Trudeau's carbon pricing

[mxs]

Scientists do NOT have a grasp on all the factors in predicting climate change you gotta admit that. They do...

Define "grasp on all factors" .... The most qualified scientists will tell you than nothing in their studies can be backed up with 100% certainty. Yet the chance that so many of top scientists are wrong is very very small. It's not "if" what is left to interpretation, but rather the path. All the paths of future climat end up badly ... some are more aggressive than others ... and that's where "it depends" applies ..... but it's not like any internationally recognized scientists would claim that there's a path/model where all will be good, even if we don't change a thing.

 

[Neil_V]

Define "grasp on all factors" .... The most qualified scientists will tell you than nothing in their studies can be backed up with 100% certainty. Yet the chance that so many of top scientists are wrong is very very small. It's not "if" what is left to interpretation, but rather the path. All the paths of future climat end up badly ... some are more aggressive than others ... and that's where "it depends" applies ..... but it's not like any internationally recognized scientists would claim that there's a path/model where all will be good, even if we don't change a thing.

That statement is a strong indicator of you having never bothered to see what the other side actually has to say.

 

[mxs]

Oh, I am aware of the bunch who claims otherwise, I just don't consider them significant in the large scope of things. We all have to choose what we learn and whose studies or opinions we trust.

 

[PLau]

This thread got a bit too technical.

Though the solution to our tax issue is simple.

Introduce a new tax to fix our tax problem.

Studies have shown, the government is screwing us.

 

[inreb]

Much respect to those who give a ****, seriously. I mean those giving a **** who think giving a **** will influence the situation one way or the other.

 

[nakkers]

Yup, I'm good with taking measures to reduce pollution and impact on the planet. It just makes sense. If we let the free market run free, we would have the air quality back in the industrial ages and all have to wear respirators and the capitalist will be selling all of us air purifiers and marketing and selling us "clear air".

Is managing CO2 levels the right answer? It's one element of many. We can argue the math, calculations and benefits in circles and do nothing.

My fear is the revenue this initiative will generate will get earmarked by politicians and be wasted in other ways the government is so good as doing. They test and strain the imagination of how governments can waste away tax dollars. Doesn't matter the political stripe. They all get punch drunk when they get into office.

We have no accountability other than a 4 year election cycle. The system is rigged.


So what is the answer?

Worry less, ride more.

 

[inreb]

Free market running free, and with all the negative implications, is the other side of the politics is ****** up coin. Let's face it, we're in a pickle. I'm going for a nice ride this afternoon.
ps, speaking in broad swaths requires so much less second hand research. Freedom.

 

[nakkers]

Free market running free, and with all the negative implications, is the other side of the politics is ****** up coin. Let's face it, we're in a pickle. I'm going for a nice ride this afternoon.
ps, speaking in broad swaths requires so much less second hand research. Freedom.

See you out on the road. I'm outta here! lol

 

[Neil_V]

Oh, I am aware of the bunch who claims otherwise, I just don't consider them significant in the large scope of things. We all have to choose what we learn and whose studies or opinions we trust.

Richard Lindzen, American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books

Roy Spencer, meteorologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite

Ján Veizer, distinguished University Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa and Institute for Geology, Mineralogy und Geophysis, of Bochum Ruhr University.

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville,contributor to several IPCC reports

Timothy Patterson, professor of geology at Carleton University; Director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre in Ottawa

Ian Clark, professor of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa

.... and this is just a short list of North American scientist who openly question the climate scare.. I could fill the page with well respected scientist from around the world, but the point is, these are no quacks; you simply dismiss them because they don't align with your belief... the climate dogma is real..

but it's not like any internationally recognized scientists would claim that there's a path/model where all will be good, even if we don't change a thing.

haha

 

[knucklesound]

Just throwing this out there...the list of names doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
Ever heard of Peabody Energy?
A quick google search will tell you that many of the names of the 'deniers/contrarians/whatever' have received funding from the biggest U.S. coal company...and that Roy Spencer, John Christy and have financial ties to the Exxon and other well-known big pollution multinationals- and on top of that- their data has been proven wrong many times.
http://grist.org/article/they-blinded-me-with-bad-science/
https://thinkprogress.org/scurvy-st...ng-wrong-john-christy-2ad3ad1bec5f#.cp9bqu8ju
https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html



I'm no scientist and don't want to get into a huge debate about this. I really don't know if man-made climate change is 'real' or not- but it seems kind of unlikely that the vast MAJORITY (though admittedly not all) of scientists who DO research this stuff would all be bought off by the 'environmentalists'...science is based on skepticism and learning- and is usually more honest than that.

