Carbon tax...good or bad?

The riots started over the carbon tax

 

I wouldn't argue with you on who started this and why but it's a fad as in it's cool to jump on the bandwagon. ," Be there or be square"

 

Yes, you are correct

Now that i have read a little, the economists say (they say, i do not know) that these taxes were applied as a revenue raising policy rather than a revenue neutral policy.... ie, give people tax rebates that return the carbon tax revenues to them, while still raising the price of carbon consumption. So lets say there is a $3 per gallon carbon tax... lets say the average consumer uses 2 gallons per day.... then there is an added cost of $6 per day... the gov sends a check for 150 per month (declining 5% per month every year. People get the rebate whether or not they reduce gasoline consumption. But any reduction of consumption is essentially money in their pocket. A more fuel efficient car, or no long driving vacations, or buying a hybrid or full electric car... all these behaviors would happen naturally because the price of gas is doubled.

Btw, i know that generating electricity can also produce carbon... the french generate most of their electricity from nuclear though

 

The carbon tax was to save the world from global warming

 

And yet, carbon is not a pollutant...

The whole thing would be laughably silly if it weren't so sad.

 

I am not sure why that matters?
Humans certainly add excess carbon to the atmosphere,
Whether you choose to label that excess carbon as a pollutant
Or something else is a matter of semantics

I do not see either silly or sad

 

No it's not. Saying something is a "pollutant", by definition, categorizes it as harmful.

CO2 is not only not harmful, on the contrary, it is beneficial to our environment.

Just as warming is also beneficial. That said, CO2 is not the cause of the warming we've seen since the 1880's.

We are thankfully experiencing a natural warming as we emerge out of a Little Ice Age.

What's sad is that people are so poorly educated and unthinking that they cannot reason their way thru the BS of scientific subterfuge to see that there is no scientific basis to conclude that CO2 drives climate or could cause "catastrophic, run away warming".

AGW and its spawn "climate change" are, and always have been, about power and money.

 

Yes

Fine, prove it by breathing 100% co2

Prove it by swimming in a bath of boiling water

Who said it was?

Yes
Which fact does not exclude that we are also experiencing agw

Thanks for sharing your opinion

 

By that logic every natural element is pollution and rainy days should be a cause for panic.

Does it occur to you that in order to make your point you have to take everything to the absurd?

The controversy is how much warming is due to us and how much is natural.
Let's say you put ten people in a very large room and have a duplicate room that's empty. Computer models and precision temperature guages would show that the heat generated by those ten bodies warm the room in comparison to the control room. Reason to panic? Now measure the temperature of the empty room verses the inhabited room on a 100 degree day and figure out just how much warmer the populated room is. Do the same thing with the outside temperature of zero degrees and see how much colder the control or empty room is. See where I'm going here? Our presence may make some very slightly measurable difference but in the end it's miniscule and completely overwhelmed by forces outside of our control and matter not.

 

Would those be the same scientist that predicted the Himalayan glaciers that are currently expanding in size would be gone a few short years from now?

 

Is there an argument or rebuttal in there somewhere??

Your childish response notwithstanding, I will ask you this,

- you agree that CO2 is not the cause of warming??

- If it's not the cause of warming, then why are leftists trying to use it as an excuse to expand governmental power over the people??

- How much of our atmospheric budget is made up of CO2??

 

Interesting how often such complaints of “childish response “are self descriptive

I did not say that.
You asked if warming startin in the 1800 was attributed to co2
I agree THAT warming is not caused by AGW
... which i believe is a common view of scientists also.
Of course you know this
But choose to present it as a red herring.

What i do say about co2 and warming
is that the dramatic increases in co2 likely do start impacting climate after say the 70s

Does it make you feel good to falsely impute nefarious motives to people when you have no other basis for discussion?

???

 

That sounds bad to me.

 

So the warming is natural, but the natural warming combined with man made CO2 is causing "climate change"??

Is that right??

So how is this "climate change" being manifested?? More "weather events", like tornadoes and hurricanes??

What empirical evidence supports that position??

