cycle has been observed for as long as humans have known how to observe the sun without going blind, and it has a poorly understood and still argued correlation to weather patterns. It has nothing to do with the earth's crust. It has had no "great effect" on weather, ever. Sir, I'm glad you find truth in the Bible, but I assure you that there is no science in it.

"I would suggest it is our liberty that allows such things, not our 'still religious' nature." Karen

That's one of your problems; the failure to realize that our true liberty (our inalienable rights) is based on our still religious nature; not on the will of secularists."

Again, I can find too many examples (most, indeed) to mention of RELIGIOUS (note, you still seem to be confusing that with specifically Catholic Christian, though I can find a few examples of that in the last 100 years) societies with absolutely no belief in rights, inalienable or otherwise. Again, there is not necessarily any incompatibility necessary in the two terms, only that some things are not religious, and some things are.

"And I have no doubt.. actually, I have a good idea what my fate would be in your ideal society. Or should say family recollection. My grandfather is a refugee (or was, he'd be pretty old now) from Franco's Spain." Karen

Actually, you don't have a clue what your fate would be in my ideal society. It would be liberty, not the horrors inherent in the ultimate secularism--Communism, including the monstrous, murdering anti-Franco version. Religious liberty is a guaranty of one's inalienable rights, including the freedom to be secular or religious in the public square, as we see fit. Secularists don't want us to have that freedom--they throw hissy fits all the way up to the Supreme Beings Court when they see a statue of the baby Jesus on public property. Not their property, mind you, public property."

I'm talking about Franco, not the 'anti-Franco' version. If it was bad, it has no bearing on how bad FRANCO was. Franco was pretty good at being monstrous and murderous himself. All with quite a bit of sanction and support, if I (and definitely my grandfather) not only remember reading, but experiencing.

I don't recall any 'hissy fit' about religious paraphenalia on YOUR private property, or any private property. And I also recall Christian hissy fitting about NON-Christian religious symbols on public property. And much of those hissy fits weren't by 'secularists', but by members of OTHER religions. (Again, you do recall they exist?)

You know, like Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc? Last I heard, public property is as much MY property as YOURS.

"That's not what secular means. I have no idea what 'secularism' is.. I've never met a practitioner of it." Karen

Think republicanos (the Soviet Union-supported enemies of Franco), the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and, closer to your heart, the ACLU."

You have no idea what's close to my heart. For all you know, I'm a rabid Libertarian. And again, I said I never met one, and I still can stand by that.

"And you see no problem with not only a 6000 year old Earth, but that the Earth's crust has been cooling that entire period...) Karen

What part of my statement ("I'm not a young earth creationist. I leave to science things like the age of the world...") don't you understand? As to the Earth's crust cooling since it was formed, I never knew it was debatable. The entire Earth is cooling down with time, but the core has cooled down less than the outer crust.

Gees, Karen, do I have to teach you history AND geology? ;-)"

First, your history lesson was off, as was your CIVICs lesson (though I was less snarky about that. And not knowing the difference between the Constitution and the DOI is a little worse than having a difference of opinion about the utopian nature of 15th century England).

You haven't taught me a bit of history. Only clarified the periods you are speaking about. As for the geology, it is about the fact that it has not a darn thing to do with the WEATHER.