nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Climate Change Bill

mgmt

The Greens are staying in government to launch a kamikaze attack on the remnants of the Irish economy. This climate change bill will ruin us. They want to bring us back to the economic output levels of 1990. AGW is a scam of the highest order. Has the Greens asked the Sun what temperature the Earth is supposed to be?

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-climate_change/reports_2008/20101015.pdf

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RichieC

EastTexas wrote: »

The climate has changed since the inception of the planet and will continue to do just that.
Taxing climate is like taxing water because it’s wet.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Though deniers are always there in these threads to stifle reasonable debate on the topic, I suppose I shouldn't let it annoy me.

I believe this is a serious political forum so you're pointing to outlandish conspiracy theory's involving thousands of climatologists worldwide is quite laughable.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

The climate has changed since the inception of the planet and will continue to do just that.
Taxing climate is like taxing water because it’s wet.

Indeed, by the same logic let's get rid of hospitals! Sure we as a race have had a low life expectancy since pretty much we appeared on the face of the planet why try to change things!

EastTexas

Just for arguments sake, if man made global warming where not a tax scam.
Tiny little Ireland would not make a hoot of difference, even if every man woman and child drove a Hummer and heated they homes to their hearts delight with reasonably priced energy.
Talk about having your priorities horses ass backwards.
Political correctness does not create jobs, neither does the personal misery of being cold or without independent transportation to make your life happen.
This is not the time to play climate hoopla.
IMHO they should declare Ireland a “climate free zone” for the next 5 years to help with the economy and then reevaluate.
More science will have come to light by then, and the truth just like cream has way of rising to the top.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

Tiny little Ireland would not make a hoot of difference...

If Ireland positioned itself as a world-leading model of efficiency (for example), you don’t think anyone would take notice?

EastTexas wrote: »

IMHO they should declare Ireland a “climate free zone” for the next 5 years to help with the economy and then reevaluate.
More science will have come to light by then, and the truth just like cream has way of rising to the top.

All the scientific evidence in the world will not convince certain individuals that mankind is capable of having an adverse effect on the environment. Some people just don’t want to accept it as it would entail being a little more selfless.

EastTexas

This disturbing ad launched by one of the climate groups provides a very telling insight into their mentality and to which lengths they are willing go with fear mongering and intimidation.
They no longer use the ad after much public outcry, but that does not mitigate that they made it and published it to serve their purposes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7e_1286142183

RichieC

EastTexas wrote: »

This disturbing ad launched by one of the climate groups provides a very telling insight into their mentality and to which lengths they are willing go with fear mongering and intimidation.
They no longer use the ad after much public outcry, but that does not mitigate that they made it and published it to serve their purposes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7e_1286142183

Oh that is nothing compared to this doozy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAA2sLtzXJM

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

If Ireland positioned itself as a world-leading model of efficiency (for example), you don’t think anyone would take notice?
All the scientific evidence in the world will not convince certain individuals that mankind is capable of having an adverse effect on the environment. Some people just don’t want to accept it as it would entail being a little more selfless.

This would beg the question:
What are your priorities in these economically trying times?
The admiration of foreign climate elites and carbon merchants or the well being of your people and country at this point in time?
You can’t eat admiration.

On your science point.
That is rather debatable and depends who you listen to.
Given there is much more money these days in the “ right” opinion for scientists, almost regardless what they study as long there is some favorable climate angle included.
But despite that, dissenting voices from the science community are increasing.
Not to be glib, but I predict MMGW will go the way of the pet rock eventually, especially once the money incentive is removed.
It is almost shameful how much money is pumped into the climate lobby especially with so many genuine environmental issues neglected and under funded.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

This would beg the question:
What are your priorities in these economically trying times?
The admiration of foreign climate elites and carbon merchants or the well being of your people and country at this point in time?
You can’t eat admiration.

Please don't argue using false dilemmas, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

Please don't argue using false dilemmas, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Actually in a country in such dire financial straights it is mutually exclusive.
There is only finite amount of money at a hefty interest rate.
What are you going to spend it on?
Your people and the economy or on impressing some dudes in the UN.

