Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[chala]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

I'm not sure what your trying to say.

You are disappointing me.

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Solar hot water does not contribute to global warming.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Isn't it interesting that the left has the same solution for every problem...Tax it.

Neither the left or right have exclusive ownership of this "solution". It is about the only thing that works. It's a well worn saying, "If you want to promote something then subsidize it (give a tax break) and if you want to discourage something then tax it". Whether coming from the right or left it has proved the fairest way to change behavior. Unless it is trying to discourage your particular behavior in which case it is a government conspiracy .

The challenge for any government is in deciding whether a specific behavior is "good" or "bad". That's called "making public policy". But once you have decided what is good and what is bad then taxes are the absolute best way to get people to adopt the policy. It's far better than guys in trench coats with truncheons visiting for a "chat" in the middle of the night.

[SV THIRD DAY]

I disagree.
Tax policy should not be about social engineering, deciding what it right or wrong, or picking winners and losers. No where in the US Constitution does it give the Federal Government such power. That is a post Woodrow Wilson Progressive belief/policy that the masterminds in Government are smarter than the American people and should use their position of power to "push" Americans in the direction the masterminds decide.

I would argue that taxes should be about raising revenue...that's it.
How much revenue does the Federal Government need to operate and then set the flat tax rate at the level needed.

The Federal Government wielding the power you describe as the best way to get people to do what the Government wants, is simple Tyranny unimaginable by the Founding Fathers of this Country when they intentionally limited the Powers of the Federal Government. Rather by guys in trenchcoats in the dark of night or by Tax policy in the light of day...Tyranny is Tyranny!

What is wrong with our Country today isn't from the Federal Government having too little power, but too much and it is time to start thinking in terms of the US Constitution again...before it is too late.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I disagree.
Tax policy should not be about social engineering, deciding what it right or wrong, or picking winners and losers. No where in the US Constitution does it give the Federal Government such power. That is a post Woodrow Wilson Progressive belief/policy that the masterminds in Government are smarter than the American people and should use their position of power to "push" Americans in the direction the masterminds decide.

I would argue that taxes should be about raising revenue...that's it.
How much revenue does the Federal Government need to operate and then set the flat tax rate at the level needed.

The Federal Government wielding the power you describe as the best way to get people to do what the Government wants, is simple Tyranny unimaginable by the Founding Fathers of this Country when they intentionally limited the Powers of the Federal Government. Rather by guys in trenchcoats in the dark of night or by Tax policy in the light of day...Tyranny is Tyranny!

What is wrong with our Country today isn't from the Federal Government having too little power, but too much and it is time to start thinking in terms of the US Constitution again...before it is too late.

Good post.

The main problem with the AGW hypothesis is that for whatever reason, a lot of people decided on the basis of very sketchy science that has only gotten sketchier that human beings were producing magic molecules of CO2 that influenced climate in a way that the other 97% of CO2 emissions did not, and these magic molecules had to be reduced or we would all die. Hence, Al Gore's fatuous film that has nothing in it that has come true, massive amounts of money flowing to 'climate' scientists who would tell policy makers just how dire the situation was, and the marginally informed becoming frightened just as the same people became frightened that the ozone hole would kill us, that global cooling would kill us, that AIDS would kill us, that communists would kill us, etc. etc.

Politicians being politicians the next step was to levy taxes on carbon and begin to distort the market in a way that is deeply dysfunctional and outright harmful to millions and millions of people. Of course, these big government enthusiasts are acting with the very best of motives, but that doesn't mean that they aren't callow fools doing harm.

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Don't look now is indeed the operative phrase. This 2012 study was of 1,077 engineers and geoscientists, all who were members of APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta,[Canada]). That is, they worked for the petroleum industry and were not climate scientists.

In other words... you don't like the source so you ignore the facts


How dare we contradict your
MMGW religion with FACTS!

That's RACIST!

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Don't look now is indeed the operative phrase. This 2012 study was of 1,077 engineers and geoscientists, all who were members of APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta,[Canada]). That is, they worked for the petroleum industry and were not climate scientists.

A complete fabrication. Why don't you take a look at their website and the topics they are interested in before you make things up about who and what they are. They are engineers and geoscientists, more qualified to opine on climate science than the self described cartoonist who runs skepticalscience.com.

Another very typical ad hominem attacks that seem to be the only argument warmists feel comfortable making.

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Neither the left or right have exclusive ownership of this "solution". It is about the only thing that works. It's a well worn saying, "If you want to promote something then subsidize it (give a tax break) and if you want to discourage something then tax it". Whether coming from the right or left it has proved the fairest way to change behavior. Unless it is trying to discourage your particular behavior in which case it is a government conspiracy .

