Another ripoff by the BC Liberals

[maryjane48]

The extent of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic last month was the lowest on record for January, the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said on Friday, while concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit a January record.

"The missing ice in both poles has been quite extraordinary," David Carlson, director of the World Climate Research Programme, told a U.N. briefing in Geneva.

"It is a quite strange situation. It's extraordinarily warm in the north, and the sea ice, which is one indicator of planetary warmth, is at a minimum at this point in both hemispheres."

The month of January was probably the second or third hottest such month on record, but that was not a reliable indicator of the state of the climate, he said.

“Surface air temperature is a small hair on the long tail of a very big dog. And the very big dog is the ocean. And what you really don’t want to watch is individual months of surface air temperature because they can go up for a variety of reasons.

A better guide was the temperature of oceans, or "integrated ocean heat content".

"And that in fact is relentlessly going up and up and up,” he said.


from reuters but it is on many outlets .


whats the fraud again ? hobby explained why it works and how it works . its only thing clark has done that i can honestly say well done .

[hobbyguy]

Fluffy - the idea behind a revenue neutral carbon tax is to effect behavior, not educate. You make it in someone's self interest to change their behavior. Gasoline goes up, so when buying a car, gas mileage becomes an issue, etc. On the flip side, you don't want the economy to suffer overall, so you find ways to give it back.

BC has done a pretty good job of that. No matter how you slice it though, folks will forget that they were given an income tax cut to cover it. The mistake they made was not coming up with a way to show it as an itemized credit on the income tax return - then it would be obvious to folks. (The rebate cheques to lower income folks are pretty obvious).

There will always be folks who will find ways to rationalize around a future risk or reality that they wish would just go away. That's why Ponzi schemes work. That's why there will always be folks that will believe that the latest quack medicine will cure everything from adenoids to warts. That's why folks won't forgo an annual vacation to Hawaii in order to save enough in their RRSP. etc.

That's where education runs into a wall. So we have Pigovian taxes, tobacco taxes, liquor taxes etc.

[rustled]

When we "run into a wall" with defending our theory (in this case a wall of contrarian evidence), we can either see the sow's ear for what it is, or use different terminology (e.g. "Piglovian tax") to keep trying to selling it to the rest of the public as a silk purse.

This is a cautionary tale on what happens when we allow theorists to foist public policy on us, without the slightest regard for the harm caused by those public policies.

It's an age-old scheme, used with great effect by others those who have found yet another way to milk a gullible public with threats of doom and gloom (complete with public shaming and ridicule for those who don't believe).

Like any similar scheme, it's driven by hubris and greed, and highly dependent on the gullibility of those who will succumb to fear of the future and are completely capable of ignoring the harm they're doing in the present.

It's fine for theorists here to willfully ignore how they're tossing people and the environment under the bus, to keep pretending it isn't a cash cow for our government and a failure in terms of affecting climate change, but we should expect our governments to do better. We should expect them to look at the growing body of evidence and say "This theory was wrong, therefore the taxation and regulation policies we put in place because of it need to change."

[rustled]

Here's an example of how the carbon tax is counter-productive:

http://www.castanet.net/news/World/1893 ... st-clogged

People pretend the carbon tax can solve the pollution related to the problem the same way they pretend recycling will solve the pollution problems related to packaging.

We're throwing a lot of taxpayers' money at it, but we are not addressing the problem.

If what we rally want to do is get people out of their cars to reduce congestion-related pollution, forcing everyone to pay more for basic necessities and hoping there will be some kind of trickle-down effect on commuters is an incredibly foolish way to do it.

[rylanmc]

Taxes are one of the guarantees of life, and I would much prefer higher consumption taxes and sales tax over income taxes. I hope by increasing the carbon tax, income taxes go down. I will ride my bike and walk more to benefit, while others will complain their gas costs are too high due to laziness, and will not relocate to live near their work.

[maryjane48]

When we "run into a wall" with defending our theory (in this case a wall of contrarian evidence), we can either see the sow's ear for what it is, or use different terminology (e.g. "Piglovian tax") to keep trying to selling it to the rest of the public as a silk purse.

This is a cautionary tale on what happens when we allow theorists to foist public policy on us, without the slightest regard for the harm caused by those public policies.

It's an age-old scheme, used with great effect by others those who have found yet another way to milk a gullible public with threats of doom and gloom (complete with public shaming and ridicule for those who don't believe).

Like any similar scheme, it's driven by hubris and greed, and highly dependent on the gullibility of those who will succumb to fear of the future and are completely capable of ignoring the harm they're doing in the present.

It's fine for theorists here to willfully ignore how they're tossing people and the environment under the bus, to keep pretending it isn't a cash cow for our government and a failure in terms of affecting climate change, but we should expect our governments to do better. We should expect them to look at the growing body of evidence and say "This theory was wrong, therefore the taxation and regulation policies we put in place because of it need to change."

look if you want to jion the flateartbers then thats your choice but facts are you are not qualified to refute what nasa and noaa have to say based on real data from real observations .

[maryjane48]

Here's an example of how the carbon tax is counter-productive:

http://www.castanet.net/news/World/1893 ... st-clogged

People pretend the carbon tax can solve the pollution related to the problem the same way they pretend recycling will solve the pollution problems related to packaging.

We're throwing a lot of taxpayers' money at it, but we are not addressing the problem.

If what we rally want to do is get people out of their cars to reduce congestion-related pollution, forcing everyone to pay more for basic necessities and hoping there will be some kind of trickle-down effect on commuters is an incredibly foolish way to do it.

no it isnt . its the first step in the direction that is the logical next step for humans ,saying goodbye to carbon as energy .

lots folks wanted to keep their horse and buggies but soon came to see they were being left behind

[maryjane48]

Taxes are one of the guarantees of life, and I would much prefer higher consumption taxes and sales tax over income taxes. I hope by increasing the carbon tax, income taxes go down. I will ride my bike and walk more to benefit, while others will complain their gas costs are too high due to laziness, and will not relocate to live near their work.

income tax was implimented for ww2 . we won . lose the income tax .

[maryjane48]

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/14966080?ir=Canada



more imaginary stuff rustl?

[rustled]

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/14966080?ir=Canada



more imaginary stuff rustl?

Not at all. This is interesting stuff.

That suspicion was confirmed when they looked at soil and sediment analyses. The lakes are now bigger than any time during at least the last two centuries, meaning the expansion couldn't be the result of long-term natural cycles.

Still, it's a complex landscape and exactly how climate change acts to flood the lakes isn't yet well understood.

"That's something we're working on, to try and isolate that mechanism. There's a lot of potential drivers and there's probably not a single driver.

The climate is changing, and it's having a lot of different effects on a lot of different places, some of which warrant serious consideration to mitigate serious problems. Because when we look at the record longer term, well prior to the last two centuries, what do we see?

And when we compare the models designed to prove CAGW to the data collected over the past couple of decades, what do we see?

I find the science and the actual data quite compelling, so I'll leave "imaginary stuff" to those who are better at ignoring the data, and to those who believe a carbon tax is the best way to deal with the air quality problems in Courtenay and L.A.

That said, I do expect policy makers to focus on the actual data, and not capitalize on the hubris of those who still profess to have all the answers while ignoring the growing body of data that so clearly shows the CAGW theories were quite wrong.

[rustled]

Taxes are one of the guarantees of life, and I would much prefer higher consumption taxes and sales tax over income taxes. I hope by increasing the carbon tax, income taxes go down. I will ride my bike and walk more to benefit, while others will complain their gas costs are too high due to laziness, and will not relocate to live near their work.

To my mind, trying to use a carbon tax to reduce pollution resulting from people's over-reliance on their automobiles is akin to taxing all groceries to reduce the health care impacts of consuming too much sugar. They're taxing far too many necessities, and having far too little effect on the behaviour they most want to change, and the real problem goes unchecked. If we want to get people out of their cars, this isn't the way to do it.

People who support this particular form of taxation because it agrees with their personal belief system have given our governments a golden opportunity to play an expensive shell game with our money. IMO, governments can no longer claim any sort of "good intentions" on this front. It's just another tax.

[maryjane48]

the point of the carbon tax is to get people to think and to use less .its a step.. lets lose the income tax

[Smurf]

Just a couple of things, the 2 centuries they are talking about is only a few seconds in the actual life cycle of the world. Is it possible that this trend is cycling every 3,000 years or whatever. Also I will agree there is warming including man made warming, but what I don't believe there is, is factual information as to what percentage of it is actually caused by mankind and therefore how much we can actually do to stop it. There are lots of theories but that is all I have seen. If we are actually only causing 5% of the warming then what we do to fight it will actually mean nothing.

[rustled]

Just a couple of things, the 2 centuries they are talking about is only a few seconds in the actual life cycle of the world. Is it possible that this trend is cycling every 3,000 years or whatever. Also I will agree there is warming including man made warming, but what I don't believe there is, is factual information as to what percentage of it is actually caused by mankind and therefore how much we can actually do to stop it. There are lots of theories but that is all I have seen. If we are actually only causing 5% of the warming then what we do to fight it will actually mean nothing.

And meanwhile, the sensible preparations we should be making aren't being made.

We've been putting our eggs in the wrong basket.

[Urbane]

Dr. James Lovelock created the "Gaia Theory" and he's considered by many to be the godfather of the modern environmental movement. So what does he say now? Below is an excerpt with a link to the full article:

CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.
Full article: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10 ... cientific/