Ask the average Irish person if they want to pay climate taxes to help WalMart gain access to natural resources in third world nations at cut rate prices.
That’s right; WalMart was in Cancun this years in support of MMGW securing their piece of the cake.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

This disturbing ad launched by one of the climate groups provides a very telling insight into their mentality and to which lengths they are willing go with fear mongering and intimidation.
They no longer use the ad after much public outcry, but that does not mitigate that they made it and published it to serve their purposes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7e_1286142183

Here’s a nonsense video about swine flu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfV9GpRUz6A

Influenza is obviously not a real problem.

EastTexas wrote: »

This would beg the question:
What are your priorities in these economically trying times?
The admiration of foreign climate elites and carbon merchants or the well being of your people and country at this point in time?

See nesf’s post above.

EastTexas wrote: »

Given there is much more money these days in the “ right” opinion for scientists, almost regardless what they study as long there is some favorable climate angle included.

I’ll let Andrew Dessler take this one:

First, consider that the scientific community has been saying for several years that our understanding of the climate system is quite good. Not perfect, mind you, but good enough that many scientists feel we should be taking action now to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. Based on the strength of this conclusion, many politicians have started saying "the science is settled."
Does that sound like a recipe for getting lots of research funding? Saying that we have a pretty good understanding of the climate system?
In fact, it should be obvious that the scientific community would be better off saying we're not sure that climate change is caused by humans: "It might be human-induced, but it might not be. What we really need is more money for models, satellites, and analysis." I can imagine a bipartisan groundswell of support for massive funding of climate science. That's the way to maximize funding. You don't say that the science is settled. You say it's unsettled.
And what would happen if the scientific community said definitively that humans were not to blame? I don't think funding would go down much, for the following reason. The climate is still warming, and if it is not human, then what is it? Obviously, we need to do a lot of research to figure out what is driving the climate, and how the climate will evolve over the next century. Enormous amounts of research on geoengineering and adaptation will be necessary, regardless of whether the cause is human.
So, it doesn't appear that the scientific community has done itself any favors by concluding that humans are responsible for climate change.

http://www.grist.org/article/show-me-the-money1

EastTexas wrote: »

It is almost shameful how much money is pumped into the climate lobby especially with so many genuine environmental issues neglected and under funded.

You don’t think the anti-AGW lobby are pumping far more money into studies in an attempt to discredit the AGW theory?

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

We shouldn’t try and understand why the climate is changing?

Of course, science is an ongoing ever evolving process.
Which is precisely why the tactic of “ The debate is over” is so incredibility disingenuous, contrary and in conflict with science.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

Of course, science is an ongoing ever evolving process.
Which is precisely why the tactic of “ The debate is over” is so incredibility disingenuous, contrary and in conflict with science.

I see.

There seems to be little debate within the scientific community on whether or not smoking is bad for you. I guess the "smoking is bad" lobby are being heavily funded to produce the "correct" results and stifle debate on the subject.

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

I see.

There seems to be little debate within the scientific community on whether or not smoking is bad for you. I guess the "smoking is bad" lobby are being heavily funded to produce the "correct" results and stifle debate on the subject.

Smoking? Lol
With all due respect, now you are conflating and changing the subject.

The majority of greenhouse gases is water vapor.
Are we going to find a reason to tax that too?
Co2 though a natural greenhouse gas is a tiny percentage and our/ human contribution is even more miniscule.
Without greenhouse gases we wouldn’t have an atmosphere or a livable planet.
Branding Co2 akin to a poison is one hell of a marketing scheme.

Mind you, environmentally unsound pollution and co2 is not the same thing but frequently put in the same bag to confuse.
I am in favor of diverse, renewable and cleaner energy.
Oil will run out eventually and all those wars and global conflicts suck, but disagree the way the climate lobby is going about it and object to their self serving agenda of corporate greed.
Besides we use more oil for global food production and many other things than for personal transportation.
So by simply sticking it to the little guy, who had no say so to begin with in energy choices for his home and car is not the way to go.

I understand the states need money and are looking for inventive ways to get it, but that dog won’t hunt.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

Smoking? Lol
With all due respect, now you are conflating and changing the subject.

No I’m not. You are suggesting that, with regard to climate science research, there is more funding available to those who produce the “right” results (while producing zero evidence to support such a suggestion, I might add), which has resulted in a lack of debate on the subject in the scientific community. Why aren’t you drawing the same conclusions about smoking? Or evolution? Or any other topic on which the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement? A lack of debate does not necessarily suggest that a debate is being suppressed. Maybe there just is no debate?

gizmo555

mgmt wrote: »

Yeah, will telecoms multinational continue to locate here if the cost of running their sever rooms go through the roof?

In point of fact, many high-tech companies such as Google are locating their data centres here precisely to save on energy costs. The temperate climate here means they save a fortune on air-conditioning costs. This has the potential to be a very important niche market for Ireland in seeking FDI. See, for example, this piece in the Indo last yearn for more detail:

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/ireland-has-the-potential-to-become-the-worlds-green-datacentre-capital-1940429.html

According to Dermot O'Connell, general manager of Dell Ireland, the level of sophistication of many of these data centres in terms of use of green technology is impressive.

"Climate is a vital component. If many of these data centres were located in hotter climates they would be expensive to cool and spending on electricity would be much higher. Many providers are working on creating the equivalent of an Energy Star rating for data centres that will help businesses decide where to put their data."

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

No I’m not. You are suggesting that, with regard to climate science research, there is more funding available to those who produce the “right” results (while producing zero evidence to support such a suggestion, I might add), which has resulted in a lack of debate on the subject in the scientific community. Why aren’t you drawing the same conclusions about smoking? Or evolution? Or any other topic on which the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement? A lack of debate does not necessarily suggest that a debate is being suppressed. Maybe there just is no debate?

Because this is conflating unrelated issues and unrelated (or barley related with evolution) sciences.
Straying far of topic.
Not just the merits or lack thereof in regards to global climate politics but also …
“Is this really the time and place for costly climate politics in lieu of Ireland’s many economic challenges? “

Yes funding/grants are easier and more plentiful available to those injecting a “favorable” climate angle into their studies even if mostly unrelated to climate.
And you don’t have to worry about the scrutiny of the political correctness squad.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

Actually in a country in such dire financial straights it is mutually exclusive.
There is only finite amount of money at a hefty interest rate.
What are you going to spend it on?
Your people and the economy or on impressing some dudes in the UN.

Ask the average Irish person if they want to pay climate taxes to help WalMart gain access to natural resources in third world nations at cut rate prices.
That’s right; WalMart was in Cancun this years in support of MMGW securing their piece of the cake.

You're assuming that any climate change legislation will necessitate taking funding away from other areas. You haven't shown this to be true, ergo the false dilemma being presented. Climate taxes don't cost us money they generate money for the State and reduce the amount we have to borrow. So really I do not think you understand what you are saying here!

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

Smoking? Lol
With all due respect, now you are conflating and changing the subject.

No he is not. He is arguing from analogy which is a perfectly useful debating tool.

Seriously, less of the rhetoric and more substantive points please.

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

No he is not. He is arguing from analogy which is a perfectly useful debating tool.

Seriously, less of the rhetoric and more substantive points please.

Na sorry, I am not going to debate smoking (a medical/ health issue) on the climate/economic thread.
Why not inject Chinese Noodles too?

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

You're assuming that any climate change legislation will necessitate taking funding away from other areas. You haven't shown this to be true, ergo the false dilemma being presented. Climate taxes don't cost us money they generate money for the State and reduce the amount we have to borrow. So really I do not think you understand what you are saying here!

Oh this most certainly will cost you at the pump and affect your other energy costs besides stifling business/ employers.

But much of that also depends on your ideology.
If you believe that your current government will handle your higher tax payer contributions better than it has done in the past.
Better than you ever could, rather then hanging on to that/your money and choosing what to allocate that to according to your personal needs.
Then by all means.
In fact you could even go further and additionally donate to them if you have that much faith in that process.
Under those circumstances any taxes regardless how frivolous would be great.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

Na sorry, I am not going to debate smoking (a medical/ health issue) on the climate/economic thread.
Why not inject Chinese Noodles too?

No. His point has nothing to do with smoking. It has to do with the logic of your statement. His statement shows a flaw in your logic, that's what the debate is about.

In mechanical terms:

You said:

With respect to Q: X therefore Y.

He said:

But look here, With respect to Z: X therefore not Y.

You're trying to say he's trying to make it a debate about Z, when really all he's doing is that your first statement doesn't automatically follow. You have two options, admit that his point is a solid counterpoint and your original statement doesn't automatically follow, or you can show how Z and Q are fundamentally different in some way. You in no way are required to debate about Z or it's truth.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

Oh that most certainly will cost you at the pump and affect your other energy costs besides stifling business/ employers.

But much of that also depends on your ideology.
If you believe that your current government will handle your higher tax payer contributions better than it has done in the past.
Better than you ever could, rather then hanging on to that money and choosing what to allocate that to according to your personal needs.
Then by all means.
In fact you could even go further and additionally donate to them if you have that much faith in that process.

You're assuming that we wouldn't be raising taxes if not for Climate Change legislation. That isn't the case, we've a massive fiscal deficit so we're going to be raising taxes anyway. So the debate becomes whether to make some of these new taxes climate taxes or not.

Either way, we're not creating any additional tax burden on society, all we're doing is choosing the flavour of tax burden and more technically the externalities of said taxes.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

Because this is conflating unrelated issues and unrelated (or barley related with evolution) sciences.

I’m going to take your avoidance of the question as a tacit admission that there are in fact issues on which the scientific community is overwhelmingly agreed. Does the possibility therefore not exist that the scientific community is largely agreed on the theoretical basis for man-made climate change?

EastTexas wrote: »

Yes funding/grants are easier and more plentiful available to those injecting a “favorable” climate angle into their studies even if mostly unrelated to climate.

Brilliant! I’m a scientist (though not a climate scientist) – could you point me in the direction of a funding body that will give me more money if I manufacture some spurious link between my work (which has absolutely nothing to do with climate change) and anthropogenic global warming? Much obliged.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

If you believe that your current government will handle your higher tax payer contributions better than it has done in the past.
Better than you ever could, rather then hanging on to that/your money and choosing what to allocate that to according to your personal needs.
Then by all means.

That’s an argument against any form of taxation, climate change bill or no climate change bill.

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

No he is not. He is arguing from analogy which is a perfectly useful debating tool.

Seriously, less of the rhetoric and more substantive points please.

I did not feel we that we had escalated to arguing and can respect someone’s opinion even if I disagree.
And also am fully aware that neither him nor I are going to change each others minds.
But none of that should keep us from talking.

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

No. His point has nothing to do with smoking. It has to do with the logic of your statement. His statement shows a flaw in your logic, that's what the debate is about.

In mechanical terms:

You said:

With respect to Q: X therefore Y.

He said:

But look here, With respect to Z: X therefore not Y.

You're trying to say he's trying to make it a debate about Z, when really all he's doing is that your first statement doesn't automatically follow. You have two options, admit that his point is a solid counterpoint and your original statement doesn't automatically follow, or you can show how Z and Q are fundamentally different in some way. You in no way are required to debate about Z or it's truth.

Huh?

http://www.lostrepublic.us/Graphics/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s an argument against any form of taxation, climate change bill or no climate change bill.

No government can function without taxation.

But it’s an argument for fair and grounded taxation unless you do not desire that in the first place, which would then mute the point of the tread starter altogether.
And to which extent you trust your government with your earned money.

Do they know better what's good for you or do you trust yourself to know what's good for you and your community.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

I did not feel we that we had escalated to arguing and can respect someone’s opinion even if I disagree.
And also am fully aware that neither him nor I are going to change each others minds.
But none of that should keep us from talking.

EastTexas wrote: »

Huh?

http://www.lostrepublic.us/Graphics/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

Seriously, go read up on logic and come back when you understand what debating actually entails. Arguing from analogy is a technical term not a reference to arguing in the popular sense.

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

Seriously, go read up on logic and come back when you understand what debating actually entails. Arguing from analogy is a technical term not a reference to arguing in the popular sense.

Sorry, I am not going to permit you to micromanage how I discuss a topic with a fellow poster.
Unless in your capacity as moderator you feel that I conduct myself against the guidelines of the forum rules, then please let me know by pointing out which ones.
And may I add that you brought a rather unpleasant tone and combative element to a previously cordial if not friendly conversation.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

Do they know better what's good for you or do you trust yourself to know what's good for you and your community.

I obviously know what’s best for myself, but I’m not sure I know what’s best for the community at large. I certainly don’t know what’s best for other communities. This of course all has to be taken in the context of accepting that I live in a democracy and my wishes are no more or less important than anyone else’s.

By the way, I couldn’t help but notice that you skipped over these two questions.