Well this really explains the methodology of the whole thing. Should be +5, "the rest of the story".

Wrong, it was not a "reversal". His position never really changed.

DENIER!

It's a pretty old item, why is this news? Slashdot comment trolling, or something?

It's not really a difference, though, from the point of view of corporations with media copyrights. I mean, the harm done, according to them, is anywhere from $400 Billion to $75 Trillion. $7500 is comparatively cheap.

Oh, and I certainly have no illusions about the cronyism in Washington - it accompanies all big money, including the one created by taxing everything any lawyer can think of a way to tax. The only difference between the parties (and among the part members) is the cronies they partner with. The worst ideas they come up with are "bi-partisan", because it means they've all agreed on another way to screw the rest of us.

Yes, well, you are certainly well-indoctrinated. No breaking through all that conditioning, uh... OBVIOUSLY.

I've spent quite a bit of time in Germany, and know many people there. The proletariat (that's the only way to describe them, really) really have no power at all - it's all at the top. And at the top, they are quite focused on bringing all of the United States of Europe under their control. It's working quite well. And while climate change is real, fear of climate change, and the illusion that policy-makers can "fix" it, is just a tool to keep the populace in line.

They've made go in-roads with the same techniques here, as you illustrate very clearly. You don't even seem to have the critical thinking skills needed to dig into the science and question the talking points. The IPCC - "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is NOT an organization of scientists - it's an organization of politicians. They say so right on their website how they are organized, and that they cherry-pick from scientific reports, procedures that have been criticized and have had issues in the past. If you don't know who Maurice Strong, the founder of the IPCC is, you should do a little research into him and the kinds of people you are putting your trust (and the future of your decedents) into.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff. I know you posted some interesting theoreticals from some academics that are funded by green initiatives and alternative energy subsidies. But that's obviously biased and still theoretical.

Actual experiments and initiatives, which you seem to be citing, actually have had the opposite results. The European initiative was plagued by corruption, cronyism, and even without that caused increases in electricity costs. That's to be expected. Experience has shown that new taxes, even when the attempt is made, are never used to offset costs for consumers. Instead the beneficiaries are bloated government bureaucracies and those they favor, and the top-tier private interests. That's what happened in Europe.

If you're referring specifically to the RGGI states in the Northeast, that a Cap & Trade scam. It's an Agenda 21 scheme that benefits wealthy investment firms and supported by politicians because they get revenue out of it. The claims they make read like they are creating free money out of thin air, but of course it's coming from consumers, and they suffer because of it. It's not a market, it's a market intervention, and a destructive one. New Hampshire has been one of the big losers, with rates going up more than the other states, primarily because they already had more energy efficiencies in place and don't benefit as much by investing in more. As with all top-down interventionist schemes, this one will be a long-term failure even with the appearance of short-term benefits.

You can tell what's happening with this if you look at the recent auctions. They've only managed to sell about half of the emission credits available. That means traders aren't making their money, so of course now they want to lower the cap, hoping for even higher prices.

You're acting like the observations disproving many of the AGW models still being promoted are lies, because some arrogant academic can't acknowledge facts in opposition to his theories. You can't possibly be that stupid. So I'll just ask what you get out of flame baiting?

I agree that there is no free market for energy, yes.

The cost of pollution is already factored in by regulations limiting particular matter, sulfides, and other harmful chemicals. Nuclear energy costs are driven more by irrational fear than thoughtful policy, based on facts.

Of course, you will next argue that CO2, and even carbon itself (which is 18% of your physical make-up, BTW), is also a "pollutant" and calculate some outrageous sum to "pay" for it.

It's funny, isn't it, how people talk about air pollution and water pollution as bad because they want PURE air and water uncontaminated by pollutants, but when they talk about "carbon pollution", this 3rd stool of the essential elements for life is not expected to be PURE, but eliminated. They want to "sequester" it in the ground. I call that a graveyard. I mean, once the water is gone from your dead body, most of the rest is carbon.

Wow and you had the nerve to call ME biased!

Here on the East Coast we're about be inundated with the 17-year cicadas (Brood II). Everybody eats cicadas, even squirrels and your pets. Looking forward to seeing some good cicada recipes when the things get plentiful.

It's the same tax break as the film, record, and other industries get, and if you want to make a fair comparison these industries have also been "subsidized since inception", if that's your viewpoint of what the tax code is doing.

I already know what the issue is, and you're still buying the propaganda that oil somehow get some special subsidy beyond what is available to every industry. What's pathetic is you calling me out for quoting from the document, which you gave no indication that you even read. So, tell me, what point from the document were you trying to make?

This backs up exactly what I said. Quoting from the document in your link:

Section 199 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, referred to as the domestic manufacturing deduction, provides reductions in taxable income for American manufacturers, including domestic oil and gas producers and refiners. The value of the Section 199 deduction in FY 2010 is estimated at $13 billion and approximately 25 percent is energy-related. While domestic oil and natural gas companies utilized this provision to reduce their 2010 tax liability, other industries, including traditional manufacturing sectors and other activities such as engineering and architectural services, sound recordings, and qualified film production, also took advantage of it.

[emphasis mine]

And the commentary in liberal media (that is, 100% of the mainstream media) is subsidized by public funding, both directly and as an indirect beneficiary. So, yes, it does.

I see people making this claim all the time because they don't understand the law. The double-standard would be if "big carbon" did NOT get this tax break, because it is simply a deduction for development within the US borders that EVERY company gets. So, you know, if you're developing any kind of US resources, employing US workers, operating plants and facilities inside the US and all the attendant economic development that goes around it, the tax code is designed to encourage that over doing the same development in some other country. So you want to single out a specific industry to NOT get that break? Wouldn't that discourage "energy independence" that most think it is a good goal?