You act like that's hard or ambiguous. When you form a club, let's say the Justin Bieber fan club, you set rules, goals, and a mission statement. The founding fathers did that, it's only the people who don't agree with personal power, liberty, and economic freedom who pretend that there are no American values.

Outlaw teachers unions (traditional unions fought against corporate management for fair wages. Who do teacher's unions fight against? Kids? ) That alone would increase the effectiveness of teachers and allow cross-philosophy teaching such as math and computer science together.

I guess that includes you because even your appeal to authority is completely false. But don't let me stop your demagoguery if that's all you wanted to do anyway.

A survey was sent out to climate scientists about a decade ago and it asked them if they believed in human made climate change. Only the respondents who bothered to mail back in the survey and if you take the time to do that you most likely agree with the global warming statement. So it's 97% (of respondent) Climate Scientists agree global warming is man made. Since non - respondent scientists were essentially not counted it's a meaningless survey.

How can they claim skeptics are the only ones cherry picking data when they are forced to do it to imagine any increase at all? Why two years? I thought respected climate scientists ignore anything under 15?

But I digress, the real reason skepticism of the theory of anthropogenic global warming has increased is because the narrative perpetually falls apart and magically the same story under a different headline takes its place. Global Warming, Climate Change, Carbon Concentrations, Freak Weather Propensity, Ocean Heat Transfers.

In science you observe a patten, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis by controlling externalities, and then summarize. Global Warming started with solutions (taxes, less economic freedom, more centralized government power) and attempted to cherry pick data to fit the narrative. That's why there are more skeptics regardless of how fervently the media are global warming alarmists.

Maybe it's just going back to equilibrium. The nineteenth century saw an over abundance of people switching from farming to industrial jobs. People need to get back to moderately self-sufficient farming. Maybe the nineteenth and twentieth were outliers.

I'm super happy that the climatology profession has been the longest profession over tallow renderer. Since sun is the catalyst to any multiplier effect i.e. refractory clouds I'm kinda surprised they've calculated it to have sucha tiny effect.

Never read any of his reviews or advice because he was so blindly biased. He mentions a failed Apple handheld device for its for AI innovation but then fails to mention all the original devices Apple stole their ideas from? iPod? Why not the Creative Nomad. Utterly biased until the end.

Taxation will never equate to a 1:1 reduction of the externality to imposing a penalty on Americans. There is an inherent dead weight loss to all taxation. Were we to assume that there is a immediate tangible negative externality, which is not the theory of anthropogenic climate change, then my solution would be a flat tax type situation because it has the least reliance on variance and avoidability.
For there to be a negative eternality it has to be tangible, or if I were to agree that it could be intangible it would have to be happening soon. Were we to not impose your recommended carbon penalty then GDP would be higher and thus we'd have better technology tomorrow or more of our larger economy to invest in a new technology to circumvent disaster. But climate change is a natural occurrence and carbon is a positive part of vegetation growth so anthropogenic climate change is a disputed and unlikely theory.

Now you know why the Tea Party exists. The American populace grew tired of the government choosing winner and losers. The oil subsidies that are always harped about aren't truly subsidies anyway. They are tax credits and the tax credits, different from actual subsidies given to renewable energy, are to not tax oil companies on phantom revenue. Phantom revenue is when you earn a profit on paper but not actually earn it because of depleted oil fields.

You'd have to believe this article is true and not inventing false ideological choices to pose that question. Go ahead and figure out for yourself if there is a void between portions of the Republican party that believe in personal freedom, avoidance of government intervention, and autonomy. Or read my rebuttal of this fake article below in the comments.

That is uneducated, false, and inefficient answer. Very rarely are economists suggesting you manipulate the economy to impose intangible costs on a moderately-efficient market. No conservative economist and practically no moderate economist would ever suggest increasing the risk of ruining a market that is working for an unrealized gain. Carbon taxes affect the poor more than the rich because poor people pay a larger amount of their income to energy costs than the rich. And you want to increase their costs more with a carbon tax for an unproven hypothesis?

I have no idea why you consider it a foregone conclusion that the United States will be forced into upending its energy economy to support solar.

