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.
They probably declined more in the US in that same time period (since we had a higher place to decline from). I don’t think the carbon tax does anything but enrich a few people. It’s certainly not stopping the energy extraction business.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is uninformed...Our tax is revenue neutral, which means that 100% of it is returned to the citizens of BC through income tax reductions....Nobody is being enriched.
Your objections only refer to partisanship, not the content.
Do you have any facts that REFUTE what was posted?
From what you posted, it appears that you do not.
Ergo, you wish to distract people from facts that do not agree with your opinions.
That's sad.
Oh, snap, commies have another issue to agitate for. We're all shocked. It's a shame that you are white noise at this point and have literally zero credibility on any topic.
As long as the only way to fight global warming remains raising taxes and imposing more regulations, conservatives will still insist it's nothing but a big hoax.
Your objections only refer to partisanship, not the content.
Do you have any facts that REFUTE what was posted?
From what you posted, it appears that you do not.
Ergo, you wish to distract people from facts that do not agree with your opinions.
That's sad.
So, what you're saying is that unless there is solid proof to the contrary, a piece of evidence cannot be refuted on the grounds of partisanship?
The irony is completely lost on you isn't it?
Basically the links you posted has NOTHING to do with our climate change. Nothing, nada. Merely saying that environmentalists got things wrong before means nothing. Warren Buffett also lost money sometimes. What does that proof? Nothing.
If they have so much water, why are they fining people for excessive water usage in CA?
Not an intelligent question. The firefighters said they have plenty of water to fight the fires. They fill up tankers from lakes, reservoirs, etc, and those are adequate. The statement was not in any way related to general and long term water usage and conservation.
As long as the only way to fight global warming remains raising taxes and imposing more regulations, conservatives will still insist it's nothing but a big hoax.
That's right. There are no scientific grounds for denying climate change and its human causation. Conservatives don't like the solutions, so they deny the problem. And in delaying the application of solutions, they are making the problem harder and harder to solve. We will all pay for it in the long run.
If that's such a big lie, the lie from the firefighters about the problem fighting them is GW is even a worse lie. How could GW get in their way of fighting a fire? How could GW make the fire worse? a degree or two won't do anything, once things are dry they are dry. They will dry out at 90 degrees just as fast as 100. The problem here is populating areas that are prone to this. It will keep happening forever.
Man, you are so ill-informed. Have you not been reading about the years-long drought in the west, the flooding in the east? Droughts have always happened, but nothing like the duration and severity that we now see. This increases the load of dead trees and brush and everything is dry. Then you combine it with one of the hottest summers on record, and what do you get? Fires. GW causes global climate patterns to change. it is not just the "degree or two" thing, it is the warming of both the atmosphere and the oceans, which cause changes in the patterns of movement of air masses, etc. GW does not "get in the way of fighting a fire." It creates the conditions where fires are so hot, they are much less fight-able. At this point, the whole state is "prone to this." Don't forget that it is not just burning through forests. It is burning through cities and towns, across streets and parking lots, not just houses that are out in the woods.
So, what you're saying is that unless there is solid proof to the contrary, a piece of evidence cannot be refuted on the grounds of partisanship?
The irony is completely lost on you isn't it?
Basically the links you posted has NOTHING to do with our climate change. Nothing, nada. Merely saying that environmentalists got things wrong before means nothing. Warren Buffett also lost money sometimes. What does that proof? Nothing.
Actually, climate change has nothing to do with the implication that mankind is the driving force of that change.
The posts and links refute the claims made by Alarmists, as well as the failed predictions made over the decades.
Belief in anthropogenic climate change is not founded in science.
SCIENCE - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
RELIGION n. - A particular variety of belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.
Alarmism is part of a religious belief, not science.
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.
