Say no to a carbon tax!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Once, I stepped in a pile of dog poop and bought a winning lottery ticket the same day. This shows that stepping in dog poop makes you win the lottery.

Once again you think you see a correlation when there is none.

Try and compare the two in a way that demonstrates how one relates to the other and you will see how insane you are.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Duh! Yeah!

Explain how it is relevant. I am assuming that you think it is so obvious that it doesn't need explanation: but it isn't obvious at all, so please stop the 'Duh' posts, and give an actual explanation.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Wind and especially solar are too expensive .

To expensive for what?

and grid improvements are a necessity that is very costly.
No, grid improvements are not always a necessity, nor are they particularly costly.

CO2 is not a pollutant and never has been.
Just you saying so, doesn't make it a fact.

CO2 levels now are about the same as the Pliocene when the Earth was far more warm than today.
Then I am glad I don't live in the Pliocene.

This shows CO2 is not the driving factor.
I assume you mean here the driving factor of global warming? How is that relevant to whether or not CO2 is a pollutant?

The Vostok ice core samples prove CO2 is the effect, not the cause as Al Gore and others have falsely implied.

I am sorry to say that Al Gore isn't a scientist and anyone who thinks he is shouldn't be talking about global warming at all.

Now that I have shown CO2 is clearly not the cause..
No, you haven't. All you have done is made an unverified claim about CO2 in the Pliocene.

That is what all of you should be asking.
Why should I be asking? This thread is about carbon tax and whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, not what causes global warming.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Explain how it is relevant. I am assuming that you think it is so obvious that it doesn't need explanation: but it isn't obvious at all, so please stop the 'Duh' posts, and give an actual explanation.

What/how is CO2 polluting?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What/how is CO2 polluting?

It is polluting the atmosphere and the oceans. In the oceans, it causes them to be more acidic which has many undesirable side effects. In the atmosphere it contributes to global warming, acid rain and is also bad for some plants including some crops - amoungst other things.

You still haven't explained why CO2 being necessary for life rules it out as a pollutant.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is polluting the atmosphere and the oceans. In the oceans, it causes them to be more acidic which has many undesirable side effects. In the atmosphere it contributes to global warming, acid rain and is also bad for some plants including some crops - amoungst other things.

You still haven't explained why CO2 being necessary for life rules it out as a pollutant.

Nope, the atmosphere is fine and the ocean is still alkaline. Carbonic acid is very weak and not hurting any plants that cannot adapt to it. CO2 is good for plants. That is why plants did well during the Pliocene.

Since you exhale CO2 maybe you should kill yourself if you really believe it is a pollutant.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nope, the atmosphere is fine and the ocean is still alkaline. Carbonic acid is very weak and not hurting any plants that cannot adapt to it. CO2 is good for plants.

So you claim, but I know otherwise.

That is why plants did well during the Pliocene.
Pliocene plants, yes. We don't have Pliocene plants.

Since you exhale CO2 maybe you should kill yourself if you really believe it is a pollutant.
So, you are going back to talking nonsense. Oh well. I guess I all I can do is do what you do : 🙄

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you claim, but I know otherwise.

[b]That is why plants did well during the Pliocene.
Pliocene plants, yes. We don't have Pliocene plants.

Since you exhale CO2 maybe you should kill yourself if you really believe it is a pollutant.
So, you are going back to talking nonsense. Oh well. I guess I all I can do is do what you do : 🙄[/b]

"Pliocene plants, yes. We don't have Pliocene plants."

Yes, we do. Many plants during the Pliocene are still with us today. Furthermore, plants are doing fine right now even though CO2 levels are almost the same as the Pliocene.

My claims are factual and you are just plain wrong. The Ocean is still alkaline. Plants are doing fine and you are making false claims and simply will not admit it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Yes, we do. Many plants during the Pliocene are still with us today.

No, they are not. The oldest known plants are under 10,000 years or so.

Furthermore, plants are doing fine right now even though CO2 levels are almost the same as the Pliocene.
Are they? What makes you so sure?

My claims are factual and you are just plain wrong.
Yes, its easy to keep repeating 'my claims are factual' but that won't make it so. Your claims are not factual.
I see you still haven't bothered to explain why C02 being necessary for life automatically rules it out as a pollutant.

