Jan Willard in her Aug. 24 letter to the editor claims that 98 percent of peer-reviewed scientific articles state that the climate is changing. I believe that the 98 percent figure refers to a review of 12,500 peer-reviewed papers on the subject, of which some 4,700 or so papers supported the idea that global warming was mainly caused by man.
Roughly 98 percent of the 4,700 papers contained statements to that effect. This is the number used by the president in his speeches.
That cut the number of actual articles that strongly support the theory of man being the main cause to something in the neighborhood of 38 percent. All you have to do is look at the past as the climate is always changing, caused by man or not.
Unfortunately, that 38 percent is based on mathematical models, for which the authors refuse to release the source code so their work can be checked or duplicated (the true measure of scientific relevance).
The models are likely non-linear models using weather data (referred to as chaotic data). These models also contain numerous assumptions that can literally provide any outcome that the author wants. Think of using chaotic data as about the same as trying to run you car on Coca-Cola.
Why use cap and trade at all? If the U.S. stopped all use of fossil fuels, we would only decrease the amount of carbon dioxide warming in the atmosphere less than a tenth of a part per million. Developing countries will continue to add to it!
A carbon tax would just be passed on to consumers. Unfortunately, it is the current administration's only hope of funding their new health care initiatives. Those government subsidies have to come from somewhere.