Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The warmers are running in circles. They say the melting is from AGW, but NOW say they knew about the volcanoes causing the melting all along and go on to say that THIS doesn't disprove AGW. Well warmists, it doesn't PROVE AGW either like you have been claiming.
The melting is not an either or phenomenon. It's also not a neither nor phenomenon. So that leaves us with.................
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
You committed two fallacies.
In other words, the AGW goose-steppers say man has caused temperatures to increase causing glaciers to melt and the proof is glaciers melting (that's actually a Circular Argument by AGW Liars).
Now when it is discovered that heat from volcanic and tectonic activity is melting glaciers, and not man-made.
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
You committed two fallacies.
In other words, the AGW goose-steppers say man has caused temperatures to increase causing glaciers to melt and the proof is glaciers melting (that's actually a Circular Argument by AGW Liars).
Now when it is discovered that heat from volcanic and tectonic activity is melting glaciers, and not man-made.
This is in keeping with your hysteria....
Laughing at the superior intellect....
Mircea
They do engage is some serious double speak and circular logic don't they?
A new or raised tax is bigger government. It doesn't matter what the tax goes for. The tax by its very existence is inherently bigger government. Saying the carbon tax is not bigger government is like saying a hamburger isn't food.
It will not go towards lowering other taxes. That is pure fantasy. The tax is supported by Democrats and you can be sure that their support of it means that government revenues will increase overall. That means they will absolutely not use the money raised by the tax to lower other taxes. It's just like how the Democrats made such a fanfare about passing that law that any new spending was to be offset by cuts elsewhere, and then promptly started attaching provisions to the new spending they wanted that exempted it from that law. Just like they swore up and down that Obamacare would be under 1 trillion dollars and absolutely not add one penny in spending, and then once it was passed they immediately put in their "doctor fix" that increased it by almost 200 billion in new spending, counted 10 years of taxes for only 4 years of benefits to make it come in under 1 trillion, and counted 500 billion off the cost of Obamacare due to shifting medicare money while simultaneously counting that very same 500 billion as medicare cuts. Just like they counted reductions in the future increase in spending as spending cuts in order to claim they were reducing the deficit when they were in fact increasing it. So sorry, but Democrats are absolutely not trustworthy in the slightest when they make pronouncements like the one about carbon taxes being offset by reductions in other taxes. Their track record in those matters is that they quite simply lie about it.
Not really. The carbon taxes will not end up actually being used to offset other taxes in the slightest. The additional bureaucracy, regulatory procedures, and underestimation of costs will cause the administration of the tax to cost millions if not billions itself. The additional costs required to comply with the new regulations or to pay the taxes will be passed on to the consumers by the companies affected. The whole thing will end up being a disaster and then liberals will blame conservatives for it. We've already seen their gameplan in action with Obamacare, where liberals denied that people would lose their insurance or have their premiums increase and called Republicans warning about it to be fearmongering and then when those two things turned out to be absolutely true, those same liberals blamed the insurance companies for it.
Fracking.
Sure. Just like we were all going to be the ones benefiting from proposed bans on incandescent light bulbs. Until it turned out that GE, a major campaign donor to the Democrats, owned the majority of the market in the new energy efficient light bulbs that cost several times as much as the ones to be banned. Just like Al Gore is a tireless crusader for the environment, and the fact that he is making millions upon millions of dollars from selling carbon credits is just a coincidence.
Yes, we're all going to benefit from the carbon tax. Nevermind that little situation of Obama saying that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket".
The warmers are running in circles. They say the melting is from AGW, but NOW say they knew about the volcanoes causing the melting all along and go on to say that THIS doesn't disprove AGW. Well warmists, it doesn't PROVE AGW either like you have been claiming.
There is no volcano under the Greenland ice sheet, so can you tell me why it is shrinking at an ever increasing rate?
Between 1992 and 2010, the Greenland ice sheet lost an average of 12.9 billion tons of mass a year, Dr. Dumont and colleagues note, in their study published June 8 in the journal Nature Geoscience. Currently the ice sheet is losing between 200 billion and 450 billion tons a year. The team estimates that the additional loss from dust's effect adds another 27 billion tons a year to these losses.
