I should just quit my job & go on welfare
Trudeau's carbon pricing
- Thread starter Blackfin
- Start date
There are more lucrative ways to be on the government teat; have considered a career in climate studies.
After I am all taxed how much do I have remaining?
I've looked for the source data already, that graph is trotted out regularly by deniers like it's some kind of unassailable proof that AGW is a scam. But it's so flawed on the face of it, it's more an indictment of deniers than anything else. The most glaring is the lack of y-axes, but there's also the customized x-axis, and the whole underlying presumption that anyone has claimed CO2 to be the only influence on global temperatures (no one has). It's a straw man argument. Just like Moore's argument that CO2 isn't toxic - nobody ever claimed it was, even at unimaginably high atmospheric levels.
Anyway, any reference to the source data I managed to track down for that graph was paywalled.
Roadghost
Well-known member
Do you think for one minute that all that money is going into reducing C02? It's a TAX GRAB. It's going into general revenue and it's how Turdo is going to make it look like he balanced the budget. When this global warming scam finally gets derailed can anyone say with a straight face those taxes will go away? I lived through the last Trudeau, you folks are all in for a huge shock.
Bull freakin shhiiit.. Truly not trying to be an arse, but the whole argument has been, and continues to be, CO2 driving temperature; thus the need to reduce Carbon emissions. Sure, we get new window dressing to explain away the lack of correlation between the now 400 ppm CO2 levels and the not so dramatic temperature change, which all those models predicted; and every year the assertions become more and more convoluted and complex. It's ridiculous. But tax the Carbon because?
As for paywalled. Most journal studies are, on both sides. If it wasn't I'd be defending my "non-peer reviewed" source no doubt
Bull sheet 2 U!Bull freakin shhiiit.. Truly not trying to be an arse, but the whole argument has been, and continues to be, CO2 driving temperature; thus the need to reduce Carbon emissions. Sure, we get new window dressing to explain away the lack of correlation between the now 400 ppm CO2 levels and the not so dramatic temperature change, which all those models predicted; and every year the assertions become more and more convoluted and complex. It's ridiculous. But tax the Carbon because?
As for paywalled. Most journal studies are, on both sides. If it wasn't I'd be defending my "non-peer reviewed" source no doubt
CO2 is the primary topic of analysis in relation to GW because CO2 reduction is so far the only proposed course of action to address the problem. It's seen as the only component of GW that we have significant control over, while also having a meaningful impact on mitigating the effects of GW. This should be obvious given the enourmous complexity of the climate models that everyone recognises are being used currently. Otherwise I'd do it in my head. 400ppm = 0.8 deg above normal. Not!
Of course all heat comes from the sun in the end, that doesn't mean the only possible intervention is to turn down the solar thermostat!
As for data sources, I've never had a problem fact-checking AGW claims through IPCC or NASA mostly. Either way, the graph was put together to mislead. There's no other explanation for its ridiculous content.
Last edited:
That statement is the exact sort of contrived bs that makes your side of the argument less and less credible with every passing year; and people are starting to see right through it. BTW, you seem to be forgetting, Global Warming isn't the term anymore.... They changed the name when the warming stopped for 15+years despite CO2 output increasing at a higher rate then predicted... soooo, can you point me to a model that came close to getting the temp v CO2 equation right? Because those models are why we're even talking about this. Sorry but if you're going to sell me on what might happen based on computer modelling, you better have a track record of getting it right.
p.s. Polished reports from NASA and IPCC are what are readily available. They are not peer reviewed scientific papers; for those you need to pay or know someone with access to the journals.
No I don't think that for one minute, but I am not going to debate where any money any government collects end up .... it's pointless.
However, carbon tax, is just putting the fossil fuels on level playing field with sustainable sources of energy? Let me put it this way .... if you build a coal power plant for $0.50/kWh generated vs. solar for $3.00/kWh generated ..... how do you level the playing field??? Because the first one emits, the other one does not (leave manufacturing impact out of it; both have some ...). If you accept that the coal power plant is bad for everyone (if you don't just skip the post), how do you want the coal industry to stop building them, other than leveling the costs by carbon tax? It's as a plain example as it gets (of course in reality it's a bit more complicated, but works well enough to demonstrate the problem)
You pulling Trudeau's name into it like it matters ... who cares about Trudeau, Trump or politics in general. It has nothing to do with it (as far as as the core of the issue ... of course politics is the only tool which can trigger such carbon tax .... it will not be people, voluntarily and magically agreeing on paying such a tax)
Do you accept the FACT that the lack of access to cheap reliable energy kills millions of people around the globe every year?
Edit: The playing field will be level when the renewable sources develop to the point where they actually make sense; want to provide funds to help R&D, sure, I'm good with that. What I'm not good with is signing ridiculous feed-in tariff contracts to use uber expensive energy sources which are clearly not ready to take the baton, at least not yet.
