Pipelines and carbon taxes: We're thinking about them ~wrong

[CapitalB]

No amount of proof is good enough for you people. Hang on lets throw up a straw man and move the goal post.

[rustled]

No amount of proof is good enough for you people. Hang on lets throw up a straw man and move the goal post.

You've already done that, haven't you?

[The Green Barbarian]

No amount of proof is good enough for you people. Hang on lets throw up a straw man and move the goal post.

At this point I'd settle for some proof, but you and the rest of the AGW-pushing science-deniers can't even provide that.

[CapitalB]

Just because you choose not to look at the evidence doesn't make it cease to exist.

[The Green Barbarian]

By most people I literally mean most people.

"Most people" don't get a tax break from the stupid carbon tax. This is just pure garbage.

[The Green Barbarian]

Just because you choose not to look at the evidence doesn't make it cease to exist.

What evidence???? What the hell are you talking about???

[The Green Barbarian]

Deniers are arguing for Now results, .

on this we can agree. Science deniers still pushing the AGW myth want to reach into our pockets NOW, for something that hasn't even been proven to exist.

[The Green Barbarian]

Never got a carbon tax rebate, not once. Now I feel really cheated.

Me neither. "Most" people who pay most of the carbon tax don't get a credit. This is just another lie to try and justify this insanely stupid tax, that helps no one.

[rustled]

By most people I literally mean most people.

"Most people" don't get a tax break from the stupid carbon tax. This is just pure garbage.

Ah, but getting people to argue about "who does and who doesn't get the carbon tax credit (and whether that's most people or not)" is a terrific way to avoid talking about whether or not there's any reasonable proof the carbon tax is an effective or efficient tool with which to change the climate.

But I suppose straw man arguments are only bad when "deniers" (a.k.a. those actually in favour of science-based policy) use them.

People who are comfortable with policy-based science (thanks, Cook et al) get to post whatever they like and we're supposed to accept whatever they post as "proof" that carbon taxes are a good thing. Consequences? Meh. Who needs to consider those when we're serving the greater good, and all that.