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.
No I do not read right wing blogs it is a myth
Al Gore saw a way to make money and he has his little minions running behind him
lie a bunch of little robots
the sky is falling!!!!
every check out HIS life style??? His Lear Jets???
LOL
I have a brain that I use
and if you people can not see how you have been DUPED
then that is on you
but I do not ware tin foil on my head
I see incoherent whining about Al Gore, and smilies. I'll stick with the scientists, they make their case with fewer smilies.
This is good news.... Two-thirds of Americans say they are more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They are less likely to vote for candidates who question or deny the science of human-caused global warming. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us...oll-finds.html
LOL! Nice try! No names were republican names were mentioned.
If you click on the global warming what should be done. It mentions not one realistic recommendation to deal with climate change. I also notice people are highly opposed to taxes on electricity, and opposed to increasing taxes on gasoline so people drive less or buy cars that use less. In other words, the poll and what it claims is heavily skewed/biased.
Edit: It also doesn't mesh with other polls from late last year, where global warming/climate change were the least important, which convinces me the above poll must have been done in a democrat area.
Challenging? No your straw men are not at all challenging,...
A Straw Man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
I have never used a Straw Man......that would be stupid, since facts and reality and science are enough to prove the Climate Change God doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
... and regarding me not providing evidence of BC's carbon tax system I have provided it many times, but just for you I'll do it again....
Myth: The carbon tax is just a tax grab. Fact: Every dollar raised by the carbon tax is returned to individuals and businesses through tax reductions. None of the carbon tax revenue is used to fund government spending.
Since it was first introduced in 2008, the carbon tax has returned $500 million more to taxpayers in tax reductions than it has raised in revenue. Province of British Columbia
There is no evidence there.
Page after page after page of the provincial government bathing and basking itself in laudatory self-congratulatory circuitous language is not "evidence."
Where are the spreadsheets?
The evidence is the actual numbers, not a bunch of words written by a media-public-relations consulting firm getting a tax-payer handout to make the provincial government look competent.
We want to see the hard data.
Where is it?
Surely the Canadian government is transparent enough to publish such data, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Your question doesn't even make sense.
Asking "What temperature is 15 microns" is as silly as asking "What speed is a kilometre?"
Let me guess - you've been reading some pseudoscience nonsense from a conspiracy website?
It makes sense to those educated in science.
Evidently....
This is good news.... Two-thirds of Americans say they are more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They are less likely to vote for candidates who question or deny the science of human-caused global warming. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us...oll-finds.html
I support the government (and private industry) doing something to mitigate the inevitable effects of climate change.
I do not support extreme environmentalism, nor do I support taxation in the name of stopping climate change, because I do not believe it CAN be stopped by anything mankind does.
Therefore, I do not fit into the poll anywhere!
I mean, let's just ask one question - what is the "correct" global mean temperature?
What is that number based on?
How is the "correctness" of that number evaluated?
On what basis is it "correct?"
I mean, I hear about catastrophic warming, but warming up from what point?
Explain, with a concrete definition, what the "correct" sea level, land based ice volume, and global mean temperature are, and how legislation will appropriately achieve those established "correct" numbers.
Page after page after page of the provincial government bathing and basking itself in laudatory self-congratulatory circuitous language is not "evidence."
Where are the spreadsheets?
The evidence is the actual numbers, not a bunch of words written by a media-public-relations consulting firm getting a tax-payer handout to make the provincial government look competent.
We want to see the hard data.
Where is it?
Surely the Canadian government is transparent enough to publish such data, right?
I live in a province that has a carbon tax, and being revenue neutral it is actually putting money in people's pockets.
How does a carbon tax put money in people's pockets?
How does a carbon tax NOT take money from the poor?
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.
