Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

Who decided on the arbitrary 30 years? Why not 75 years? Or why not 300 years?

I think I have posted this before.

The World Meteorological Organization set the 30 year time frame; it is not arbitrary.

Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

Who decided on the arbitrary 30 years? Why not 75 years? Or why not 300 years?

Bingo...you asked the question that the MMGW Cultists don't want to answer because they want to pick the time line to help back up their Holy Scriptures....not because science has anything to do with it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Bingo...you asked the question that the MMGW Cultists don't want to answer because they want to pick the time line to help back up their Holy Scriptures....not because science has anything to do with it.

I answered it.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I think I have posted this before.

The World Meteorological Organization set the 30 year time frame; it is not arbitrary.

Looks arbitrary to me. I think 100 years is long enough to filter out the anomalies along with the rest of the BS. But if your trying to study what happened to all the Cedar forests in Lebanon 2000 years ago I don't think 100 years will give you the answer.

[Exile]

Once again, you post a one-sided, misleading comment on the other CC thread as if it is uncontroverted, have it challenged by those who obviously have a better understanding of basic economics, but nevertheless post it again on a different thread as if somehow it will be less misleading this time.

Originally Posted by jackdale

A carbon tax is simply a means of putting a cost on excess CO2. Any company that has waste products in a liquid or solid form has to pay to have it properly disposed. Are invisible gases exempt just because we cannot see them in the air?

There are different permutations and proposals for a "carbon tax," but the only example you have repeatedly used from B.C. will not cost "[a]ny company that has waste products [in the form of] invisible gases." As pointed out time & again, this is because the tax that is collected by the fossil fuel co. from the first sale is passed along in full to the consumer/end user at the pump. Misleading people about this simple fact will not make it go away.

A carbon tax is collected from fossil-fuel companies upon the first sale at the mine, wellhead or port of entry.

Correct. But the company is then reimbursed that same amount by collecting it from the consumer. And since all the cos. would be required to pay and then reimburse themselves for the tax, none are at a competitive disadvantage.

The money collected via this fee would be distributed to the public as a monthly “dividend” or “green check.” Distributing all of the revenue equitably to households will ensure that families can afford the energy they need during the transition to a clean energy future, and it should help win public support for a rising carbon fee.

More like some fraction of the money collected will be redistributed to the public. I note your use of the word "equitably," the absence of the word "government" (who will be the entity doing the redistributing), and the goal of "win[ning] public support for a rising carbon fee."

Question:

Does the "equitable" distribution mean that every member of the public receives a "green check" in the same amount, regardless of how the amount correlates to their consumption of fossil fuels? Or will it be fairly apportioned based on actual amounts of consumption? If not, then it is grossly [U]inequitable[U] to people whose consumption is non-discretionary, i.e. compelled by long commutes to work & school for example. These people would get the same check as people who perhaps live a minimalist life on a sailboat, rarely drive, or otherwise have a low "carbon footprint." It would also be the same check affluent people with large houses, gas-guzzling cars, and a high consumption lifestyle will receive. This would be far beyond those calling a "flat tax" unfair, since it would amount to a highly regressive tax that will cost disproportionately more for those who can least afford it. Sound familiar?

The stated goal is to encourage consumers to reduce their fossil fuel consumption by making it more expensive. Might discourage some of those Sunday joy rides, but fossil fuels are a necessity for most, not a discretionary or luxury good. This is why all but a handful of U.S. states have repealed taxes on food and some forms of medical care. It is the exact opposite of what a progressive tax is theoretically designed to do, namely increase the rate of taxation for those who can more easily afford it. Whether the "green check" is fairly apportioned or not, it is obvious that the "dividend" consumers would receive will be a lesser amount than the taxes they paid at the pump, and all at no cost to the fossil fuel co.

There is no government revenue and no corporate profit.

In theory, yes. But there are govt. costs in the collection, enforcement, and redistribution of the tax which, guess what, those same consumers will also have to pay. But most critically, the fossil fuel cos. themselves incur no costs. So your analogy to cos. that have waste products in a liquid or solid form who have to pay to have it properly disposed is at best misplaced, and at worst a distortion, at least in the B.C. example you provided.