Here is an interesting list of funding.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php
And...
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rgy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

I do find it kinda interesting that- much like religion/god- it is mostly Cons/Republicans that don't believe the scientific majority and Libs/Dems that do. Shrug.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

And (now retired) Lindzen has been called "arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html

 

[yodude]

[video=youtube;POVjeuef0RY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POVjeuef0RY[/video]

 

[Motorcycle Mike]

If they want to increase or make new consumption taxes, which a carbon tax is, fine, go ahead... but then decrease my fixed tax burden by reducing my income tax -- which, of course, the Liberals won't do... how can they when they are spending like drunken sailors.

 

[inreb]

See you out on the road. I'm outta here! lol

Saw a guy on a Sportster like yours on the 2nd Concession near Lynden. Was that somebody else?

 

[Neil_V]

Just throwing this out there...the list of names doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
Ever heard of Peabody Energy?
A quick google search will tell you that many of the names of the 'deniers/contrarians/whatever' have received funding from the biggest U.S. coal company...and that Roy Spencer, John Christy and have financial ties to the Exxon and other well-known big pollution multinationals- and on top of that- their data has been proven wrong many times.
http://grist.org/article/they-blinded-me-with-bad-science/
https://thinkprogress.org/scurvy-st...ng-wrong-john-christy-2ad3ad1bec5f#.cp9bqu8ju
https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html



I'm no scientist and don't want to get into a huge debate about this. I really don't know if man-made climate change is 'real' or not- but it seems kind of unlikely that the vast MAJORITY (though admittedly not all) of scientists who DO research this stuff would all be bought off by the 'environmentalists'...science is based on skepticism and learning- and is usually more honest than that.

Here is an interesting list of funding.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php
And...
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rgy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

I do find it kinda interesting that- much like religion/god- it is mostly Cons/Republicans that don't believe the scientific majority and Libs/Dems that do. Shrug.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

And (now retired) Lindzen has been called "arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html

You need to go do the research yourself bud. You post a meme and link 4 websites that are essentially blogs constructed with sole purpose of trashing anything and everything that even questions the climate scare.

Her lets try this..

Go here http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Now, is every scientist who pushes evolutionary theory now on shaky grounds... because interwebs

"i don't want to get into it, but here's a bunch of irrelevant crap" ...... hahaha

I leave with this, since the government is about to gain something here (tax$$) why are we not questioning the billions of government dollars spent funding those scientist? Well you ponder that, maybe look up how much is spent funding each side. It's ludicrously lopsided. But hey, guess accepting money for things such as speaking engagements, so you can continue to do what you believe/love, is totally out of the realm of possibility

 

[yodude]

It's ludicrously lopsided. But hey, guess accepting money for things such as speaking engagements, so you can continue to do what you believe/love, is totally out of the realm of possibility

hey man, that a hillary slam, startin' to sound like trump chump

as far as trump goes, it's the Chinese ..of course

 

[yodude]

on point tho imho..

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.

 

[fastar1]

If they want to increase or make new consumption taxes, which a carbon tax is, fine, go ahead... but then decrease my fixed tax burden by reducing my income tax -- which, of course, the Liberals won't do... how can they when they are spending like drunken sailors.

FYI the tax revenue will go entirely to the provinces that generate it. It's simply being imposed and administered by the federal government because the provinces were taking too long agreeing on something (carbon pricing needs to be applied evenly across borders in order to be as effective as possible).

Some analyses have shown that if the revenue were applied entirely against income taxes, they could go down by 50-90% in provinces with the most carbon production per capita (AB and SK). In Ontario the same approach would allow a 20% reduction in income tax.

But there are a lot of different ways the provinces could use the revenue to achieve the outcomes that are most beneficial to them. This short little read gives a really good illustration of the idea, and some guesses for the fun of it as to which approaches different provinces might be more interested in taking.
https://ecofiscal.ca/reports/choose-wisely-options-trade-offs-recycling-carbon-pricing-revenues/

 

[knucklesound]

You need to go do the research yourself bud. You post a meme and link 4 websites that are essentially blogs constructed with sole purpose of trashing anything and everything that even questions the climate scare.

The 'experts' listed above (one of them was on the list twice) have been debunked by numerous sources. If anyone wants to believe them- then go ahead...they'll be in good company with the Fox news/Trumpists/Toronto Sun crowd...
Pretty sure you got that list from the exact opposite type of site anyway- so you did about as much research as me- unless you work in that field?
If i seriously cared enough to debunk them myself- i'd need to quit my day job and maybe even get a myself a sweet government grant...haha. I'll trust someone more qualified to do that work for me- and i'll keep doing the **** i am good at.