There is no volcano under the Greenland ice sheet, so can you tell me why it is shrinking at an ever increasing rate?
Between 1992 and 2010, the Greenland ice sheet lost an average of 12.9 billion tons of mass a year, Dr. Dumont and colleagues note, in their study published June 8 in the journal Nature Geoscience. Currently the ice sheet is losing between 200 billion and 450 billion tons a year. The team estimates that the additional loss from dust's effect adds another 27 billion tons a year to these losses.
Greenland used to have NO ice. It's returning to what it was before.
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
You committed two fallacies.
In other words, the AGW goose-steppers say man has caused temperatures to increase causing glaciers to melt and the proof is glaciers melting (that's actually a Circular Argument by AGW Liars).
Now when it is discovered that heat from volcanic and tectonic activity is melting glaciers, and not man-made.
If you had read what I just posted, you would know that the carbon tax is not bigger government. The money does not go to social programs, it goes towards lowering your other taxes. This applies to business as well-- it means they have an incentive to keep their emissions low because they will then save money. Wealthier consumers are good for the economy-- they will buy more, they will invest more, etc. There will be more incentives for people to move to these places because they are cleaner and wealthier and healthier.
If you have a better plan than this, maybe you should let everyone know what it is.
On top of this, I'm really not sure how this relates to your NWO conspiracy theory, or why they even need to drum up hysteria since the only people benefiting from a carbon tax is the general population.
rubbish, dont give me a qt of diarrhea and try to tell me its chocolate milk. as i said go back and read many of my posts on the environment before you make ignorant statements like you just did about me trying to save face.
no onto your other statements, again pure rubbish. BC canada instituted a carbon tax, but to avoid the problems of adding a tax, they offset the tax by cutting other taxes including the income tax there. why? because they knew that just adding the carbon tax would damage their economy. other governments are not going to be as enlightened as the BC canada government. for instance the democrats in the US not only want to add a carbon tax, they want to increase income and other taxes as well.
and look at the kyoto protocols, and other "climate change" protocols that have been pushed on the world. note that each of them put carbon emissions limits on developed countries like the US, russia, and europe. but they leave out china and india from these limits. why? they also leave out the rest of the world as well, again why? to top that off, they want to impose a tax on the developed countries, and take that money and give it to the undeveloped countries in a wealth redistribution scheme on a global scale.
if you were to actually read these protocols, you would get an understanding of what i am talking about. however i dont figure that you will in fact read them because you would learn some real truths, and it would start to introduce doubt in your mind, and you might start to realize just what the governments of the world really want to do.
There is no volcano under the Greenland ice sheet, so can you tell me why it is shrinking at an ever increasing rate?
Between 1992 and 2010, the Greenland ice sheet lost an average of 12.9 billion tons of mass a year, Dr. Dumont and colleagues note, in their study published June 8 in the journal Nature Geoscience. Currently the ice sheet is losing between 200 billion and 450 billion tons a year. The team estimates that the additional loss from dust's effect adds another 27 billion tons a year to these losses.
Photos in the link show that the Greenland ice cap was melting faster in 1930 than it is now, causing no world-wide panic.
An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland
Anders A. Bjørk, Kurt H. Kjær, Niels J. Korsgaard, Shfaqat A. Khan, Kristian K. Kjeldsen, Camilla S. Andresen, Jason E. Box, Nicolaj K. Larsen & Svend Funder
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Geoscience 5, 427–432 (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1481
Received 21 January 2012 Accepted 20 April 2012 Published online 27 May 2012
Abstract
Widespread retreat of glaciers has been observed along the southeastern margin of Greenland. This retreat has been associated with increased air and ocean temperatures. However, most observations are from the satellite era; presatellite observations of Greenlandic glaciers are rare. Here we present a unique record that documents the frontal positions for 132 southeast Greenlandic glaciers from rediscovered historical aerial imagery beginning in the early 1930s. We combine the historical aerial images with both early and modern satellite imagery to extract frontal variations of marine- and land-terminating outlet glaciers, as well as local glaciers and ice caps, over the past 80 years. The images reveal a regional response to external forcing regardless of glacier type, terminal environment and size. Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.
