"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Here is a real example of a documentary that serves as misinformation and propaganda .

nobody on here has quoted or referenced 'An inconvenient Truth' in any of this debate. And even though that film did exaggerate some of the risks (through not referencing the timescales for some of the effects), that 'Great global warming swindle' film took the misrepresentation and blatant distortions of the evidence to a whole new level

dense

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Unless emissions are reduced. Reduce emissions we won't need to increase the carbon tax. The theory is quite simple to follow.

I don't mean to labour this point too much, but we have two choices. Drastically cut emissions or give money to the EU.

There is no public will nor is there the economic ability to make the necessary cuts to our emissions which have stupidly been agreed between our government and the EU.

This means we must implement carbon taxes in lieu of not using fossil fuels and reducing emissions and any funds raised from these taxes can fund the fines.

We need the taxes to raise about half a billion a year. Roughly 1.5 million households multiplied by the €3000 tax figure mentioned last week.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/penalties-for-missing-climate-change-goals-to-be-less-than-claimed-minister-says-1.3508293?mode=amp

Subcomandante Marcos

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can human caused climate change skepticism really be lumped together with flat earthists and anti Vaxers.

Yes. Yes it can. It has about as much scientific basis as the other things you listed. It's up there with anti-vax big pharma conspiracy theories and believing in chem trails or that shape shifting lizards control the world.

JJJJNR

The masses have been told to be environmentally friendly since the 1800s as a way of control, while the classes live an indulgent lifestyle. This is a modernist version of controlling how much wood peasents consume.

We need to talk about fukushima and the fact we are blindly entering into a mass extinction event, not how much natural global warming is down to humans. Ireland was in the last 10,000 years covered in ice which has been retreating since and will continue to retreat until we are living in an ice free tropical climate. When all the ice melts where does it go into the ocean and into the atmosphere, as water.
The deserts will be gone, the masses need to stop living the environmental lie we need to clean up this planet of course but lets not waste time and effort being blinded by the class lie that is global warming.

JJJJNR

JJJJNR wrote: »

The masses have been told to be environmentally friendly since the 1800s as a way of control, while the classes live an indulgent lifestyle. This is a modernist version of controlling how much wood peasents consume.

We need to talk about fukushima and the fact we are blindly entering into a mass extinction event, not how much natural global warming is down to humans. Ireland was in the last 10,000 years covered in ice which has been retreating since and will continue to retreat until we are living in an ice free tropical climate. When all the ice melts where does it go into the ocean and into the atmosphere, as water.
The deserts will be gone, the masses need to stop living the environmental lie we need to clean up this planet of course but lets not waste time and effort being blinded by the class lie that is global warming.

Wut.

dense

Paris police use tear gas and water cannon on anti-Macron tax protesters https://jrnl.ie/4358179

The public demand for more carbon taxes is going well.

dense

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Yes. Yes it can. It has about as much scientific basis as the other things you listed. It's up there with anti-vax big pharma conspiracy theories and believing in chem trails or that shape shifting lizards control the world.

Add in humans controlling the climate and weather modification to your list.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

nobody on here has quoted or referenced 'An inconvenient Truth' in any of this debate. And even though that film did exaggerate some of the risks (through not referencing the timescales for some of the effects), that 'Great global warming swindle' film took the misrepresentation and blatant distortions of the evidence to a whole new level

You just admitted you rationalise the propaganda film using the noble lie despite the fact the ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.


Lets see who else is riding the global warming train to advance their agendas, notice that the climate does not concern them, their aim is control.


In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

<snip>

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”


source

batgoat

dense wrote: »

Paris police use tear gas and water cannon on anti-Macron tax protesters https://jrnl.ie/4358179

The public demand for more carbon taxes is going well.

Man, your points are going as far off the wall as possible, aren't they? Your point has no actual impact on global warming existing....

ricero

Great to see that liberal idiot Macron get his much deserves in France. Guy is a creep.

Pa ElGrande

batgoat wrote: »

Man, your points are going as far off the wall as possible, aren't they? Your point has no actual impact on global warming existing....

The lie is that governments can control the weather by extracting more from their tax cattle. The cattle should just stay in their stalls to be milked and slaughtered as the political whim dictates, while the climate alarmists work to make their worst predictions come true.

Akrasia

Here's where I stand on the carbon tax issue

1. It should be much higher
2. It should be income and revenue neutral


This means that the tax should be balanced by a payment to those tax payers equal to the average tax collected per tax payer.

If there are a thousand people and the average carbon tax is expected to be a thousand euros per person, then each person should get a grant of a thousand euros to spend as they like, and they pay their carbon tax based on their usage of carbon polluting products.

It works brilliantly because the people who pollute more than average are paying more than a thousand euros in tax and have a higher incentive to reduce their pollution, while people who pollute less get rewarded for being more efficient. The average person will break even but will still be incentivised to emit less carbon because doing so would be financially beneficial to them. If they are given a choice between a high carbon product and a low carbon product, all other things being equal, they'd choose the lower carbon product.

People can also choose to spend their grant to invest in energy efficiency so that their carbon tax bill is lower the next year.

The fact that it is revenue neutral means the 'government just want to increase taxes' brigade have nothing to whinge about. The fact that the bigger polluters pay more uses market forces to encourage them to change their behaviour and invest in green alternatives.

This has been tried in British Colombia and has been successful so far
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515300550

Can any of the 'skeptics' on here point out the inherent flaw in this system?

This can also be combined with regulations on industry and capital investment to modernise national infrastructure.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You just admitted you rationalise the propaganda film using the noble lie despite the fact the ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.


Lets see who else is riding the global warming train to advance their agendas, notice that the climate does not concern them, their aim is control.


In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

Ah the joy of quote mining.
If you selective quote people out of context you can get them to say anything.

And not a single one of those 'quotes' debunks any science.

Its gas, someone can write a thousand page book talking about the urge to act based on science, and someone can take a single sentence from that book and misrepresent it to mean that they don't care about the science and it's all an ulterior motive to bring down capitalism or some other nonsense.

batgoat

Akrasia wrote: »

Ah the joy of quote mining.
If you selective quote people out of context you can get them to say anything.

And not a single one of those 'quotes' debunks any science.

Its gas, someone can write a thousand page book talking about the urge to act based on science, and someone can take a single sentence from that book and misrepresent it to mean that they don't care about the science and it's all an ulterior motive to bring down capitalism or some other nonsense.

Funnily enough, that documentary that was cited a few pages back that was claiming climate change is a myth created a considerable amount of annoyance for showing interviews with scientists out of context... So a scientist who fully agrees with consensus, would come out looking like they didn't.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

Can any of the 'skeptics' on here point out the inherent flaw in this system?

This can also be combined with regulations on industry and capital investment to modernise national infrastructure.

In British Columbia's case the tax keeps increasing, the carbon commissions keep increasing and they dumped the revenue neutral illusion.


As for revenue neutral that's a lie that is demolished easily see when you buy that loaf of bread, you're paying a portion of all of the costs, including taxation!, of every person or business entity that had anything to do with that bread, from before the wheat was planted up until the loaf of bread ends up in that durable plastic bag in the back seat of your Mitsubishi Outlander Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle.

Have you thought about how much your doctor pays into the tax system to augment his or her employees' PRSI/USC contributions? And what about all the taxes your local medical centre paid when purchasing all of that sophisticated equipment, not to mention the endless monthly outlay for cotton swabs and tongue depressors? Make no mistake about it all that carbon tax overhead is distributed throughout the system in one form or another. All it does in increase operating expenses we still have to eat and we still get sick and especially in winter.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

And not a single one of those 'quotes' debunks any science.

And that's exactly the point being made by said quotes, the science whatever is happens to be is just a prop they use to promote their self serving political agendas. In addition we see the same behaviour as the environmentalists use children as their shield to impose their doctrine on the population through the court system.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

And that's exactly the point being made by said quotes, the science whatever is happens to be is just a prop they use to promote their self serving political agendas. In addition we see the same behaviour as the environmentalists use children as their shield to impose their doctrine on the population through the court system.

So environmentalists aren't allowed recourse to the courts system then?

It's sad how people with the conspiracy mindset can see their theories confirmed everywhere they look.

Defaulter1831

I love science and scientific progress.

Regarding climate change i feel we're dealing with complexities in nature we don't have the ability to fully comprehend yet. I don't think any scientist can make statements with 100% certainty.

However regardless it is good and proper policy to reduce carbon emissions, reduce the amount of plastic we produce, try and live in a more sustainable and simple way so that we don't destroy the planet for future generations.

I totally respect the opinions of all climate change scientists just not sure what the ultimate effect of global warming will be with regards to all the arguments of the gulf stopping, triggering an ice age, droughts etc. It's just way too complex for our scientists at present.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

In British Columbia's case the tax keeps increasing, the carbon commissions keep increasing and they dumped the revenue neutral illusion.

Lorrie Goldstein is a trump supporting climate change denier. I don't think he's a reliable source for analysis on this topic.

I linked to a peer reviewed research paper that was published showing a drop in CO2 of between 5% and 15% based on a $30 per tonne carbon tax (which is much lower than it needs to be)

As for revenue neutral that's a lie that is demolished easily see when you buy that loaf of bread, you're paying a portion of all of the costs, including taxation!, of every person or business entity that had anything to do with that bread, from before the wheat was planted up until the loaf of bread ends up in that durable plastic bag in the back seat of your Mitsubishi Outlander Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle.

Have you thought about how much your doctor pays into the tax system to augment his or her employees' PRSI/USC contributions? And what about all the taxes your local medical centre paid when purchasing all of that sophisticated equipment, not to mention the endless monthly outlay for cotton swabs and tongue depressors? Make no mistake about it all that carbon tax overhead is distributed throughout the system in one form or another. All it does in increase operating expenses we still have to eat and we still get sick and especially in winter.

What are you actually going on about.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

So environmentalists aren't allowed recourse to the courts system then?

It's sad how people with the conspiracy mindset can see their theories confirmed everywhere they look.

Their goal is to do an end run around democratic systems and this is an abuse of process and taxpayers who must pay the bills since it is not the courts function to create law or social policy.

Akrasia

Defaulter1831 wrote: »

I love science and scientific progress.

Regarding climate change i feel we're dealing with complexities in nature we don't have the ability to fully comprehend yet. I don't think any scientist can make statements with 100% certainty.

However regardless it is good and proper policy to reduce carbon emissions, reduce the amount of plastic we produce, try and live in a more sustainable and simple way so that we don't destroy the planet for future generations.

I totally respect the opinions of all climate change scientists just not sure what the ultimate effect of global warming will be with regards to all the arguments of the gulf stopping, triggering an ice age, droughts etc. It's just way too complex for our scientists at present.

The scientists working on it have a good idea of what the uncertainties are and the IPCC publishes their confidence levels for each potential outcome from climate change. The science isn't all in, it never will be, but we know with a very high confidence that continuing with our current energy system will result in very serious increases in global average temperature over the next few generations which will have widespread negative consequences for both the natural world and human civilisation.

We need to do more than just cut down on fossil fuel use, we need to go completely carbon neutral in the next 2 to 3 decades.

JJJJNR

Akrasia wrote: »

The scientists working on it have a good idea of what the uncertainties are and the IPCC publishes their confidence levels for each potential outcome from climate change. The science isn't all in, it never will be, but we know with a very high confidence that continuing with our current energy system will result in very serious increases in global average temperature over the next few generations which will have widespread negative consequences for both the natural world and human civilisation.

We need to do more than just cut down on fossil fuel use, we need to go completely carbon neutral in the next 2 to 3 decades.

So how much have global temperatures risen since the introduction of the volcano.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Their goal is to do an end run around democratic systems and this is an abuse of process and taxpayers who must pay the bills since it is not the courts function to create law or social policy.

