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.
Yes your regulations, since your the tool of the LWNJs pushing the so called carbon tax, which will cause jobs to leave the united states. It seems like you don't care if the jobs all move some where else, and tons of people end up unemployed.
You have no idea of what you are talking about...We have had a carbon tax here in BC since 2008, and not one of the things you fear have happened....
First of all, I'm not sure that I have much of a "position" on climate change. I "lean" toward the following: I strongly suspect that global warming is true, and I suspect that human activity plays some role in the warming trends over the past century. At the moment I'm completely agnostic about the question of whether or not GW can be slowed down by reducing CO2. I really just don't know.
BTW: My "leaning" toward belief in GW is mostly because my default attitude is "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to mainstream science. (I can't be an expert on everything, so I put a lot of weight on the views offered by reputable professional scientists on a subject until I see good reason to think they are wrong.) So far, it seems to me that the arguments and evidence offered by climate skeptics is mostly too weak to convince me that climatologists are idiots, or that they are part of some liberal conspiracy, or that they are stuck in a rut due to groupthink. I've read numerous skeptic's claims, but to convince me that they are right, the skeptics need to respond specifically to what the climatologists have ALREADY SAID in response to the skeptic's claims. But, for the most part, the skeptics rarely do this. I'd love to see a detailed, focused, scientific debate on the subject, but so far I have not seen much.
Here's how I wish things could go:
(1) Scientists: GW is happening
(2) Skeptic: GW is not happening because....(contrary arguments offered)
(3) Scientists: The claims made by skeptics are wrong because...(argument offered in response to claims)
(4) Skeptics: More arguments and evidence specifically addressing what the scientists have aready said in #3.
What I want to see is step (4) in the debate process. I want to see skeptic specifically respond to what the scientists have already said in step (3). But what happens instead is that the skeptic either go back to (1) and just repeat their initial claims, or they simply claim "Climatologists are stupid" or "left-wing drones" or whatever, and never seriously address the specific points made in step (3).
As for my "solution": To me it seems that it's stupid to be burning up our fossil fuels and we ought to be pushing hard and fast to move to renewable and/or "greener" forms of energy on a world-wide basis - even if AGW turns out to be completely wrong. In other words, lowering the impact of pollution, etc., is smart, no matter how the AGW theory turns out.
First of all, I'm not sure that I have much of a "position" on climate change. I "lean" toward the following: I strongly suspect that global warming is true, and I suspect that human activity plays some role in the warming trends over the past century. At the moment I'm completely agnostic about the question of whether or not GW can be slowed down by reducing CO2. I really just don't know.
BTW: My "leaning" toward belief in GW is mostly because my default attitude is "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to mainstream science. (I can't be an expert on everything, so I put a lot of weight on the views offered by reputable professional scientists on a subject until I see good reason to think they are wrong.) So far, it seems to me that the arguments and evidence offered by climate skeptics is mostly too weak to convince me that climatologists are idiots, or that they are part of some liberal conspiracy, or that they are stuck in a rut due to groupthink. I've read numerous skeptic's claims, but to convince me that they are right, the skeptics need to respond specifically to what the climatologists have ALREADY SAID in response to the skeptic's claims. But, for the most part, the skeptics rarely do this. I'd love to see a detailed, focused, scientific debate on the subject, but so far I have not seen much.
Here's how I wish things could go:
(1) Scientists: GW is happening
(2) Skeptic: GW is not happening because....(contrary arguments offered)
(3) Scientists: The claims made by skeptics are wrong because...(argument offered in response to claims)
(4) Skeptics: More arguments and evidence specifically addressing what the scientists have aready said in #3.
What I want to see is step (4) in the debate process. I want to see skeptic specifically respond to what the scientists have already said in step (3). But what happens instead is that the skeptic either go back to (1) and just repeat their initial claims, or they simply claim "Climatologists are stupid" or "left-wing drones" or whatever, and never seriously address the specific points made in step (3).
As for my "solution": To me it seems that it's stupid to be burning up our fossil fuels and we ought to be pushing hard and fast to move to renewable and/or "greener" forms of energy on a world-wide basis - even if AGW turns out to be completely wrong. In other words, lowering the impact of pollution, etc., is smart, no matter how the AGW theory turns out.
Leaving the philosophical problems with the GW predictions to one side for a moment, on problem with your solution is that fossil fuels continue to be used for two very simple reasons. They are cheap, and they are plentiful. None of the various forms of green energy are both, and most are neither.
