NOW:53211:USA01012
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01012
66°
H 88° L 66°
Cloudy | 16MPH

Polar Vortex Round 2

Business, climate change, County Government, Election, Energy, Government, Health Care, News, Politics, Presidential Politics, Reform, Religion, Smoking, taxes

Outside of two weeks ago, I don't think I meant anyone who would put the words polar and vortex into the same sentence. We may not know what it is, or where it came from. But we do know what the cause is: global warming.

Climate change scientists have the explanation ready for us. Because of the excessive carbon dioxide that we put in the air in the past 30 years, the border that keeps the polar vortex from blowing down to this part of the country has been weakened by humans. So let's ask the question, when it stops being so bitter cold, does that mean the actions of humans have fixed the polar vortex border? That has to be the on the explanation; cause and effect.

Yes, global warming is the cause of these record low temperatures we have been experiencing. Although, if we remember our history, weren't we told as schoolchildren that the glaciers carved the Great Lakes? If so, global warming has been around longer than the 1980s. But who caused the global warming that made the glaciers melt? If there were no citizens in this part of the country, except for some Indians up near Oshkosh, what the heck happened?

The history of temperatures is misleading. In this area, the records only go back 150 years. Basing the entire climate history on this short period of record-keeping is like telling your entire life story with a starting point of last Thursday. Yes, the climate may be changing to blame it on industrialization and the driving of cars over the past few decades seems a bit inconclusive to people who have really thought this over.

Then there are those people who believe the solution to this is to put a tax on carbon. It's hard to believe that the people who were writing in the Journal Sentinel actually believe that climate change could be stopped and the effects reversed by putting a tax on carbon. The ones that are really funny how the writers believe that this should be revenue neutral. Why have a tax? If the goal is to redistribute the wealth, and why not just call it that? Show some hubris climatologists.

And when would a tax be revenue neutral? Whenever government steps in to do a redistribution project, we know there is some overhead. We think were taking from the rich, and were taking from all working people and handing it over to those deemed less fortunate. Even if you believe this to be a noble cause, how does it stop climate change? Isn't that the problem were trying to correct?

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools