Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 3481 - 3500 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

WBraun

climber

Nov 10, 2012 - 12:27pm PT

Dr F said; -- "true skeptics rely on science as the authority,"

I thought you guys said you're not into authority?

This is crazy talk ..... ?

Brandon-

climber

The Granite State.

Nov 10, 2012 - 01:31pm PT

Can you imagine if they had gone with Huntsman?

I'm a Dem and would likely have voted for Huntsman.

My apologies for the OT post.

WBraun

climber

Nov 10, 2012 - 09:17pm PT

Climate events occurring in one part of the world have the potential to affect other parts of the world.

This is such basic knowledge that any intelligent person would know and understand.

The whole planet is a harmonious organism.

When we upset that harmony everything suffers ......

WBraun

climber

Nov 11, 2012 - 01:11am PT

in over 100 years of research, Science has not presented anything practical for the common man

It's actually true.

Science has only messed with the coat but never did anything for the guy in the coat.

Of course science thinks and believes it is the coat .......

dirtbag

climber

Nov 11, 2012 - 10:28am PT

The thread has become Chiefified.

raymond phule

climber

Nov 11, 2012 - 10:36am PT

The chief seems to have learned about circular arguments. He is not going to listen to science because science haven't yet managed to convince the majority to make the changes needed to combat climate change.

It is interesting to see how knowledge about the subject never matters at all in his posts.

Mike Bolte

Trad climber

Planet Earth

Nov 11, 2012 - 10:40am PT

Not one real Solar System is manufactured here in the U.S.A.

Assuming you are talking about systems that that produce power based on energy from the sun, this is a completely incorrect statement! If you want to "win" arguments with scientists (and reasonable people of all stripes) it is usually most effective to not keep making up your own facts.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/15/top-10-solar-panel-companies-in-2011/

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Nov 11, 2012 - 10:42am PT

The thread has become Chiefified.

Yes, that happened some time ago. It's too bad, because there could be a lot of interesting discussion on this topic that does not focus on Chief's emotional state.

raymond phule

climber

Nov 11, 2012 - 11:45am PT

have yet to read anything in this entire thread that YOU Larry Hamilton or any of your peers, have produced so far as any practical solution to the problem other than the generic social change to a utopian fantasy way of life that does not believe in the existing capitalistic society.

Not one thing that I or any other every day indiviadual can utilize to partake in a practical solution to what you claim is a major pending disaster to mankind.

Do you know that there are a lot of research going on all over the world about for example wind energy and solar energy making those better and better alternatives to fossils fuels. One of the main problems though are people like you that do not want to pay anything extra for cleaner energy.

raymond phule

climber

Nov 11, 2012 - 12:07pm PT

My home is 90% self sufficient.... and ultimately will be 100% by next summer. I did pay for it.

But most of the energy use is not the energy use in private homes. Something needs to be done on a larger scale and you seems to be against all those proposals because they will cost you money.

Mimi

climber

Nov 11, 2012 - 01:25pm PT

Ed and Bruce, I understand your concerns about CO2 levels going up and causing future problems. I fully agree with these concerns. But I have a problem with the unlevel playing field and potential abuse of a carbon tax in the U.S.

I don't trust our politicians to impose a carbon tax that would be revenue neutral and would not adversely impact the poor or industrial competitive advantage more than it already has been. My fear is that the tax revenue would be put into a general fund and not a protected trust for climate change mitigation. It appears on the surface as another populist excuse to shift money from one sector to another. This is a popular mindset that I disagree with.

I grabbed a few of the examples below from the BC Ministry of Finance website. You'll notice that the means by which to reach the primary goal of the tax being lower CO2 emissions is for people to use less fossil fuels, find alternatives, and be more efficient. If there are no viable alternatives, and we're already being efficient, the only options are to use less fossil fuels.

Some would say that producing less, consuming less or driving less impact our freedoms. Look how much some of us drive to go climbing or engage in other outdoor sports. How do you fairly enforce higher efficiency behavior on such a large and complex population?

The message I wish the powers that be would get across to the general public is that our current consumption and population situation is unsustainable and that we must ratchet down. But a tax has to be imposed to steer human behavior; we are too locked in to do it on our own. Hence, the BC strategy based on the idea that people respond to price signals, even though the tax is supposed to not impact their wallets, is very interesting.

From the BC site:

Myth: Many people have no alternatives and no way to reduce their emissions.

Fact: Business and individuals can choose to reduce their carbon tax by reducing usage, increasing efficiency, changing fuels, adopting new technology or any combination of these approaches. We can all begin to make the small changes towards a cleaner future that fit into our own individual circumstances, such as choosing energy efficient lights, lowering the temperature on the thermostat at night, or keeping our cars tuned-up.

Myth: The carbon tax will not have any effect on people’s behaviour.

Fact: The tax is based on the assumption that consumers respond to price signals. The purpose of the tax is to send a price signal to reduce the use of fuels and thereby emissions. Several studies show that consumers generally respond to higher gasoline prices by reducing consumption either by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles or by driving less.

Based on new car sales data for British Columbia since 2001, it is evident that the increase in gasoline prices has caused many consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The market share of subcompact and compact passenger car sales has increased steadily while the market share of larger cars, SUVs, pickups and minivans has declined.

Myth: The carbon tax will adversely affect the economy.

Fact: British Columbia remains committed to addressing climate change. However, four years in, the revenue-neutral B.C. Carbon Tax remains the only one of its kind in North America. As we implement the final scheduled rate increase, this is a good time to pause and examine how the carbon tax is affecting our economic competitiveness. We are beginning a comprehensive review that will cover all aspects of the carbon tax, including revenue neutrality, and will consider the impact on the competitiveness of B.C. businesses such as the agricultural sector, and in particular, B.C.’s food producers. The Province will be seeking written submissions over the summer on the revenue-neutral carbon tax to help inform the review. Submissions will be considered as part of the 2013 Budget process.

Myth: The carbon tax will have virtually no impact on reducing B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Fact: British Columbia’s carbon tax is one of the broadest and most comprehensive in the world. The fuels included in the tax base account for about 70 per cent of British Columbia’s current GHG emissions. The tax rates were deliberately set low to begin with and scheduled to rise slowly over time to send the correct price signal while giving consumers and businesses time to reduce their fuel use. It is important to look at the whole range of initiatives government is introducing to meet its targets rather than just the tax.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A6.htm

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Nov 11, 2012 - 01:48pm PT

A few weeks back I suggested to Rick Poedtke ("The Chief") that he start signing his own name whenever he felt that need to attack other people using their names. He has not done so, and I don't know whether it would do anything to tone down his fight-picking behavior and false accusations. Still, it could be worth trying.

Brandon-

climber

The Granite State.

Nov 11, 2012 - 02:01pm PT

...frothing at the mouth..,

Take a deep breath, The Chief.

Mimi

climber

Nov 11, 2012 - 02:11pm PT

The Chief, sorry for asking, but do you truly believe that science has done nothing to improve the life of the common man? I think I saw this statement on the science, politics, etc. thread.

WBraun

climber

Nov 11, 2012 - 10:17pm PT

there is a conspiracy among the research professionals to perpetuate a fraud to maintain their research dollars.

It's happened by certain individuals before and will again in the future.

So there is some truth to it but it's not a conspiracy by the scientific community as a whole to perpetuate fraud to maintain their research dollars.

They are doing honest work .......