I agree. My intent was just to let a few guys know here and my group that I changed my name.
Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change
-
Yes, Obviously I believe humans caused “all damage.” (A sentence that doesn’t actually even make sense. What is “damage”? What are you even talking about?)
Please quote whatever it is that made it so obvious that I believe “humans caused all damage.”
And then perhaps you can explain why all your base are belong to us.
Read the last few posts you made, the solution supported by various tax regimes… e.g “carbon tax” That solution is entirely based on humans paying more. It has no effect on the problem because the problem is much larger and much more having to do with the Sun and various cycles that the Earth goes through like normal cooling and warming periods.
I didn’t see any solution that identifies that anything more than “tax the humans”
I paid $135,000 in taxes last year and we got enough of these pseudo science ideas causing more problems. Half the time the increases just go into a general fund and the money spent on something entirely else.
And that’s my opinion. Don’t ask me to prove nothing. I made very obvious points so just accept/respect my opinion. My first post was not addressed to anyone, just a general truth added from a different perspective.
Calm down people.
-
Troll boy. Before you shoot your mouth off about spelling perhaps you ought to broaden your horizons to the fact not every nation spells things the same way as your nation. chuckles That is a classic troll comment to point out spelling errors rather than the content of the post. However, this time you merely reaffirmed everyone’s thoughts about you……Can you guess what people think of you Grendel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-our.2C_-or
Derivatives and inflected forms
In derivatives and inflected forms of the -our/or words, British usage depends on the nature of the suffix used. The u is kept before English suffixes that are freely attachable to English words (for example in neighbourhood, humourless and savoury) and suffixes of Greek or Latin origin that have been naturalised (for example in favourite, honourable and behaviourism). However, before Latin suffixes that are not freely attachable to English words, the u:How the hell you ever got a position of responsibility on this website is beyond me. I wonder how much you cost David in donations? Maybe you ought to try and be a decent sort of chap and help out David rather than being counterproductive for this website.
-
And pay special attention to the following quotes:
“…the law introducing the levy required its proceeds to be recycled back to individuals and companies as cuts in income taxes. […] It seems to be working as planned. Since 2008 fuel consumption per head in the province has dropped by 4.5%, more than elsewhere in Canada. British Columbians use less fuel than any other Canadians. And British Columbians pay lower income taxes too.”
The new tax has not weakened the province’s economy, which has been boosted by high world prices for its commodity exports. Unemployment is slightly below the national average, and growth slightly higher. Because the tax started low and its rises were set out in advance, businesses had plenty of time to make plans to cut their carbon use."
" British Columbia has shown the rest of Canada, a country with high carbon emissions per head, that a carbon tax can achieve multiple benefits at minimal cost."
Well first off, the tax is not just on fuel gas but on any carbon producing energy source, including electric plants:
One possible reason that the carbon tax has had a negligible effect on economic growth, however, is that British Columbia gets the majority of its electricity from low-carbon hydropower, so electricity prices have been less affected by the tax than, say, they would be in a natural-gas-heavy province like Alberta or a coal-reliant state like Indiana.*
British Columbia has also used the carbon tax proceeds to lower both its local corporate income tax and the tax rates on the bottom two brackets, in order to alleviate the fact that the carbon tax hits the poor a bit harder. �As a result of the carbon tax shift,� the authors write, �BC now has one of the lowest general corporate income tax rates in Canada (tied with Alberta and New Brunswick), and also the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada, for those earning up to $119,000.�And according to this statement, and if I am not mistaken, the majority of the income tax relief is for lower earners and smaller companies. Yes, you can argue that a carbon tax affects them more and that they need the relief more, but it isn’t fair to the large companies. This is an example of redistribution of earned income via a tax. I am not saying that is the primary goal of the tax, because I don’t believe that it is, but it certainly isn’t “fair”.
But I don’t live in BC, or Canada, so you might have to challenge me if I am making an uninformed statement.
-
How the hell you ever got a position of responsibility on this website is beyond me. I wonder how much you cost David in donations? Maybe you ought to try and be a decent sort of chap and help out David rather than being counterproductive for this website.
Maybe you should stop hijacking the thread to troll people you don’t like? Maybe you should not try to find ways to pick fights out of nothing with posts of mine not directed to you ( or anybody). Perhaps just sticking to the thread might be a better solution for you?
Be less of a troll and more of somebody who actually responds to posts without calling people trolls out of the blue for bogus reasons ( which is what trolls do).
-
Wow canuck. Â I’m sure that 4.5% reduction in fuel consumption had nothing to do with the global recession…
And as I stated before, what has this actually done for the enviroment?
