There is no Planet B

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Two questions for you.


1) What quantifiable effect would a global carbon tax have on the climate.
2)Is what Newhaul wrote about the carbon tax in B.C. true?

1) Market forces are hard to quantify.

2) BC worked well while they revenue neutral

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How to hide the incline.

the incline is static at 3.3mm per year with a .4mm error +/-
According to the study his chart come from.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...42EBLU_o9RM9mK

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

1) Market forces are hard to quantify.

2) BC worked well while they revenue neutral

yes it did but its not revenue neutral anymore is it ? And why is that?
Politicians got involved

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I doubt that the people in British Columbia would agree wholeheartedly about your carbon tax .

Why BC’s Carbon Tax Worked
“... Carbon taxes, whether they are revenue neutral or not, will, unfortunately, usually face stiff opposition in the beginning. In B.C., the major opposition party had been in favour of taxing carbon, but it flip-flopped when the opportunity to tag the Liberal Party with the initially unpopular policy presented itself just prior to an election year.

That said, the BC Liberal Party (rather confusingly B.C.’s most conservative major party) was able to retain control of the B.C. government in 2009 in spite of everything. In a March 2016 article on B.C.’s experience with taxing carbon, the New York Times reported that public opposition to the tax had dropped from 47 per cent in 2009 right after implementation to 32 per cent by 2015.

The left of centre BC New Democratic Party has since flip-flopped back to its original support for the carbon tax. With the help of Green Party members elected to the province’s legislative assembly, the NDP took control of the provincial government in May 2017. B.C.’s carbon tax not only again enjoys support across the political spectrum, but is in the process of increasing by $5 a year through 2021. It is scheduled to hit $50 a tonne one year ahead of the federal government’s proposed carbon tax ...”

More ➥ https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/...ess-Explained/

The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works
“... The tax has actually become quite popular. “Polls have shown anywhere from 55 to 65 percent support for the tax,” says Stewart Elgie, director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of the Environment. “And it would be hard to find any tax that the majority of people say they like, but the majority of people say they like this tax.”

It certainly doesn’t hurt that the tax, well, worked. That’s clear on at least three fronts: Major reductions in fuel usage in B.C., a corresponding decline in greenhouse gas emissions, and the lack of a negative impact on the B.C. economy ...”
➥ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle19512237/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The tobacco industries legitimate questioning led to the widespread research that resulted in our better understanding of the perils of tobacco use. Without their inquisitive minds little progress would have been made.

The correlation between CO2 emissions and GW leave me a little skeptical. After all, EVERYONE the breathes air eventually dies. Is the air causing it?Add the fact that there has been GW in the past prior to human induced CO2 emissions and there is no wonder for the controversy. Lets work on getting the 10 day forecast right first.

The mechanism of CO2 as GHG has been understood for for 2 centuries.

https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Learn the difference between climate and weather, they use interily differnt models.

Learn the difference between trend and variation.

https://youtu.be/e0vj-0imOLw

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the incline is static at 3.3mm per year with a .4mm error +/-
According to the study his chart come from.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...42EBLU_o9RM9mK

In the 1900's the increase per annum was 0.6 mm.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let's get current shall we?



https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...w.usatoday.com

Ad hoc studies unsurp the IPCC. M'kay.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In the 1900's the increase per annum was 0.6 mm.

Yes because 1900's technology was that accurate

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

1) Market forces are hard to quantify.

2) BC worked well while they revenue neutral

1) is utterly left field dodge ball, but 2) agrees with my posting

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Exile

How many research grants, field studies, papers & articles from the mainstream science are even hypothesizing that natural forces could be superseding AGW? Yeah, we both know - likely zero. As I said -- common sense.

Whether or not you believe in man made global warming, you must be careful using the number of grants, studies, etc. as proof of anything, other than people go where the money is.



The contemporary history of carbon as a greenhouse gas started in the seventies. Margaret Thatcher wanted to prevent the coal miner's unions from damaging the country's economy, and needed a way to justify a push to nuclear power. Her government started to award grants to research this. Anyone who wanted a grant for anything would use global warming to get their grant. What are the feeding habits of squirrels, as affected by global warming? I am not exaggerating. A recent study by the American Geophysical Union just said that squirrels and beavers release 200 time more greenhouse gases than they did one hundred years ago through their eating and waste.


The big bang theory is a great example of this. For some time the Big Bang was the primary and almost universally accepted theory. If you didn't believe in it you were considered a lunatic. Now however there are a few different but valid theories and the mainstream scientists are much more willing to consider them. The more we learn the more we realize how little we know.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The mechanism of CO2 as GHG has been understood for for 2 centuries.

https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Learn the difference between climate and weather, they use interily differnt models.

Learn the difference between trend and variation.

https://youtu.be/e0vj-0imOLw

Straw man.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by newhaul

unfortunately the starvation will happen long before the oil gets scarce.

Yeah, oil will never run out. There are trillions of barrels still in the ground. We haven’t burned even 10% of what is there.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Why BC’s Carbon Tax Worked
“... Carbon taxes, whether they are revenue neutral or not, will, unfortunately, usually face stiff opposition in the beginning. In B.C., the major opposition party had been in favour of taxing carbon, but it flip-flopped when the opportunity to tag the Liberal Party with the initially unpopular policy presented itself just prior to an election year.

That said, the BC Liberal Party (rather confusingly B.C.’s most conservative major party) was able to retain control of the B.C. government in 2009 in spite of everything. In a March 2016 article on B.C.’s experience with taxing carbon, the New York Times reported that public opposition to the tax had dropped from 47 per cent in 2009 right after implementation to 32 per cent by 2015.

The left of centre BC New Democratic Party has since flip-flopped back to its original support for the carbon tax. With the help of Green Party members elected to the province’s legislative assembly, the NDP took control of the provincial government in May 2017. B.C.’s carbon tax not only again enjoys support across the political spectrum, but is in the process of increasing by $5 a year through 2021. It is scheduled to hit $50 a tonne one year ahead of the federal government’s proposed carbon tax ...”

More ➥ https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/...ess-Explained/

The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works
“... The tax has actually become quite popular. “Polls have shown anywhere from 55 to 65 percent support for the tax,” says Stewart Elgie, director of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of the Environment. “And it would be hard to find any tax that the majority of people say they like, but the majority of people say they like this tax.”

It certainly doesn’t hurt that the tax, well, worked. That’s clear on at least three fronts: Major reductions in fuel usage in B.C., a corresponding decline in greenhouse gas emissions, and the lack of a negative impact on the B.C. economy ...”
➥ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle19512237/

the first is an opinion piece comparing the slow implementation of what was a pass thru tax to the French instituting the whole thing at one time with no pass thru ( government revenue generator ).
Wonder how the people of B.C. Feel now that its no longer pass thru. ( now gov revenue generator ).

The second is purely a fluf opinion piece that doesn't address the change from pass thru to revenue generator.

On this one considering where people involved in the conversation live I will go with what jack said. This time.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Yeah, oil will never run out. There are trillions of barrels still in the ground. We haven’t burned even 10% of what is there.

then there is the whole market driven technology that gave us fracking , cheap natural gas to use instead of coal for power generation that resulted in lowering the per gigawatt co2 numbers. Hence the market drove the reduction of per gigawatt emissions.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Yeah, oil will never run out. There are trillions of barrels still in the ground. We haven’t burned even 10% of what is there.

But at what price?