Other than that sticking point, I would agree with you that there would be no harm to reducing CO2 emissions. Would the cost to the economy of pushing green methods outweigh the hidden costs of continuing to use cheap and plentiful fossil fuels? I honestly don't know, I don't think anyone knows which way the balance would fall.
Can you please present the definitive science which proves the concept of man made global warming?
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.Climate Change: Evidence
Once AGAIN, the comments on this website B.C. carbon tax showing positive results - The Globe and Mail
DON'T support your claims! I'd bet the average joe hates your "awesome carbon tax." You may think its really working, I bet things cost a real lot in BC, I would love to know the absolute truth, instead of some tool cheer leading this carbon tax fantasy that will some how make storms, floods, fires, disappear some how.
Once AGAIN, the comments on this website B.C. carbon tax showing positive results - The Globe and Mail
DON'T support your claims! I'd bet the average joe hates your "awesome carbon tax." You may think its really working, I bet things cost a real lot in BC, I would love to know the absolute truth, instead of some tool cheer leading this carbon tax fantasy that will some how make storms, floods, fires, disappear some how.
It is probably a waste of time responding to you, because you are not interested in the truth, but would rather believe the false talking points served to you by your puppet masters, but I'll respond anyway for the benefit of more honest and reasonable readers.
The tax has actually become quite popular. “Polls have shown anywhere from 55 to 65 percent support for the tax,” says Stewart Elgie, director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of the Environment. “And it would be hard to find any tax that the majority of people say they like, but the majority of people say they like this tax.”
It certainly doesn’t hurt that the tax, well, worked. That’s clear on at least three fronts: Major reductions in fuel usage in B.C., a corresponding decline in greenhouse gas emissions, and the lack of a negative impact on the B.C. economy.
Sure, the tax may cost you if you drive your car a great deal, or if you have high home gas heating costs. But it also gives you the opportunity to save a lot of money if you change your habits, for instance by driving less or buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle. That’s because the tax is designed to be “revenue neutral” — the money it raises goes right back to citizens in the form of tax breaks. Overall, the tax has brought in some $5 billion in revenue so far, and more than $3 billion has then been returned in the form of business tax cuts, along with over $1 billion in personal tax breaks, and nearly $1 billion in low-income tax credits (to protect those for whom rising fuel costs could mean the greatest economic hardship). According to the B.C. Ministry of Finance, for individuals who earn up to $122,000, income tax rates in the province are now Canada’s lowest.
Canadians aren’t the only ones who could benefit from emulating B.C.’s policies — so would Americans. Scholarly research suggests that a national carbon tax in the United States could be at least as effective as the B.C. tax, both in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in lowering income taxes (or, lowering the deficit).
Again and again and again. You make claims without any evidence or argument to support the claim. How is this helpful to anyone? I see no evidence that you've even looked at any of the arguments offered on the sight, so why should anyone believe anything you say about it? Also, the site itself that should not be the issue here. To attack the site without addressing any of the specific arguments offered on the site is simply to commit a logical fallacy. Instead of attacking the arguments, you are simply attacking the people who make the arguments. (For your convenience: Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
The point is that the skepticalscience site [http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php] offers responses to the claims made by anti-AGW folks, and within these responses you can almost always find links to the scientific sources supporting the view. I'm offering this site as a convenient way for anti-AGW folks to respond to scientists so that the debate can move forward. Otherwise, you are just asserting the same claims over and over again without any acknowledgment of what has been said against your position. It seems to me that climate skeptics ought to be deeply embarrassed by this on-going failure to engage the debate. But, as far a I can see, most skeptic's aren't even aware of how horridly bad their debating skills are.
It is probably a waste of time responding to you, because you are not interested in the truth, but would rather believe the false talking points served to you by your puppet masters, but I'll respond anyway for the benefit of more honest and reasonable readers.
The tax has actually become quite popular. “Polls have shown anywhere from 55 to 65 percent support for the tax,” says Stewart Elgie, director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of the Environment. “And it would be hard to find any tax that the majority of people say they like, but the majority of people say they like this tax.”
It certainly doesn’t hurt that the tax, well, worked. That’s clear on at least three fronts: Major reductions in fuel usage in B.C., a corresponding decline in greenhouse gas emissions, and the lack of a negative impact on the B.C. economy.