British Columbia has such system.

And if, as you have also cited on the other thread, this has led to reduced consumption and emissions, it is nothing more than a punitive tax on those who have no choice but be dependent on fossil fuels whether they like it or not. And it accomplishes all of this "social good" at zero cost to the fossil fuel cos., but at additional expense to consumers & taxpayers. The only beneficiaries are govt. bureaucrats whose job it is to redistribute money taken from the consumer/taxpayer, only to have a fraction of it returned to the consumer/taxpayer.

So exactly how many citizens do you believe this scheme will win over? Shall we now go ahead and tell them how much they are reducing the earth's warming?? I can certainly see why you need to mislead, distort, and obfuscate to get such policies adopted.

Now . . . wait for it . . . here comes the robotic reply that "Exxon/Mobil has come out in favor of a carbon tax." As if an oil co.'s motivation is to encourage less demand for their product.

And round & round we go . . . .

[newhaul]

Exile
I asked jack a rather pointed question on the carbon tax collected at the well head. He never answered my query .
Here it is again
What happens to all the tax funds that are collected when the petroleum is not used to manufacture fuel, but rather in the production of plastics and other polimers .

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

One decent volcano eruption surpass the total gas outputs of all the factories of China over a number of years.
I'm still wondering if i should be making preparation for arctic type cruising because of the global cooling that is now being accelerated by volcanoes.

Isn't it embarrassing for you to continue making fact-less claims like this.
You'll need a boat first before your cruise to the Arctic. Bon voyage now.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Just as I thought. It's not global warming we should be worried about. It's getting very wet and cold out there.

Reported today.

So far this May, D.C. has had a record number of rainy days (19 of 23) and the coolest high temperatures since 1882. This May’s afternoon highs are running an incredible 15 degrees cooler than last May’s. And we still haven’t hit 80 degrees.

The Southeast Regional Climate Center says D.C.’s recent temperatures most resemble San Francisco’s.

CLIMATE CHANGE...Come on...you can do it
CLIMATE CHANGE...Come on...say it...
CLIMATE CHANGE...all together now

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

CLIMATE CHANGE...Come on...you can do it
CLIMATE CHANGE...Come on...say it...
CLIMATE CHANGE...all together now

Nope its not climate change its colder than normal. Therefore it is weather.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout
Just as I thought. It's not global warming we should be worried about. It's getting very wet and cold out there.

Reported today.

So far this May, D.C. has had a record number of rainy days (19 of 23) and the coolest high temperatures since 1882. This May’s afternoon highs are running an incredible 15 degrees cooler than last May’s. And we still haven’t hit 80 degrees.

The Southeast Regional Climate Center says D.C.’s recent temperatures most resemble San Francisco’s

[adoxograph]

I see you kids found a new playground!

[Rustic Charm]

Omg is this one going to divert in to politics, abuse, accusations as well?

Oh well, it's entertaining I guess. I'll get my pop corn and sit back and watch

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Omg is this one going to divert in to politics, abuse, accusations as well?

Oh well, it's entertaining I guess. I'll get my pop corn and sit back and watch

I hope not. In the end the other one was not fun to watch anymore.

Mind if I join you?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I hope not. In the end the other one was not fun to watch anymore.

Mind if I join you?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Exile
I asked jack a rather pointed question on the carbon tax collected at the well head. He never answered my query .
Here it is again
What happens to all the tax funds that are collected when the petroleum is not used to manufacture fuel, but rather in the production of plastics and other polimers .

I did answer the question. In BC, ALL of the carbon tax results in lower taxes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

CLIMATE CHANGE...Come on...you can do it
CLIMATE CHANGE...Come on...say it...
CLIMATE CHANGE...all together now

Global Warming = increased temperatures

Climate Change = increased temperatures, variations in precipitation, increased extreme weather, etc.

You can thanks the GOP for politicizing the term "Climate Change".
Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."

" It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. "