Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2015, 05:59 AM
 
Location: NJ
23,360 posts, read 17,041,114 times
Reputation: 17400

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlAndSparrow View Post
Well, except for the fact that the people who study this stuff for a living say that you're wrong.


As for the original post in this thread, well, a tax on something would be intended to provide incentive not to do it. Just like a sin tax. Want people to burn less gas? Impose a gas tax. Want people to consume less soda? Have a soda tax.

Want greedy billionaires not to ruin the environment for our grandchildren? Tax their sins.



This probably isn't enough, but it's a step in the right direction. A lot more needs to be done.
Want people to stop smoking, raise the tax on ciggys.

Too bad we have to speculate the connection bewteen money conscripted in the name of human caused global warming and intended results. We only hear the sky is falling and you'd better pay up.

Too bad there wasn't a person who could communicate the 'science' as they see it and explain the strategy.

Respect for the earth is not a component of the HCGW profiteers. Legislative control and money is the point.

HCGW is another the case of the bogey man is coming. It is a matter of trust and their is no trust in weaponized science created to forward a political agenda or in their spokesman. The findings favorable, in exchange for government grants.

So much for the great media created great communicator whose words have misled and spewed lies..sure we believe anything he says. You can keep your earth, PERIOD!

You have yo give us your tax money to find out what we will do with it and how we will save the earth. Worked well for obamacare, hardly a whimper.

 
Old 07-01-2015, 06:58 AM
 
29,416 posts, read 19,502,629 times
Reputation: 4500
It won't cool the planet. All it will do is make cheap energy more expensive, in a misguided effort to make renewable energy more attractive (which would still be more expensive).


Quote:
Institute recently put forward a proposal for a $20/ton carbon tax that would rise 4 percent each year, starting in 2013. (The funds would be used to offset taxes elsewhere.) Here's what their economic model predicts would happen to U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions:



With a carbon tax in place, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions do start declining quite a bit (this is the green line). But by 2030, emission levels stall, even though the carbon tax keeps rising and rising each year. The United States wouldn't get anywhere near the 80 percent cut by 2050 that the White House has envisioned.
Would a carbon tax cut emissions drastically? Not on its own. - The Washington Post



And then of course there is China, India, and other developing nations who are going to devour fossil fuels in an effort to industrialize (and not have their citizens live in straw huts).


I wonder why China installed 17 times more coal power than solar power last year?


http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...l-trends/?_r=1
 
Old 07-01-2015, 07:01 AM
 
24,360 posts, read 22,933,128 times
Reputation: 14938
By increasing the costs of energy and making consumers use less energy that generates more profits for the 1%. That money can be spent developing third world countries, generating a lower standard of living for developed countries and making even more money for the 1%.
Who said any of this would cool the planet? It won't, the planet will do it itself. But taking credit will make this scam seem real.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 08:25 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,679,642 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
How much of the electricity in BC is sourced from hydroelectric that is unaffected by the carbon tax?

My other questions is, how many more times are you going to misrepresent what the facts are?
what he constantly fails to mention is that the carbon tax BC instituted is revenue neutral because they lowered income taxes to offset the carbon tax, and that avoids any negative effects on their economy.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:31 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,843,804 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
... and that avoids any negative effects on their economy.
What avoids the negative effects is that about 95 percent of their power is not subject to the tax. The cement industry on the other hand is getting their ass handed to them.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,502 posts, read 37,011,343 times
Reputation: 13972
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
How much of the electricity in BC is sourced from hydroelectric that is unaffected by the carbon tax?

My other questions is, how many more times are you going to misrepresent what the facts are?
You know the answer to your first question, as you and I have been through this several times before.... What facts do you think I'm misrepresenting?

Last edited by sanspeur; 07-01-2015 at 12:51 PM..
 
Old 07-01-2015, 12:25 PM
 
Location: San Marcos, CA
674 posts, read 607,368 times
Reputation: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4 View Post
No actually you're not well aware of how science works or you wouldn't have wasted a collective hour arguing in this thread about how AGW 'Climate scientists' outnumber those who are skeptical of the so-called science until I pointed out to you that it's not a popularity contest.


As with any discipline, 'scientists' are on bell curves of competence, and depth of thought. History of Science is filled with Marc Hausers, Walter Freemans, Paul Ehrlichs,....

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/1186/


Except so-called climate scientist's models never work. The more frequent and severe hurricanes predicted year over year--publicized for several consecutive years in the 90s--never happened. Not only did their frequency and severity decline but they've been at their lowest number in 30 to 40 years. Florida has gone 10 years now without one. They also didn't predict that the eastern seaboard of the U.S. has had far-cooler than avg. summers, including this one, in five contiguous seasons.

That those "models" never worked--and common sensically wouldn't--isn't fringe opinion. You'd know this if you weren't dependent on Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg and other popular culture opinion-makers for your Climate religion.


You're continually oblivious to the fact that, far from "Climate science touches on a lot of areas," in actuality the new cross-discipline doesn't exist without those "other areas" coming together to discuss it, to collaborate, to contribute, and to disagree.
1. You don't get it. I didn't waste time; I'm trying to explain to you that the people who actually know what they are talking about don't support your view. You pointed out (without saying so directly) that less than half a percent of people in an organization of physicists disagree while trying to make it look like 160 was a large number. Your strategy was to say, "Hey, 160 people disagree!" I pointed out that 160 out of 47000 is not a large number. I also pointed out that these 160 are not climate scientists. This is ridiculous.

The point is not that we vote on things in science. The point is that there are mountains upon mountains of research on this topic, and the findings are overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that we humans are causing the climate to change. Period.