Sure we can call 4.5% reduction of fuel consumption a start. Â But I can call my choice to recycle a single sheet of scrap paper at work this morning a start too.
And FRIMMEL
Have you actually read what that website you keep posting actually says when you get to the bottom of it? Â It says that the lack of Ozone over antarctica is what makes it cold and makes the ice grow… Â But that the same lack of ozone is whats making the artic sea ice melt? Â And that all the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere destroys the ozone and is heating everything up.
Whether it’s b.s. out of the left side of their mouth, or the right, something is a bold face lie either way.
Pre-Emptive Strike - No offense but your source is full of Sh*t. Time to find a new one. Or at the very least let me know when they’ve made up their mind which psuedo-science they want me to believe lol.
As for you Canuck
Despite you efforts to find a brush to paint me down with, here’s the sad reality.
I haven’t made up my mind on climate change! That’s why I started this thread, I wanted to see ALL of the information, from ALL of the sides, and test that knowledge to see what holds water and makes sense.
Sure I come into this from a disposition based on my gut, but the fact remains I’m undecided. Â Just because you want to witchhunt and label me as a skeptic/naysayer, head in san denier, doesn’t make it true.
I just want to know the truth, have my questions responded to respectfully, and be aloud to decide for myself, is that really such a bad thing?
-
I just want to know the truth, have my questions responded to respectfully, and be aloud to decide for myself, is that really such a bad thing?
That is the crux of the entire matter: the Truth. I look for that everywhere because I do believe that in most circumstances, there is a right answer. Regardless if this issue is as bad as some people think it is or not, the solutions that some people offer do not fit into my philosophical/ethical… religious, dare I say it, worldview. I know what truth is in that respect, and it overrides all solutions, and most that people here have offered. Like it or hate it, that is how I am. The ends do not justify the means, especially regarding this topic.
(Garg - You are looking for allowed, not “aloud”. Thought you would appreciate a friendly correction as opposed to unfriendly ridicule from your opposition.)
-
Fair enough Garg. If I stepped over the line, I apologise. I will try and keep things on-topic and off-personal (IL: Notwithstanding :-) )
Back to helping everyone make an informed decision: (Myself included.)
As for the carbon tax:
Yes, fuel consumption dropped overall in the world with the financial crisis. But it dropped more in BC and has stayed lower as other areas of the country recover. Economists aren’t stupid and people do respond to incentives. What Hoffamn brings up is right as well. The tax is not just on fuel it’s on almost all sources of CO2. So some of the reduction you wont even notice, because it is done far upstream at factories, smelters, mines, loading docks etc. Anything that emits fossil CO2 faces higher cost, so it is disincentivised, and if it’s efficient to do so, reduced.
As for ozone:
CO2 doesn’t destroy ozone. Chlorofluorocarbons do. That’s just a misunderstanding of the issue. Ozone depletion is largely a separate issue that has more to do with skin-cancer rates than with climate change. But it does serve as a great example of a global environmental issue that we actually solved. CFCs are virtually non-existent these days and ozone is actually growing in most places on earth (year to year it still may rise or fall). The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed in Montreal in '87 and detailed the phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochloroflourocarbons, which we have done very successfully over the last 25 years.
Somehow, this problem didn’t blow up-into a massive scientific/political debate, people believed the science, acted and we got the job done. The best part is that no-one even really noticed. (Seems to have something in common with that BC carbon tax, huh?)
-
You claim it has had no effect on you (you just dump the same fuel into your tank) but consider that business and income taxes are LOWER as a result. Which incentivises job creation and WORK rather than pollution and climate change (seems like a no-brainer to me).
Unfortunately, it also incentivises dumping like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
I am not saying you agree with the above method of “carbon reduction”, because I am sure you don’t, but I will point out that a system of carbon taxes and credits will foster this kind of scientific progress. I think it is dangerous for both the economy and the environment when governments get so involved in specific industries or fields, like scientific research, automotive or energy. Being the entities with effectively the ultimate power, people and companies want to get on the government’s good side and become a partner in their agenda so they can get tax credits, subsidies or grant money. Mostly it is done because they see a supply of “free” money and protection under the pretense of cutting edge innovation and continued government smiling upon.
It has happened in the United States with car companies, banks, and energy companies… it will happen with scientists and environmental advocates also. It is concerning that the Canadian government may have somehow been involved or at least permissive of an iron dumping in the ocean geoengineering project.
-
Please explain how a tax@LHoffman:
You claim it has had no effect on you (you just dump the same fuel into your tank) but consider that business and income taxes are LOWER as a result. Which incentivises job creation and WORK rather than pollution and climate change (seems like a no-brainer to me).
