Until we get a Carbon Tax, we haven't even started - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15048694
Godstud wrote:
:lol: So you only use science if it backs up your ridiculous religious beliefs? Pathetic.



His goal is to drag the conversation away from the obvious.

Firehosing works better when it's false...
#15048829
Hindsite wrote:
Back to the subject. I believe a carbon tax is a stupid idea.



Reality says otherwise.

A well thought out Carbon Tax is good for an economy.

I find it interesting that damage from Climate Change is happening every time we discuss this. Right now, it's flooding in Venice.
#15048945
late wrote:Reality says otherwise.

A well thought out Carbon Tax is good for an economy.

I find it interesting that damage from Climate Change is happening every time we discuss this. Right now, it's flooding in Venice.

How is a carbon tax supposed to stop flooding? Like I said, it is a stupid idea.
#15048948
Hindsite wrote:
How is a carbon tax supposed to stop flooding?



You must put hours of effort into those penetrating questions.

Hours..

It's not supposed to stop flooding, it's supposed to reduce carbon emissions. As I keep having to say, it's just the first step.
#15048971
late wrote:You must put hours of effort into those penetrating questions.

Hours..

It's not supposed to stop flooding, it's supposed to reduce carbon emissions. As I keep having to say, it's just the first step.

You admit a carbon tax will not stop the flooding that you claim is because of carbon emissions. So basically, a carbon tax is just another excuse to take more money from law-abiding tax paying citizens.
#15048973
Are you just pretending to be thick? :eh: It's not as if the Carbon Tax is being spent on sponges to soak up water from Venice, or water pumps.

Carbon Taxes change how people spend their money, and what they spend it on. It has been proven to reduce carbon emissions by making high carbon use items less attractive. eg. That gas guzzling SUV, for instance. That, in turn, means reduction of people's carbon footprints, and result in the likelihood of Venice incidents occurring.

Kapish?
#15049041
Hindsite wrote:
You admit a carbon tax will not stop the flooding that you claim is because of carbon emissions. So basically, a carbon tax is just another excuse to take more money from law-abiding tax paying citizens.



Project much?

I'm not the one addicted to excuses.

The scientists were right. Now we need to work the problem, instead of hiding from it like children.
#15049245
late wrote:Project much?

I was just repeating your own logic in the hopes you were intelligent enough to get how stupid it sounded.

late wrote:I'm not the one addicted to excuses.

You're not?

late wrote:The scientists were right. Now we need to work the problem, instead of hiding from it like children.

Maybe we will when "the problem" is clearly identified and defined. I guess you are just satisfied with spinning your wheels.
#15049260
Hindsite wrote:

Maybe we will when "the problem" is clearly identified and defined. I guess you are just satisfied with spinning your wheels.



Oil company research identified the problem in the 1970s.

You write fiction.
#15049329
late wrote:Oil company research identified the problem in the 1970s.

You write fiction.

You write nonsense. I have been alive since the 1940's and I can tell you that the only problem with oil companies has been with oil tanker spills and they were forced to clean up their own mess. A carbon tax to put more tax burdens on the people is not a winner, and putting higher taxes on gasoline only increases transportation costs for everyone. Only the loony Democrats would come up with these crazy ideas.
#15049372
Hindsite wrote:
You write nonsense.

A carbon tax to put more tax burdens on the people is not a winner
and putting higher taxes on gasoline only increases transportation costs for everyone. Only the loony Democrats would come up with these crazy ideas.




"Facts are stubborn things."

"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue.."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

Any Carbon Tax will rebate the tax to people that need the rebate (prob a $100K cutoff).

Loony is better than suicidal.
#15049384
late wrote:"Facts are stubborn things."

"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue.."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

That is more misinformation. They were concerned about pollution, not climate change.

No one was even talking about the climate change scare until after Al Gore's global warming hoax was revealed as an elaborate scam. Then they came up with climate change, since they knew that we could not deny Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. All they had to do was convince the dummies that was somehow a problem.

Why climate change alarmists get it wrong
#15049391
Hindsite wrote:
That is more misinformation. They were concerned about pollution, not climate change.



The article quotes text from the Exxon report.

Unfortunately, you prefer propaganda to science, so you didn't read it.

"They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act."
#15049416
late wrote:The article quotes text from the Exxon report.

Unfortunately, you prefer propaganda to science, so you didn't read it.

"They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act."

The morale of that story is...
It didn't happen.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 20

Compare and contrast to the inarticulate women wh[…]

Well I must congratulate the Tory-Labour party on […]

The Irishman...

I don't think DeNiro's politics played into it, at[…]

Man, imagine if I'd never done hallucinogens. I c[…]