The challenge for any government is in deciding whether a specific behavior is "good" or "bad". That's called "making public policy". But once you have decided what is good and what is bad then taxes are the absolute best way to get people to adopt the policy. It's far better than guys in trench coats with truncheons visiting for a "chat" in the middle of the night.

I agree with because ultimately "policy" is set by people voting for representatives that create the laws and policy. I.E. Sin tax on cigarettes and alcohol, policies on what drugs are safe, policies on who and when, can take birth control, policies on speed limits on our highways, policies on how many drinks you can consume before driving, policies on how many toxins you can dump in the waterways and air, policies on safe drugs, safe cars etc. etc. etc.
IMO we used to compromise on policies, realizing that even though we didn't always agree, policies used to be in place to protect society, society being "we the people". It was Regan that created the EPA ? I might be wrong on that, correct me if so. My point is, slowly over the decades our policies have been formed to protect corporate interest and profit, not society as a whole. It just doesn't seem to be in societies best interest to allow some to destroy valuable natural assets for profit alone. My hope lies in the statistics that the majority want clean air and water, so hopefully they will vote their opinion.

Oh and as far as the "job destroyer" crowd? Growth in renewable energy is huge! If you are all about the earnings potential and wealth you'd be wise to switch teams now.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

I agree with because ultimately "policy" is set by people voting for representatives that create the laws and policy. I.E. Sin tax on cigarettes and alcohol, policies on what drugs are safe, policies on who and when, can take birth control, policies on speed limits on our highways, policies on how many drinks you can consume before driving, policies on how many toxins you can dump in the waterways and air, policies on safe drugs, safe cars etc. etc. etc.
IMO we used to compromise on policies, realizing that even though we didn't always agree, policies used to be in place to protect society, society being "we the people". It was Regan that created the EPA ? I might be wrong on that, correct me if so. My point is, slowly over the decades our policies have been formed to protect corporate interest and profit, not society as a whole. It just doesn't seem to be in societies best interest to allow some to destroy valuable natural assets for profit alone. My hope lies in the statistics that the majority want clean air and water, so hopefully they will vote their opinion.

Oh and as far as the "job destroyer" crowd? Growth in renewable energy is huge! If you are all about the earnings potential and wealth you'd be wise to switch teams now.

Actually the EPA was Richard (tricky dick) Nixon

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually the EPA was Richard (tricky dick) Nixon

Thanks! I guess he's not the person the right want to hold up as "legacy" hero. Or, perhaps they do, who knows? Perhaps that's the one thing he did that genuinely helped all, somewhat, here in the US? Personally because I appreciate toxic free water and air I applaud him for that contribution. I know, I know............he dropped toxins on other countries

Still most of the rivers in my state have warnings against eating the fish caught. Mercury, pesticides....eat 1x month, if pregnant don't eat, if child don't eat? Lovely

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

Thanks! I guess he's not the person the right want to hold up as "legacy" hero. Or, perhaps they do, who knows? Perhaps that's the one thing he did that genuinely helped all, somewhat, here in the US? Personally because I appreciate toxic free water and air I applaud him for that contribution. I know, I know............he dropped toxins on other countries

Still most of the rivers in my state have warnings against eating the fish caught. Mercury, pesticides....eat 1x month, if pregnant don't eat, if child don't eat? Lovely

That was Johnsons legacy Nixon got us out of SE Asia

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

A complete fabrication. Why don't you take a look at their website and the topics they are interested in before you make things up about who and what they are. They are engineers and geoscientists, more qualified to opine on climate science than the self described cartoonist who runs skepticalscience.com.

Another very typical ad hominem attacks that seem to be the only argument warmists feel comfortable making.

And Taylor misrepresented the study. See above http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2113400

I am an Albertan. A lot of my friends who are APEGA members scoff at AGW deniers.

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by newhaul

That was Johnsons legacy Nixon got us out of SE Asia

The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason' - BBC News

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

To bad they "forgot" to include it within the first 10 pages of the summary for policy makers. You know, the stuff that actually gets read by those other than brainiacs with no social life.

As a "brainiac", it is wonder that I have managed to get 45,000 miles of sailing in.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And Taylor misrepresented the study. See above http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2113400

I am an Albertan. A lot of my friends who are APEGA members scoff at AGW deniers.

Hopefully you don't have any family impacted by the oil sands region fire near fort McMurray in Alberta

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And Taylor misrepresented the study. See above http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2113400

I am an Albertan. A lot of my friends who are APEGA members scoff at AGW deniers.

Yes, that would be the 1/3 of engineers and geophysicists that are as clueless about this issue as you are. Fortunately, they are in the minority, as are you.

Just curious, but will you continue to ignore the questions asked in post 4111, as the answers are obvious and corrode your faith system?