Unfortunately, it also incentivises dumping like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
Please explain what tangible benefit the BC carbon tax delivers to this crank-pot scientist. Carbon credits, perhaps, carbon trading schemes, perhaps, massive subsidies, perhaps, But I see absolutely no incentivisation for this kind of dangerous experimental science coming from a carbon tax like the one in BC.
-
Iron dumping in the ocean in theory can mop up some carbon. However one must be careful about the law of unintended consequences. If the biological blooms are not sequestered by dropping to the bottom of the ocean it just returns as possibly methane a much worse greenhouse gas.
I thought this article might be of interest.
Ice sheets may stabilise for centuries, regardless of warming
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/18/ice_sheet_retreat_stabilises_sometimes/
-
The carbon tax might be similar to Canada’s increased tax on alcohol and tobacco compared to say the US. People can drink and smoke but just have to pay more for it. These activities damage a ‘nation’, the citizens require more healthcare so there is increased cost to this activity. The increased tax does seem to decrease this activity without outlawing it. Same thing occurs with increased fuel taxes, it just moves the equation a bit more to one side or the other on any choice. I’m sure there will be questions of fairness and regressive tax structure but that is fixable.
-
Please explain what tangible benefit the BC carbon tax delivers to this crank-pot scientist.
I don’t really know, I was just throwing it out there because it relates to our discussion.
It is conceivable that somehow a project similar to this, which “reduces” greenhouse gasses, can earn individuals/companies positive energy credits in the form of tax breaks, cash rewards or government contracts. I don’t know that that is occurring here, but with the trend of intense government subsidization on greenhouse gas reduction don’t you think it is conceivable that a successful method of reduction would be viewed favorably and possibly rewarded by said government? The BC carbon tax doesn’t seem to have anything to do with this directly, but the fact that it exists does prompt research and experimentation like this. Unless this guy is an environmental zealot and ultimate altruist, why would he do this if there was no possible benefit to him or his research/company from an outside source? The earth itself isn’t going to say “thanks for helping me” and spit out some cash for him.
-
Yes, apparently he is hoping to sell some carbon credits off this scheme. The tax wouldn’t reward this which is one of the many reason why is is so superior to emissions trading schemes like the one in Europe.
-
This Scheme, That Scheme, your own schemes.
That’s what all this crap is isn’t it? A smoke and mirrors tax/revenue/rich-explioiting-the-poor scheme. Because carbon credits make us equal.
Wow… I think I just called it.
-
Carbon tax is supposed to help the environment. Really. What a joke. It is a way for all of us to give up more of our money and feel good about it. Wake up people.
-
For the record, and for the forward movement of our discussion, we should distinguish the clear difference between “Carbon Taxing” and “Climate Change”.
They are two totally different items/conversations, although the common ground is “Carbon Taxing” is a scheme to effect climate change.
-
Please explain what you mean by “scheme” and why carbon credits make us equal.
I don’t understand this smoke and mirrors concept. What evidence do you have for this?
I don’t think anyone has yet confused a carbon tax and climate change. Of course they are different. A carbon tax is a climate change mitigation strategy.
I thought this was supposed to be scientific, no politics. What’s all this conspiracy theory stuff?
-
Carbon tax is supposed to help the environment. Really. What a joke. It is a way for all of us to give up more of our money and feel good about it. Wake up people.
Exactly! Good post. Note the money pays for government pensions which in nearly every case are higher than the private sector. Next, the quacks who make a living at spooking people have a good paying career on the lecture/television/book circuit espousing these bogus “science” merits. Human carbon footprint in any event is a small fraction of the total aggregate cause of “Global Warming”. And on top of that 80-90% of it is cause by developing nations and China which have little to none in the way of environmental programs.
Everybody blames USA and Europe when this is all Asia, South America, or Africa causing the problems because they have to provisions for dealing with carbon treatment.
I just bet if i drive a car in Kenya, I must get a smog test every 2 years…yea right don’t think so.
The US and Europe have the most developed environmental laws and provisions and yet people still want to propose “carbon tax”? Yea sure.
The other influence from all of this is the ‘have not’s’ who run United Nations trying to compete economically with developed nations, they singularly espouse limiting only 1st rate nations and the rules never apply to developing 4-5th rate nations EVER.
-
Good post IL. Let’s solve global warming everyone. The sun is getting hot and melting the polar ice caps. Great Tax the developed nations to death under the auspice of a carbon tax and when we get the money lets throw up in the air at the sun and hope the problem goes away. Ask yourself if that makes sense.
-
At what point did this thread get hijacked by people who not only spew arbitrary, incorrect statistics that they pull out of their ass but don’t even read the previous posts.
It was halfway enlightening before people started belching their own uninformed opinion without even following the topic…
sigh
Suggested Topics