2. If scientists were chosen uniformly at random from the general population, your bell curve imagery wouldn't be quite so misleading. They're not, though. Scientists are, in general, a lot smarter than average people, because schools filter out those who are better suited for less intellectually demanding fields, like politics. Thus, the mean of the distribution of scientific competence is much higher than you're trying to imply that it is.

Basically, you're trying to make the argument that the average scientist isn't so smart, nyah nyah, so why do we listen to the scientific consensus, anyway? Strangely, you don't make that argument when we're talking about any other scientific field. You only bring it up if it's something your favorite political talking heads don't like, like environmental policy.

3. Your attempted popular science garbage is hardly worth my time. Weather and climate aren't the same thing; I'm an expert in a different field, and even I know that.

See, I'm trained to spot ridiculously quackery like what you push. The fact that the local weather doesn't follow the pattern some thought it might have followed (weather events are, by the way, notoriously hard to predict, even in aggregate) doesn't change the fact that we actually have observed many of the scarier predictions of these models playing out. Global average temperatures have been rising -- no one denies this. (Of course, you can find localized counterexamples, but that's utterly meaningless, since any random system operates with noise in the data.) Sea levels have been rising. Those facts don't go away just because Florida didn't get a couple extra hurricanes. These observations have been substantiated to the point where people have very precise predictions about how much we can expect global averages to increase over time over several decades.

This stuff involves a lot of math. It speaks my language. Learn some math and you can read the papers for yourself.

I don't know who those pop culture icons you mentioned are, though I think Goldberg was an actress a couple of decades ago. I don't know why I'd ever care about her opinion on science, since she's in a completely unrelated field.

4. You're back to trying to paint your cabal of 160 as relevant when you talk about interdisciplinary fields. You don't get it.

When I was in grad school, I focused on a somewhat interdisciplinary field. (I won't tell you which one, because I'd like to keep some privacy, and you wouldn't understand it, anyway.) Great. That doesn't mean any just anyone from any of the subfields close to it could understand my research. In fact, most of my friends, even those whose expertise and training were very similar to mine, recoiled in horror when I showed them my work, because understanding my particular field requires highly specialized training.

I'll put it this way. A climate scientist needs to know something about physics. Not everything, but something. That in no way implies that most physicists know anything about climate science. At all. You can't go up to someone who spends ten hours every day studying atomic physics and expect to get an expert opinion on a different field, even if that other field involves some physics (probably atmospheric physics).

Heck, I learned some physics for some of the work I did in the past, but that doesn't mean I could, for instance, give a college lecture on astrophysics. (For one thing, I learned about QM, not astrophysics.)

At the higest levels -- and everyone involved in research is at the absolute highest level -- people must specialize. Interdisciplinary fields require that much more specialization, because you have to learn bits of each of the involved disciplines, and you have to learn the tricky interactions between them. People with credentials had to earn their titles the hard way; every last working climate scientist had to fight through at least half a decade of graduate school, which included a harrowing battery of exams by leading experts in order to determine if they were worthy of entering a PhD program, followed by years of arduous research guided by an expert mentor and culminating in a defense in front of a panel of the best of the best in the field. Each and every working climate scientist had to prove to such a group of experts that he or she had contributed something new and relevant to the field.

That's just to get the PhD. To have any hope of being a scientist after that point, you have to be better than 90% of the people who made it that far.

It's not easy to become a scientist. It's not right of you to dismiss them as cranks, particularly when you know nothing of what is invovled in becoming a climate scientist or of what the work entails. You're almost certainly not qualified to read the research yourself.

On the other side of the equation, you have internet posters and Fox News talking heads with bachelor's degrees in political science.

No one can force you to show respect to those people who just happened to work a lot harder than you did, of course, but there's a reason I listen to the IPCC before I listen to those who only want to deny actual science.
 
Old 07-01-2015, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,502 posts, read 37,011,343 times
Reputation: 13972
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
what he constantly fails to mention is that the carbon tax BC instituted is revenue neutral because they lowered income taxes to offset the carbon tax, and that avoids any negative effects on their economy.
I have never failed to mention that BC's carbon tax is revenue neutral...I've also posted links....

Carbon Tax Act

Province of British Columbia

VICTORIA, February 17, 2015 – The Cement Association of Canada (CAC) welcomes the B.C. government’s efforts to improve the Province’s carbon tax.

The cement industry has been working with the B.C. government and other stakeholders for many years to find a win-win solution to protecting jobs, economic development, and the environment.

Cement Industry Welcomes B.C. Government Action on Carbon Tax - Cement Association of Canada
 
Old 07-01-2015, 01:13 PM
 
34,620 posts, read 21,474,995 times
Reputation: 22232
Let's see here, the climate alarmists want to deter behavior that they say will destroy our planet by adding a tax.

If you found out China were using arsenic to process candy shipped to the US, would you also add a tax to deter it?
 
Old 07-01-2015, 01:21 PM
 
Location: San Marcos, CA
674 posts, read 607,368 times
Reputation: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Let's see here, the climate alarmists want to deter behavior that they say will destroy our planet by adding a tax.

If you found out China were using arsenic to process candy shipped to the US, would you also add a tax to deter it?

The thing is, the industries that contribute to pollution aren't necessarily bad. The problem is the amount of fossil fuels we burn. We need to cut back and find newer, better sources of power.

Something like arsenic needs to be stopped immediately; we're not trying to find a middle ground between too much arsenic and none; we want there to be no poison in our food, so we can simply ban that.


I object, by the way, to your using China as an example, since you're contributing to stereotypes that paint China in an excessively negative light. It's ultimately the sort of thing fueled by, and in turn fueling, a lot of casual racism, so it's worth calling it out.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top