An abuse of process??

Its right for citizens to have access to the courts to keep their government in check. the cost of the legal system is the cost of living in a democracy. Would you rather live in a state where governments rule by decree and can never be challenged in court?

Whose side are you on ElGrande. You seem to have the most bizzare world view.

Akrasia

JJJJNR wrote: »

So how much have global temperatures risen since the introduction of the volcano.

That question makes no sense.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

I linked to a peer reviewed research paper that was published showing a drop in CO2 of between 5% and 15% based on a $30 per tonne carbon tax (which is much lower than it needs to be)

On the contrary it is a stealth tax that keeps on increasing, the reduction was caused by the post 2008 economic contraction and cross border shopping (i.e. buy your fuel in the United States). It also had an immediate negative effect on some young mens employment and they did the bait and switch tactic and removed credits so it is no longer "revenue neutral" by their definition.


Here’s why B.C. pays such insane gas prices, and why even a new pipeline might not help.

Akrasia wrote: »

What are you actually going on about.

There is no such thing as revenue neutral, imagine a politician putting their hand in your pocket and taking out 3 x €10 notes, she gives you €10 back, €10 to your neighbour for the upkeep of their electric car and €10 to herself to cover the overheads of collection and redistribution.

You live in Ireland and you have to pay for food, heating, sick care and corporate and social welfare programs, which means you must work which means you must expend energy. Unless you live a self sufficient rural lifestyle from the 1940s or 1950s, everything you do involves the use of oil and gas in some form so when you levy new taxes on energy consumption you push up the prices of every activity in the economy, the higher the prices rise the more revenue government collects in taxation overall. If you look at your energy bills its is (cost x VAT rate) x carbon tax rate. (yes it is a tax on a tax). Because the general expenditure goes up caused by addition of the carbon tax overhead, the government collects more revenue by taxing the inflated prices, so even though they can give some of the money back in tax credits if fact it is a net gain for them and they keep increasing it until eventually productivity drops and the tax becomes a burden that drags economic activity down.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

An abuse of process??

Its right for citizens to have access to the courts to keep their government in check. the cost of the legal system is the cost of living in a democracy. Would you rather live in a state where governments rule by decree and can never be challenged in court?

Whose side are you on ElGrande. You seem to have the most bizzare world view.

The abuse of the court system by environmentalists trying to impose their world-view on the population at large with the ultimate goal of diverting tax revenue to subsidise their lifestyles is reprehensible.

Pa ElGrande

JJJJNR wrote: »

So how much have global temperatures risen since the introduction of the volcano.

They tend to have the opposite effect when they are large enough to reach the upper atmosphere. One of the most disastrous one for the population of Ireland was from the Kamchatka peninsula in Siberia during 1739.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

There is no such thing as revenue neutral, imagine a politician putting their hand in your pocket and taking out 3 x €10 notes, she gives you €10 back, €10 to your neighbour for the upkeep of their electric car and €10 to herself to cover the overheads of collection and redistribution.

You live in Ireland and you have to pay for food, heating, sick care and corporate and social welfare programs, which means you must work which means you must expend energy. Unless you live a self sufficient rural lifestyle from the 1940s or 1950s, everything you do involves the use of oil and gas in some form so when you levy new taxes on energy consumption you push up the prices of every activity in the economy, the higher the prices rise the more revenue government collects in taxation overall. If you look at your energy bills its is (cost x VAT rate) x carbon tax rate. (yes it is a tax on a tax). Because the general expenditure goes up caused by addition of the carbon tax overhead, the government collects more revenue by taxing the inflated prices, so even though they can give some of the money back in tax credits if fact it is a net gain for them and they keep increasing it until eventually productivity drops and the tax becomes a burden that drags economic activity down.

The point is to disincentivise the use of carbon intensive energy the whole way along the chain from raw materials to disposal of the finished good. Goods that incur carbon taxes at every step along the way will be less competitive compared with goods that use low carbon alternatives.