Sure, the tax may cost you if you drive your car a great deal, or if you have high home gas heating costs. But it also gives you the opportunity to save a lot of money if you change your habits, for instance by driving less or buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle. That’s because the tax is designed to be “revenue neutral” — the money it raises goes right back to citizens in the form of tax breaks. Overall, the tax has brought in some $5 billion in revenue so far, and more than $3 billion has then been returned in the form of business tax cuts, along with over $1 billion in personal tax breaks, and nearly $1 billion in low-income tax credits (to protect those for whom rising fuel costs could mean the greatest economic hardship). According to the B.C. Ministry of Finance, for individuals who earn up to $122,000, income tax rates in the province are now Canada’s lowest.
Canadians aren’t the only ones who could benefit from emulating B.C.’s policies — so would Americans. Scholarly research suggests that a national carbon tax in the United States could be at least as effective as the B.C. tax, both in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in lowering income taxes (or, lowering the deficit).
Who did they poll to get this skewed support? Polls don't reflect the views of everyone!
So declining green house emissions, wouldn't factories, and the like have to move out of B.C then to afford to run and keep prices decent?
So 1 billion in low income tax credits, is basically carbon tax masquerading as socialism! So technically carbon tax does cause hardship. Right out of the left wingers mouth the truth comes out!
Last edited by lookb4youcross; 08-11-2014 at 02:01 PM..
It is probably a waste of time responding to you, because you are not interested in the truth, but would rather believe the false talking points served to you by your puppet masters, but I'll respond anyway for the benefit of more honest and reasonable readers.
The tax has actually become quite popular. “Polls have shown anywhere from 55 to 65 percent support for the tax,” says Stewart Elgie, director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of the Environment. “And it would be hard to find any tax that the majority of people say they like, but the majority of people say they like this tax.”
It certainly doesn’t hurt that the tax, well, worked. That’s clear on at least three fronts: Major reductions in fuel usage in B.C., a corresponding decline in greenhouse gas emissions, and the lack of a negative impact on the B.C. economy.
Sure, the tax may cost you if you drive your car a great deal, or if you have high home gas heating costs. But it also gives you the opportunity to save a lot of money if you change your habits, for instance by driving less or buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle. That’s because the tax is designed to be “revenue neutral” — the money it raises goes right back to citizens in the form of tax breaks. Overall, the tax has brought in some $5 billion in revenue so far, and more than $3 billion has then been returned in the form of business tax cuts, along with over $1 billion in personal tax breaks, and nearly $1 billion in low-income tax credits (to protect those for whom rising fuel costs could mean the greatest economic hardship). According to the B.C. Ministry of Finance, for individuals who earn up to $122,000, income tax rates in the province are now Canada’s lowest.
Canadians aren’t the only ones who could benefit from emulating B.C.’s policies — so would Americans. Scholarly research suggests that a national carbon tax in the United States could be at least as effective as the B.C. tax, both in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in lowering income taxes (or, lowering the deficit).
Again and again and again. You make claims without any evidence or argument to support the claim. How is this helpful to anyone? I see no evidence that you've even looked at any of the arguments offered on the sight, so why should anyone believe anything you say about it? Also, the site itself that should not be the issue here. To attack the site without addressing any of the specific arguments offered on the site is simply to commit a logical fallacy. Instead of attacking the arguments, you are simply attacking the people who make the arguments. (For your convenience: Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
The point is that the skepticalscience site [http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php] offers responses to the claims made by anti-AGW folks, and within these responses you can almost always find links to the scientific sources supporting the view. I'm offering this site as a convenient way for anti-AGW folks to respond to scientists so that the debate can move forward. Otherwise, you are just asserting the same claims over and over again without any acknowledgment of what has been said against your position. It seems to me that climate skeptics ought to be deeply embarrassed by this on-going failure to engage the debate. But, as far a I can see, most skeptic's aren't even aware of how horridly bad their debating skills are.
I have, in PLENTY of other climate/warming conspiracy theory topics here, you just ignore them. As for attacking the site, the amount of liberal spinning are too numerous to waste my time on.
My other issue, is that data can be messed with, so can satellite images. Your problem is you have too many people pushing the climate/warming agenda that are known liars, zero credibility on top of it.
Speaking of making the same claims over and over again, pot calling the kettle black.
Climate alarmists are just as bad as you claim the skeptics are, again, pot calling the kettle black.
Lastly, you want to fall for the biggest lie going, that's up to you. You know what they say ( actually you don't ), If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it--Joseph Goebbels If the climate/warming conspiracy theories were really on the up and up, bullies like Adam "WHINESTEIN", and other bullies, would let skeptics come around on their own, maybe you would have a chance, but, you climate/warming conspiracy theorists will continue to spin out their fiddled data, bulling people like usual.
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.