Do you think Methane or hydrogen sulphide could be a pollutants? If so, then maybe you should kill yourself because for some stupid reason you think that would be a good idea if your farts contain pollutants.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they are not. The oldest known plants are under 10,000 years or so.

[b]Furthermore, plants are doing fine right now even though CO2 levels are almost the same as the Pliocene.
Are they? What makes you so sure?

My claims are factual and you are just plain wrong.
Yes, its easy to keep repeating 'my claims are factual' but that won't ...[text shortened]... use for some stupid reason you think that would be a good idea if your farts contain pollutants.[/b]

"No, they are not. The oldest known plants are under 10,000 years or so."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504183413.htm

You made the claim that CO2 harms some plant species. The burden of proof belongs on you, not me. It is unreasonable to expect someone to prove a negative.

"Yes, its easy to keep repeating 'my claims are factual' but that won't make it so. Your claims are not factual."

The ocean is alkaline and that is a fact. It has been that way for a very long time. You have no logical reason to call it more acidic. You can only call it less alkaline.

"I see you still haven't bothered to explain why C02 being necessary for life automatically rules it out as a pollutant."

CO2 is not toxic. It does not meet the definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant

: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use : something that causes pollution

Once again, it is not reasonable for you to expect me to prove a negative. It is your burden to prove CO2 is a pollutant. You have not done that and avoided my question:

What and how is CO2 polluting?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504183413.htm

You might as well say 'they had dinosaurs then and we have dinosaurs now (birds). That doesn't mean that today's birds could survive in the environment back then. Similarly, just because biological classification systems means that all plants today fit into some classification that you can also fit ancient plants into it doesn't mean that today's plants are identical. They are not.

You made the claim that CO2 harms some plant species. The burden of proof belongs on you, not me.
If I wished to prove it, yes. I have no desire to do so. I was just letting you know the facts. If you are uninterested that's up to you.

The ocean is alkaline and that is a fact. It has been that way for a very long time. You have no logical reason to call it more acidic.
Go read a science book and find out what 'more acidic' actually means as you clearly don't know.

CO2 is not toxic. It does not meet the definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant
: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use : something that causes pollution
That definition says nothing about toxicity.

A much better defintion can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant
A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

Again, no mention of toxicity to humans.

Once again, it is not reasonable for you to expect me to prove a negative.
Once again, I am under no burden whatsoever to prove anything I say to you. I may explain it if I wish to - or not. I have explained it and you are not interested in my answer. That's your problem.
It remains the case that I believe CO2 to be a pollutant and the fact that CO2 is necessary for life does not automatically rule it out as a pollutant and your assumption that everybody thinks that a pollutant must be toxic is clearly wrong. I suggest that next time you have the decency to explain your reasoning (albeit flawed) rather than simply being rude.

It remains a fact that many countries / environmental scientists classify it as a pollutant and there is no reason to think that that is going to change any time soon as claimed by the first link in your OP. The writer of the first link in the OP is making a claim about the future that cannot be verified (or justified) and he knows it. He is being dishonest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You might as well say 'they had dinosaurs then and we have dinosaurs now (birds). That doesn't mean that today's birds could survive in the environment back then. Similarly, just because biological classification systems means that all plants today fit into some classification that you can also fit ancient plants into it doesn't mean that today's plants a ...[text shortened]... about the future that cannot be verified (or justified) and he knows it. He is being dishonest.

Even by your standards you are wrong. People were farming wheat and barley over 10,000 years ago. Your error, not mine. Saying something is not identical now is true of anything even in a year or two. My cucumbers are different this year than last. You have to be specific. Ferns were common during the Pliocene and they are now as well. I suppose you are going to claim barley and wheat was different over 10,000 years ago so it is not the same. Cannabis has been around that long as well. Whatever your criteria you are still wrong.

http://www.livescience.com/37963-agriculture-arose-eastern-fertile-crescent.html

"If I wished to prove it, yes. I have no desire to do so. I was just letting you know the facts."