It's basic market economics. The carbon tax is to account for the cost of the pollution rather than just ignoring it. You're not a socialist are you? Why do you hate market economics so much?

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

It's basic market economics. The carbon tax is to account for the cost of the pollution rather than just ignoring it. You're not a socialist are you? Why do you hate market economics so much?

No it isn't. It's a socialist planning board telling their managers to "play market". If it were a true market there would be buyers and sellers for the product with a price system indicating demand and supply with the social good being regulated by profit and loss. The Soviet Union under it's central planning regime set production targets for it's factories by volume whether there was demand or not for the goods, they created chaos because there was no accurate price information to tell suppliers what was needed as a consequence there was no profit and loss mechanism to tell the planners, the quantity, quality or price of goods to produce. The empire was impoverished and eventually collapsed as the inefficiencies led to widespread shortages of essential goods in an empire that had the natural resources to support its population.


The same problem led to the housing bubble here in Ireland, the ECB and other major central banks set the interest rates too low, so the price signals that the developers had told them there were plenty resources in the market and their projects got more extravagant until the error was discovered until the banking system collapsed taking down the country with it


Fast forward to 2018, the ECB has made a monumental f**kup with it's negative interest rate and quantitative easing policy. Juncker and Draghi retire over the next 12 months and their successors will have to clean up the mess they and other EU governments created. All that mis-pricing of government debt will eventually lead to a chain of sovereign defaults.


Now what has this got to do with carbon pricing? Carbon pricing is set by government decree, not by markets. The true function of the pricing system in any market is to communicate information about what is needed and what is available. Profit and loss has a social function to inform entrepreneurs than more of one thing is needed and loss serves to tell them to stop wasting resources. By setting the carbon price too high you create a bubble and mis-allocate resources, eventually the market will discover the error and it will collapse. Will Elon Musk be the Sean Fitzpatrick of the carbon bubble? We shall see.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No it isn't. It's a socialist planning board telling their managers to "play market". If it were a true market there would be buyers and sellers for the product with a price system indicating demand and supply with the social good being regulated by profit and loss. The Soviet Union under it's central planning regime set production targets for it's factories by volume whether there was demand or not for the goods, they created chaos because there was no accurate price information to tell suppliers what was needed as a consequence there was no profit and loss mechanism to tell the planners, the quantity, quality or price of goods to produce. The empire was impoverished and eventually collapsed as the inefficiencies led to widespread shortages of essential goods in an empire that had the natural resources to support its population.


The same problem led to the housing bubble here in Ireland, the ECB and other major central banks set the interest rates too low, so the price signals that the developers had told them there were plenty resources in the market and their projects got more extravagant until the error was discovered until the banking system collapsed taking down the country with it


Fast forward to 2018, the ECB has made a monumental f**kup with it's negative interest rate and quantitative easing policy. Juncker and Draghi retire over the next 12 months and their successors will have to clean up the mess they and other EU governments created. All that mis-pricing of government debt will eventually lead to a chain of sovereign defaults.


Now what has this got to do with carbon pricing? Carbon pricing is set by government decree, not by markets. The true function of the pricing system in any market is to communicate information about what is needed and what is available. Profit and loss has a social function to inform entrepreneurs than more of one thing is needed and loss serves to tell them to stop wasting resources. By setting the carbon price too high you create a bubble and mis-allocate resources, eventually the market will discover the error and it will collapse. Will Elon Musk be the Sean Fitzpatrick of the carbon bubble? We shall see.

Do you understand what a market failure is?

It happens when producers can externalise their costs of production. Governments can address this by either imposing regulations banning polluting practices, or mandating expensive procedures to neutralise pollutants, or by imposing a tax equivalent to the costs that were previously externalised. The point of the carbon tax is that nobody should pay a cent in carbon tax. The markets will step up and provide alternative carbon neutral products and services, or industry will reprocess the carbon pollution so that it no longer harms the climate.

Its absolutely nothing like a command economy. Its a market based mechanism to address market failures that undeniably exist at the moment.