NYT : Carbon Tax Will Stop The Earth From Being Destroyed

According to the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model, there is a 10 percent chance that average surface temperatures will rise by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Warming on that scale could end life as we know it.

Carbon Tax Would Have Many Benefits – Economic View – NYTimes.com

What will it take to end stupidity at the New York Times?


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to NYT : Carbon Tax Will Stop The Earth From Being Destroyed

  1. A 10% chance so tax em.

    “The good news is that we could insulate ourselves from catastrophic risk at relatively modest cost by enacting a steep carbon tax.”

    Sure Mr. Columnist, humans can control climate.

    Why is there always money involved?

    Tax rises—global warming is perfect for politicians who want to raise taxes.

  2. tckev says:

    “the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model” ?
    Even this over optimistic games machine reports a 90% of everything being alright!

  3. After reading about ROBERT H. FRANK, author of the column, I see he believes in taxing the rich extra—for their own good.

  4. Andy DC says:

    It’s similar to a mob protection racket. You pay us and your house won’t blow away.

  5. nigelf says:

    I agree with all the comments and I’d like to add that a 12 degree rise would not mean the end of life. Hardship yes, but not extinction.

    • Frylock says:

      The phrase is ‘life as we know it’. Not ‘life’. So yes, it would end life as we know it.

      “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it”

      • nigelf says:

        Things would change for sure but define life as we know it. One could argue life would change as we know it if they find life or signs of past life on Mars but day to day life on Earth wouldn’t change one bit for the vast majority.

      • Ray says:

        A completely meaningless phrase, designed to imply “an end to life”.
        Arguably, by 2100, life then will not be “as we know it now”, in any case.
        For a start, most people currently alive will be dead.
        In any case, it’s all based on a model which is designed to produce an increase in temperatures.

  6. Owen says:

    Mainstream media journalists are morons. Frank is no exception.

  7. “the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model”

    Someone’s spreadsheet…

  8. Owen says:

    I dont get Fox, I’ve never seen their News. If they are anti global warming, good for them. At least one mainstream media organization hasn’t fallen for the scam then. All the mainstream media I do get are brainwashed by the Climate Liars and the global warming ideology, hence one reason among many that I tune them out as much as I can. Somebody should tell ABC, NBC, CBS, CBC, etc. that propaganda isn’t real journalism.

  9. The appellation MSM is used as a short-hand for CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, LAT, Chicago Tribune (& other Tribune-affiliated papers), the Boston Globe, the host of Knight-Ridder newspapers, the Associated Press, Reuters, Time Magazine, pretty much everything under the Hearst banner, Newsweek, & the various radio news services (usually ABC, & CBS). In the 1990s this expanded to CNN, & the formerly somewhat outsider NPR (& PBS). Since, we have added the smaller, spin-off services, such as MSNBC & HLN (the risible Current TV being too wacky to even consider).

    Fox News is, indeed a part of the Main Stream Media, in the sense that it is a medium (cable television), it is relatively main-stream (they have a host of moderates, a few leftists, & a few conservatives), and is the largest by audience of the cable news providers. They still aren’t broadcast over the public airwaves, like NBC, CBS, & ABC (& PBS, & NPR), so their potential reach is far more restricted.

    But MSM is a perfectly understandable term & thus the leftist brown-nosers try to deny & confuse the meaning as often as possible.

  10. rocknblues81 says:

    Article says that we basically need this tax or we’re doomed in less than 100 years. It’s tough to not get annoyed with stuff like this. When people act like this it makes some folks start to believe this extreme global warming stuff is basically a new religion.

  11. Orson Olson says:

    This is yet another insurance event argument for climate taxes. It presumes that a unique cause is really predictable, and then probability can be assigned and countered by taking out “insurance.” But it isn’t insurance wince probability outcomes are merely assumed, and cannot be calculated on any sound, actuarial bases. Hence, its silliness.

  12. Old Goat says:

    “…What will it take to end stupidity at the New York Times?…”

    Mark Thompson (Ex BBC) is coming – you ain’t seen nothing, yet…

  13. Ira says:

    can anyone tell me why one of the very few counter-arguments seems to be something along the lines of “why do you only watch FOX news?” A non sequitur, and not a very good one.
    Steven, perhaps you need to yet again reprint that image of Hansen’s Three Scenarios for Frylock’s benefit

  14. PaddikJ says:

    Academics and their titles – Distinguished Professor of Carbon Footprints, The Wirth Chair of Sustainability (I didn’t make that up; I couldn’t have). These overcompensating poseurs are always puffing themselves up somehow, but a “respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model”? Really?

    Good F**king Grief, will it be replaced next year and put out to pasture as The Distinguished Global Climate Simulation Model Emeritus?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s