 

yes
Lets say you are in a car in the sun. The car will heat up via the sun
Now lets say you start the car and turn on the heater. It will heat up more

Well lets take my own and my moms experience. I grew up in tacoma wa
The weather there is warmer than when i was young. This is also according to my republican mom who has no idea about the climate change controversy

Many scientists also claim that average temps have increased the last 30 years snd that current temps are the highest in historical records

 

I said, and you agreed, that CO2 can't lead to run away warming. You said it could lead to climate change.

I then asked you for some examples, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, and you replied with warming...

You should be able to make a statistical argument, no??

 

I do not remember you saying this, nor myself agreeing to it

You did say “you agree that CO2 is not the cause of warming??”
And i agreed that co2 was not the cause of warming from the 18xx


Please provide the relavent quotes that you are referencing

 

As we both know, you are laying a trap for me in asking this question since it is impossible to attribute any specific weather incident to climate trends

Yes, there are endless statistics that confirm that climate is warming, but we both know those arguements ... .
and we both know that you will reject those statistical arguments as invalid

 

You're not making sense.

You say CO2 cannot cause run away global warming, but rather it will lead to climate change.

So I ask you for statistical data to support that position - and you say that specific weather events cannot be attributed to "climate trends".

So if CO2 isn't causing warming, and it isn't causing statistically identifiable weather events, why is excess CO2 bad??

What is your definition of "climate" I guess is what it would come down to.

See, there again you equate climate and warming as being synonymous.

Do you not see your contractions and inconsistencies??

As for me, I don't reject the temperature record, nor do I deny that the earth has been warming for about 140 years.

What I would dispute is the computer models that in no way come close to representing reality.

And it is the computer models that alarmists have to hang their hats on - b/c the actual temp record doesn't validate their hypothesis.

 

I did not say that, please provide my quote
I did not say that please provide a quote

I did not say that please provide a quote


I did not say that please provide a quote

I did not say that please provide a quote

I did not say that please provide a quote

I did not say that please provide a quote


I did not say that please provide a quote

I did not say that please provide a quote

Co2. IS CAUSING warming
I will be happy to paste that sentence in multiple times is it makes it easier for you to comprehend
I did not say that please provide a quote

 

There is another possibility
Perhaps your preconceptions interferes with your cognitive capacity

Please provide a link that verifies” statistically verifiable weather events” to be a legitimate standard of proof rather than just your own invention

Thanks for your insight

Please provide a quote

Good start

In no way?... how would you prove that

Thanks for your preconceived opinion

The simple fact is that scientists have been tracking co2 concentration for over 50 years
And
Just using simple physics, they have made conjectures the of increased warming of the climate
And those conjectures have turned out to be true

Now, whether or not that warming was inevitable and natural based on leaving an ice age... that is a different discussuion. But, at a very granular level.... the initial conjectures about increased co2 levels have been validated

 

Well, your knowledge of the subject matter, razor sharp wit, and bowl level debating skills are all we've come to expect from those beating the warmest drum.

Good luck to you in the future... you're gonna need it.

 

The use of sarcastic debasement instead of actual Discussion/Debate very clearly designates who is in need of luck.

 

Watching Trumpsters deny a global consensus supported by nearly 50 years of research is getting pathetic.

Watching Trump disgrace the United States by isolating us as the ONLY country on Earth that refuses to address the issue is a national disgrace, and one of the things that devalued the Presidency and weakened the United States and undermined its role as a world leader.

It also has the net effect of leaving the US isolated and left behind in a world that is rapidly marching toward renewables.

China is the world's leader in solar technology. The Europeans are passing us in the inplimentation and in the size of wind power.

The first company or country that solves the problem of cheap energy storage will own the future.

Trump wants to make sure that ain't us.

 

Well, if you followed the discourse, you would understand that I was actually trying to discuss the subject substantively.

Of course you warmists rarely discuss the scientific facts and data b/c you simply don't have the facts on your side.

When confronted with questions you don't have winning answers to - you do what ARDY did, i.e. you sling mud and nonsense.