Last edited:
It's Global Warming because the globe is warming. It's Climate Change because the climate is changing. It's the Greenhouse Effect because it has the effect of a greenhouse. The wording only matters to deniers who come up with doozies like "it snowed in Washington so GW is BS", or "the climate has always changed so fighting CC is BS". There's nothing wrong with the terminology. It's no anyone else's fault if deniers don't understand it.
The models don't claim to predict the temperature, just the trend. The unfounded expectation of deniers to know the exact yearly increase was never anything the models claimed to predict. Just because the pattern of change doesn't fit your strict personal expectation that 1ppm increase = x degrees temperature rise doesn't make them wrong. It makes you wrong. Instead of recognizing your error you take for granted your assumption then use it to criticize climate models.
Just like the examples above, another equally distorted suggestion is that your clearly flawed graph is somehow representative of peer reviewed scientific research while NASA and IPCC only offer "polished reports" when their raw datasets and analytical methodologies are open and available for public criticism online, is just one more example of denialist dishonesty.
I believe in AGW, so I make every effort to challenge my belief by reviewing denialist claims as much as I can (do you challenge your own beliefs?). So far, all I've found is ridiculously bad attempts to defend illogical claims, and criticism of claims that don't even exist except in denialists' imaginations.
I expected better from you based on our last chat on this topic but I see you are fully immersed in the denialist rhetoric, without any deviation or even any apparent willingness to be critical of what is clearly flawed info, flawed logic, and invalid criticism.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Well clearly there should be a tax on ice ages and also on warming ages, and just for good measure they should probably have a surtax on us for the flip flopping as well.
The days are getting colder, yet today is warmer than yesterday.
If you can wrap your head around that, you shouldn't have a problem with the forecasts of a coming ice age even while the planet is warming.
Trend in what? Temperature is it not... or do I have this all wrong. This is the exact type of convoluted double speak I referenced earlier.
As did I at one point. This is a subject I took great interest in many many years ago now.. I was open to challenging my beliefs, but apparently because they don't align with yours, I'm just another lowly uninformed denialist, based on one image, compiled from numerous proxies, and yes, extremely simplified.... and you talk of strawmen... go ahead, keep trying to knock me down. The data is there, and other paleoclimate studies are readily available to back up that particular graph's general claim. In the end, I'm not that bothered, just here to offer an alternative to "alarmist" (since we've gone down to the lowly level of partisan labeling)
You're grandstanding
Temperature is indicated by a number. A trend is indicated by a change in a number over time. If that distinction has you flummoxed, I can see how you ended up in your position and why it's futile to try and explain anything further.
defeater905
Well-known member
someone has to be part of a "tribe" deniers, beliebers etc. I think what the "deniers" are getting at is the predictive models are very very flawed so a tax based on flawed data seems dishonest and I don't think anyone gets how it will change anything other than the economy for the worse. Scientists do NOT have a grasp on all the factors in predicting climate change you gotta admit that. They do...
Yes and that's why countries who can afford it should have a carbon tax. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that Bangladesh should have a carbon tax ... but I yet to understand why Canada should not have one.
They are making sense already (of course not everywhere and all the time, but that is for another discussion), but they are competing with polluting sources who are not paying their fair share. Why to pour money in R&D or incentives (which I disagree with as the only driver ...) without hitting fossil fuels with carbon tax? Makes no sense to me. Once you start making the costs true pound for pound, it will take much shorter amount of time to bring the renewables up front. It will happen faster than people can guess (It will probably take a while before you will be on a electric bike you or I can afford, but there's plenty of application it will happen rather quickly)
I do agree with you regarding ridiculous feed-in tariffs and strongly disagree with feed-in tariff contracts for electricity we no longer actually need. That's why the Ontario Liberals are back pedaling on them now. Net-metering is all what's needed as far as mixing renewables into current grid. The problem Ontario created was to put the high feed-in tarrifs/contracts out first without carbon tax in place. Instead of having one problem (raising electricity rates by carbon tax equivalent to Ontarians), they are facing two-headed dragon now .... companies who are entitled to their contract for renewables and Ontarians who have to pay one of the highest electricity rates (not because carbon tax, but because those renewables contracts). Not a pretty situation .... that's what happens when you f-up your energy plan.
We cannot just wait when something develops .... if there was no industry arms twisted by regulation, cars would still consume 15l/100km on regular basis and V6's would be the most sold ICE in passenger cars .... back in those days when air pollution was rampant, remember?
Symantec somersaults; impressive.. Is this one of those baffle them with bull moments? Go on...
This started with the relation between increased CO2 and temperature (trend if you must), and proving said relationship has been the focus of all inter-governmental study from the start. The climate models and reports coincidentally also set out with the sole purpose of proving that relationship (or in their words, to prove the anthropogenic impact exists)... Besides being an *** backwards approach to science, they've yet to do it convincingly.