You can't prove it, that is the fact. If you could you would be eager to do so. You don't because you can't and your excuse is feeble and transparent to all.

"Go read a science book and find out what 'more acidic' actually means as you clearly don't know."

You should go read a science book. Less alkaline is not acidic. Look up PH so you are reminded how wrong you are, but you already know that. You are just having a hard time admitting you were wrong. You were mislead by alarmist propaganda that uses the term acidic incorrectly.

Wikipedia is a better definition? LOL! Nobody here is that stupid. Everybody knows wikipedia is a joke, but even by your incorrect definition CO2 is not any of that. More CO2 is helping plants grow better. That is desirable. Your assertion that it has undesirable effects is bunk. Pointing to computer climate models that have bad record of failure to make predictions that have been wrong before is not proof.

http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

"Once again, I am under no burden whatsoever to prove anything I say to you."

Once again, you don't have proof. Just another feeble attempt to deflect because you are stating lies and trying to pass them off as the truth.
Rude to you is simply calling you out for peddling false information you can't prove. If being right is rude everybody is trying to be rude on here. I'm not being rude, you are just wrong for making false statements and trying to convince others they are factual. Lying in a deceitful way is what is actually rude.

Fred Singer is a Climate Scientist with excellent credentials. He knows a lot more about climate change than you. ALL OF YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE BASED ON MERE THEORY, NOT FACT. Learn the difference.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Even by your standards you are wrong. People were farming wheat and barley over 10,000 years ago.

I never claimed otherwise.

Your error, not mine.
No, you just don't understand biology.

Saying something is not identical now is true of anything even in a year or two.
Exactly my point. Yet you claim that we had identical plants in the Pliocene. Ouch.

Ferns were common during the Pliocene and they are now as well.
Yes. But Pliocene ferns had different DNA than modern ferns and the fact that Pliocene ferns were able to survive in high levels of CO2 tells us nothing whatsoever about modern day ferns.

I suppose you are going to claim barley and wheat was different over 10,000 years ago so it is not the same.
They were different. Very different.

If you could you would be eager to do so.
No, not really.

You should go read a science book. Less alkaline is not acidic.
I never said it was acidic. I said 'more acidic'. There is a difference. Think of it like 'tall' and 'short'. Saying someone is shorter than someone else does not necessarily mean they are short.

Nobody here is that stupid. Everybody knows wikipedia is a joke,
So billions of people like joke apparently. It is one of the most popular sites on the internet far exceeding sites with funny cat pictures.
Sorry, but I am here, and I am part of 'everybody' and I can state emphatically that you are wrong. I do not 'know that Wikipedia is a joke'.

Pointing to computer climate models that have bad record of failure to make predictions that have been wrong before is not proof.
I did not point to computer climate models. You are confusing me with someone else.
Nor did I attempt to provide proof. Again, you are confusing me with someone else.

Once again, you don't have proof.
Never said I did.

Just another feeble attempt to deflect because you are stating lies and trying to pass them off as the truth.
I am not lying.

Rude to you is simply calling you out for peddling false information you can't prove.
What makes you think that? What I called rude, was you making twirly eyes based on the false assumption that everybody agrees with your definition of what a pollutant is: a definition that doesn't match the one you presented from the dictionary.
That is what I was calling rude. Go back through the thread and check for yourself. I asked you why you said it was not a pollutant and instead of an explanation, you were rude.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they are not. The oldest known plants are under 10,000 years or so.

[b]Furthermore, plants are doing fine right now even though CO2 levels are almost the same as the Pliocene.
Are they? What makes you so sure?

My claims are factual and you are just plain wrong.
Yes, its easy to keep repeating 'my claims are factual' but that won't ...[text shortened]... use for some stupid reason you think that would be a good idea if your farts contain pollutants.[/b]

You claimed the oldest known plants are under 10,000 years old and now you claim you never stated otherwise. You are a liar.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Exxonmobile's Rex Tillerson has openly stated they support a carbon tax. I can't tell you which countries support it or have a position on it, but if you had read the article I posted you would know it is essentially a consumption tax which burdens the poor more.

Yeah, that is the way all these taxes work. They seem to always burden the people who can least afford it.