But lets take your hypothesis that Germany and the Chinese force every other irrelevant country into solar energy, since you stated the Chinese and Germany are big solar players and you had no initial consideration that other renewable energies exist.That means the United States is the only country left demanding, and using cheap fossil fuels. That's great news for the U.S. because lowered demand for fossil fuels will reduce the cost and further increase the United States GDP relative to all the other countries forced to use less efficient solar. Re-purposing Malthus' theory that our increased GDP now will grow our economy and allow us to more easily research other renewables should we ever be forced to need them in the future. This will give us an additional edge compared to the stagnant economies forced into less efficient energy.

Propelled by growing strain of global warming denial within their party, Republicans in Congress have proposed to slash funding for renewable energy programs in half this year, and mocked the idea of a green economy as “groovy” liberal propaganda.
Actually its covered under the economist Bastiat's Broken Window Princicple. Essentially, the green economy was explained to create jobs and increase GDP. Since its actually just creating inefficient rebalancing of the economy its hurting the economy more than the most efficient distribution of labor.

Their argument, as laid out by House Republicans and libertarian organs like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, is that the federal government shouldn't 'pick winners and losers' in the energy markets ..... The assumption has always been that, without heavy government subsidies, renewable energy sources like solar and wind power would never be able to compete with fossil fuels.
True, that is the policy of libertarians and the reason libertarians believe in this is because the people most affected by inefficient and expensive renewable energy are the poor. Whenever the costs of implementing expensive energy are put onto the power companies the cost is deferred to the users, mandated or not, this affects the poor with higher energy costs more than any other group.

The price of photovoltaic panels has fallen 62 percent since January 2011. Once considered a boutique energy source, solar power has become a cost-competitive alternative for many consumers, costing an average $143 per megawatt-hour, down from $236 in the beginning of 2011.
Maybe math is hard but this is still more expensive than coal or natural gas (which market forces are decreasing the cost of sans government interference) and consumers are going to have to pay for the difference. And where does this money go? To Non-American solar array producers instead of jobs in natural gas or coal in the United States, further reducing employment and skilled labor jobs for the poor or lower middle class.

Backed by powerful conservative groups, public utilities in several states are now pushing to curb the solar industry, and asking regulators to raise fees and impose new restrictions on solar customers.
Ok this is the statement that forced me to comment because it is so false and manipulative. The only way Public Utilities could curb solar companies is to ask them to compete equally in the market with other forms of energy. They are not moving to ban solar imports as this makes it sound, Republicans are simply trying to give consumers the lowest cost of basic energy. Consumers can decide for themselves if they want to purchase their own solar arrays for their homes. Additionally, its generally the rich who qualify for solar array subsidies on their homes and electric car credits at the expense of the middle class and the poor to fund rich people's energy savings.

And as more people turn to rooftop solar as a way to reduce energy costs—90,000 businesses and homeowners installed panels last year, up 46 percent from 2011—the issue is pitting pro-utilities Republicans against this fledgling movement of libertarian-minded activists who see independent power generation as an individual right. In other words, the fight over solar power is raging within the GOP itself."
Otherwise known as Republicans who are under the sway of Environmental lobbyists at the expense of the poor or Libertarians who want the free market to compete for the lowest cost energy for consumers. I agree a natural monopoly occurs with something like a utlity company and therefore some government regulation and oversight is neccesary. But the government oversight committees should be working in the best interest of their customers, the taxpayers, to provide the lowest cost energy to them. They are not supposed to be activists raising the cost of energy for the poor to further lobbyists and the rich's goals of providing cheap energy to the rich on the back of the poor.

As an accountant I disagree with everything you said. We use more powerful tax software that does very little other than simple mathematical calculations, collate data, and file in the correct IRS format. We are not using Turbotax or any Turbotax equivalent. In actuality we appreciate simple tax software for consumers because they have to come to us when something is wrong like the example before. Spending one day to learn what I spend my whole year doing will not minimize your tax liability. If so I have a one day crash course to become a modern artist or a lawyer.

The strain on our Federal budget and perpetual deficit due to things like duck penii studies? Or the duck penii shape in general? I read about the shape of their penii from the Daily Beast and I care about how much was spent on researching them because I get the impression from this anecdote and many others how bad we are at controlling waste, pork, and fraud.