14 Jun 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovSounds a great idea in principle, but not preemptive enough to prevent warming, methinks. Also, how does one determine the relative contribution by any individual or government to warming?
Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered.
Ross McKitrick
Financial Post
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d84e4100-44e4-4b96-940a-c7861a7e19ad
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovHow do we make the sun pay up?
Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered.
Ross McKitrick
Financial Post
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d84e4100-44e4-4b96-940a-c7861a7e19ad
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by MerkHaha!! Excellent point!
How do we make the sun pay up?
Actually I thought what a cunning idea of tying carbon tax to actual temperature measurements rather than to some random figure dreamed up by the politicians. If the subsequent temp data suggest a general rise, then taxes immediately follow which pleases the alarmists (and politicians!) and if the data suggest a temp drop, then carbon taxes go to zero which pleases everyone.
The only drawback with the temperature drop scenario is the alarmists and greenies will have to look for something else to worry about. But I'm sure they will manage to conjure up another hobgoblin from somewhere.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell you could argue that no system would be "premptive" enough, other than a complete ban on CO2 emissions and the consequent shut down of industry which would be absurd (of course the greenies would like it until they got too cold and wanted to put the heater on).
Sounds a great idea in principle, but not preemptive enough to prevent warming, methinks. Also, how does one determine the relative contribution by any individual or government to warming?
I think the point of tying carbon taxes to actual temperature measurements is to establish a scheme that works for both sides of the debate. It's quite clever actually although I reckon the alarmists would spit the dummy over such a scheme because they'd worry the temperature measurements would prove them wrong.
14 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzHey scottish thought you might be interested in reading one of the last articles by Augie Auer before he died:
Sounds a great idea in principle, but not preemptive enough to prevent warming, methinks. Also, how does one determine the relative contribution by any individual or government to warming?
http://www.stuff.co.nz//timaruherald/4064691a6571.html?source=email
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovAlarmists? Ha, i suppose you include the 99% of scientists not on the payroll of Big oil when you say Alarmists.
Haha!! Excellent point!
Actually I thought what a cunning idea of tying carbon tax to actual temperature measurements rather than to some random figure dreamed up by the politicians. If the subsequent temp data suggest a general rise, then taxes immediately follow which pleases the alarmists (and politicians!) and if the data suggest a temp drop, then c ...[text shortened]... e to worry about. But I'm sure they will manage to conjure up another hobgoblin from somewhere.
Most of us just call them realists.
(fyi, those "skeptic scientists" are the same ones that the Tobacco industry paid to say smoking was safe)
CBC Fifth Estate
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovDon't bother, here's why august auer is wrong.
Hey scottish thought you might be interested in reading one of the last articles by Augie Auer before he died:
http://www.stuff.co.nz//timaruherald/4064691a6571.html?source=email
http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/augie_auer.htm
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovI am interested in what people who feel as you do think about the following scenario.
Haha!! Excellent point!
Actually I thought what a cunning idea of tying carbon tax to actual temperature measurements rather than to some random figure dreamed up by the politicians. If the subsequent temp data suggest a general rise, then taxes immediately follow which pleases the alarmists (and politicians!) and if the data suggest a temp drop, then c ...[text shortened]... e to worry about. But I'm sure they will manage to conjure up another hobgoblin from somewhere.
Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were irrefutable proof that humans were causing a catastrophic rise in the Earth's temperature that would in twenty years lead to athecollapse of our climate and all the ensuing things that your "alarmists" predict.
Would you start buying low energy lights and stop driving your car? Would you change your lifestyle at all to help solve the problem?
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by WheelyNope.
I am interested in what people who feel as you do think about the following scenario.
Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were irrefutable proof that humans were causing a catastrophic rise in the Earth's temperature that would in twenty years lead to athecollapse of our climate and all the ensuing things that your "alarmists" predict.
Wo ...[text shortened]... and stop driving your car? Would you change your lifestyle at all to help solve the problem?
14 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Wheelyyes.... already do. I think I have a negative carbon footprint... I think someone may owe me money :-)
I am interested in what people who feel as you do think about the following scenario.
Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were irrefutable proof that humans were causing a catastrophic rise in the Earth's temperature that would in twenty years lead to athecollapse of our climate and all the ensuing things that your "alarmists" predict.
Wo ...[text shortened]... and stop driving your car? Would you change your lifestyle at all to help solve the problem?
However... global warming is a joke.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by uzlessNo I'm talking about these ones:
Alarmists? Ha, i suppose you include the 99% of scientists not on the payroll of Big oil when you say Alarmists.
Most of us just call them realists.
(fyi, those "skeptic scientists" are the same ones that the Tobacco industry paid to say smoking was safe)
CBC Fifth Estate
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovI have to get all Zen on your arses here... "It is as it is."
Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered.
Ross McKitrick
Financial Post
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d84e4100-44e4-4b96-940a-c7861a7e19ad
So, the world heats up, melts, the polar caps melt, half the world drowns...
Yeah? So? I just hope I'm here to experience it!