George Will had an astute observation when he declared – accurately – that the Left is so enamored with the idea of “climate change” because it offers them the opportunity to regulate simply everything.
rubbish, dont give me a qt of diarrhea and try to tell me its chocolate milk. as i said go back and read many of my posts on the environment before you make ignorant statements like you just did about me trying to save face.
no onto your other statements, again pure rubbish. BC canada instituted a carbon tax, but to avoid the problems of adding a tax, they offset the tax by cutting other taxes including the income tax there. why? because they knew that just adding the carbon tax would damage their economy. other governments are not going to be as enlightened as the BC canada government. for instance the democrats in the US not only want to add a carbon tax, they want to increase income and other taxes as well.
and look at the kyoto protocols, and other "climate change" protocols that have been pushed on the world. note that each of them put carbon emissions limits on developed countries like the US, russia, and europe. but they leave out china and india from these limits. why? they also leave out the rest of the world as well, again why? to top that off, they want to impose a tax on the developed countries, and take that money and give it to the undeveloped countries in a wealth redistribution scheme on a global scale.
if you were to actually read these protocols, you would get an understanding of what i am talking about. however i dont figure that you will in fact read them because you would learn some real truths, and it would start to introduce doubt in your mind, and you might start to realize just what the governments of the world really want to do.
So wait-- you're upset because you think that other places are going to instate a carbon tax without lowering other taxes... because of your right wing paranoia and persecution complex, because you so need to hate Obama that you're unwilling to actually look at what he has done objectively and admit that there are some good ideas mixed in with the bad, just like every other president.
And the reason that first world nations were targeted is because they can actually afford to do so, because they have more money. Developing nations are still in the midst of industrialization and would never commit to the targets if they weren't given leniency. I think we're a little better off than people in Africa or India.
China already has higher emissions standards for its vehicles than the US, which is still the worst polluter for its population size... on top of that, they're starting to take action to reduce their emissions-- mostly because wealth has moved into China so rapidly. When more wealth moves into the developing world, as it's projected to, they will need to raise their emissions standards and take action.
Another reason is that developing nations still consume less than your average American. Most of the emissions in the third world are still caused by American consumption patterns. Palm oil in Indonesia is a massive source of deforestation, and most of it ends up in things like Ice Cream and margarine and pudding and cosmetics for people in the US. So is meat-- and tell me that Americans don't eat ridiculously huge amounts of meat every day. Even if the agriculture is taking place in the third world, wealthy American consumers are driving the demand.
And to answer the other poster and his whole 'it will raise the cost of fossil fuels'-- I say GOOD.
If that happens, people will stop driving 5 minutes to go to the store and will get up and walk for 20 minutes. If they live in the country, they'll make sure they get everything they need on their weekly drive into town. There will be more demand for affordable public transit. Bicycle sales will be boosted, and people will be healthier to boot.
Gas-guzzler sales will drop and manufacturers will be pressured to explore alternative fuel sources... all of the money currently being put into oil will be channelled into developing better solar and wind technology, hybrids, or more fuel efficient vehicles. Things like more efficient appliances or discounts on solar panels is a big plus. Even making cars smaller will help out a lot. Earth-sheltered homes, building materials other than concrete, making homes smaller so they don't need as much heat and light, etc.
People might stop stuffing their faces with calories they don't even need, and which only end up causing health problems for both themselves and their children.
Developing nations might be hosting the production of these things, but they are too poor to be driving the consumption-- if you make these destructive patterns less affordable, then people will live longer, healthier, happier, cheaper lives.
Developed nations can already afford these types of changes because Americans already consume way way way too much, but the problem is that the oil companies are pushing hard and are still receiving huge subsidies from the government, and capitalism and consumerism is completely out of control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