Go here http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Now, is every scientist who pushes evolutionary theory now on shaky grounds... because interwebs

Hahahahahaha.
Great analogy. If i had to guess- i'd wager that the dudes that made that site are on the same side of the climate change debate as the deniers.

I leave with this, since the government is about to gain something here (tax$$) why are we not questioning the billions of government dollars spent funding those scientist? Well you ponder that, maybe look up how much is spent funding each side. It's ludicrously lopsided. But hey, guess accepting money for things such as speaking engagements, so you can continue to do what you believe/love, is totally out of the realm of possibility

OR
Maybe sometimes people hold onto wrong/false beliefs when there is a benefit to themselves. Sometimes being famous is better than being right.
The guys listed are like the big fish in the little pond of the denial crew. As far as i care to dig- they have had their work torn apart by a ******** of respected researchers.
If someone honestly believes that funding is the motivation behind 97% of the 'real' scientists who believe that humans ARE changing the climate of the planet then we will respectfully have to agree to disagree. I really think that most scientists/researchers have more integrity than that.
We aren't talking about the pharmaceutical industry here...haha.

Anyway- i'm heading out for a night ride myself- and have way better things to do than try to win a debate on the interwebs...hopefully no hard feelings man.
Great thing about this site- is that we all come from different walks of life and have different points of view.

 

[Neil_V]

The 'experts' listed above (one of them was on the list twice) have been debunked by numerous sources. If anyone wants to believe them- then go ahead...they'll be in good company with the Fox news/Trumpists/Toronto Sun crowd...
Pretty sure you got that list from the exact opposite type of site anyway- so you did about as much research as me- unless you work in that field?
If i seriously cared enough to debunk them myself- i'd need to quit my day job and maybe even get a myself a sweet government grant...haha. I'll trust someone more qualified to do that work for me- and i'll keep doing the **** i am good at.

That list, off the top of my head, was names of scientist who's work I've either read or seen presented in a seminar, both on the internet and I one particular case, in person. Sure there are plenty of sights that compile information and offer opinion, but I chose to dig quite a bit further, which is why I can come up with names (admittedly google searched for the blurbs)

Conversely, the fact that you use words like debunk tell me all I need to know about your actual knowledge on the subject.

Hahahahahaha.
Great analogy. If i had to guess- i'd wager that the dudes that made that site are on the same side of the climate change debate as the deniers.

Point is, this is not a left vs right issue; it's scientific, and if the best defense you can come up with is "must be Trumpers", or whatever you're on about, there's really no point engaging.. I've learned over the years you can't fight dogmatic beliefs with reason.. don't think for one second you're the first to derail the real issue with this sort of drivel

OR
Maybe sometimes people hold onto wrong/false beliefs when there is a benefit to themselves. Sometimes being famous is better than being right.
The guys listed are like the big fish in the little pond of the denial crew. As far as i care to dig- they have had their work torn apart by a ******** of respected researchers.
If someone honestly believes that funding is the motivation behind 97% of the 'real' scientists who believe that humans ARE changing the climate of the planet then we will respectfully have to agree to disagree. I really think that most scientists/researchers have more integrity than that.
We aren't talking about the pharmaceutical industry here...haha.

Anyway- i'm heading out for a night ride myself- and have way better things to do than try to win a debate on the interwebs...hopefully no hard feelings man.
Great thing about this site- is that we all come from different walks of life and have different points of view.

Honestly, look into one of the scientist you so readily flagged, John Christy. He's been collecting temp data for decades, he was a major IPCC contributor, he's achieved many awards for his work in climate, and when the work he had been doing showed the doom and gloom was unfounded, he spoke out. Hardly a man who held on to false beliefs. I would argue had he ignored what he was seeing, you're evaluation would be more fitting.

Next, I personally don't suggest that funding is the motivation behind pushing the climate scare; I believe it's the motivation behind not openly questioning the obvious discrepancies and flaws in the theory.. Very very different concepts. What was climate gate all about again?


P.S.

Why would I have hard feelings? You're just some words on a screen I'll likely never meet... even if we did, I won't remember this nonsense past my next glass of wine.

 

[Neil_V]

hey man, that a hillary slam, startin' to sound like trump chump

as far as trump goes, it's the Chinese ..of course

I have no care for (s)election 2016

They all play for essentially the same team.