More Global Warming..LOL

[NaturallyAspirated]

2 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

no but we can collect billions of dollars then redistubut them to people who vote how we want in a attempt to feel good about doing our part

That happens on both sides, the buying or influencing of votes.  That happens and will happen irrespective of the fact the planet has in a warming trend.

Neal

[Ez ryder]

1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

That happens on both sides, the buying or influencing of votes.  That happens and will happen irrespective of the fact the planet has in a warming trend.

Neal

yes  it creating a tax for somthing you have no control or understanding of is shit . andets face it has nothing to do with the globe a d everything to do with power and control  

[NaturallyAspirated]

Just now, Ez ryder said:

yes  it creating a tax for somthing you have no control or understanding of is shit . andets face it has nothing to do with the globe a d everything to do with power and control  

We don't have a tax on carbon...  Again with a facetious argument.   

That is your (incorrect as I see it) opinion.

Neal

[02sled]

2 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Climate change encompasses more than global warming, it makes sense that we use the most specific vernacular as our understanding increases.  Global warming is a large part of climate change.

Extreme weather has always been referenced, i.e. the predicted increase of intensity or frequency of hurricanes would be extreme weather. Floods, droughts, ect. are all extreme weather.  To act like this is a constantly moving word game is idiocy and ignorance.  

The US doesn't have carbon taxes, you are using a factitious argument.  It's silly and childish.  

The fact is we do impact the climate, Apu included.

Of course it will, no one is proposing or suggesting that the earth will end because of our existence, but rather that we will change the planet such that we will have massive changes to deal with our impact.  How will we feed people, how will we deal with coasts flooding, ect.  The planet will surely survive our impact, that isn't the question, the issue is will we be able to sufficiently adapt.

Neal

Take a look at California. Carbon tax is also referred to as "cap & trade" where carbon credits are bought and sold. The stupidity of it is that someone in Ontario can now buy carbon credits and in turn sell them to someone in California. One would think the goal would be to reduce those emissions at home. In this case the buyer pays Ontario but Ontario doesn't see any benefit other than more money to piss away. The purchaser in California is now able to emit excess carbon.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm

Give it time. Just like other jurisdictions have started to realize, they can take yet more money from the people under the guise of Extreme Weather and people will not see it for the rip off tax it is. That money that they take from us won't make one bit of difference other than less in your pockets.

Do you really think that a $B or so given to a third world country in the name of climate change will make a difference. Do you really think Apu will stop using that wood fire.

Next time you go to camping or to the cottage, remember to not build a campfire or one in the fireplace.

Edited January 1, 2018 by 02sled

[Ez ryder]

2 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

We don't have a tax on carbon...  Again with a facetious argument.   

That is your (incorrect as I see it) opinion.

Neal

so you 're saying there has not been a huge push from the left for such a tax? there for it is a valid argument . 

[NaturallyAspirated]

36 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

so you 're saying there has not been a huge push from the left for such a tax? there for it is a valid argument . 

Not for years.  Carbon tax was a loser and the left has abandoned it.

Neal

[02sled]

6 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Not for years.  Carbon tax was a loser and the left has abandoned it.

Neal

You obviously ignored the fact that California has a cap and trade program (carbon tax) in place. That is the beginning in the US. If you think it won't spread you're really being naïve.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Not that it has to do with climate....... But, this has to be one of the coldest stretches in a while. Doesn’t look like it plans on letting up any time soon. Lakes are going to be excellent once we get some white stuff.

[Momorider]

Can't make this shit up  

https://conservativetribune.com/global-warming-sharks-freezing/

[02sled]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/29/weather/cold-weather-wrap-trnd/index.html

yup... sharks are dying due to cold shock.... below normal for all of the US... snow in New Orleans and Mississippi

Edited January 1, 2018 by 02sled

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 minute ago, 02sled said:

You obviously ignored the fact that California has a cap and trade program (carbon tax) in place. That is the beginning in the US. If you think it won't spread you're really being naïve.

There is a difference between carbon tax and carbon credits. I think we could do more with subsidizing good behavior in a carbon credit environment that would incentivize reducing emissions. Tax breaks to companies that are good stewards of their environmental impact. We made a huge push with our paper recycling program. Sure it’s great to recycle better, but it drastically increased our profitability. I think there is a middle ground where environmental conservancy and business can both benefit. 

[NaturallyAspirated]

5 minutes ago, 02sled said:

You obviously ignored the fact that California has a cap and trade program (carbon tax) in place. That is the beginning in the US. If you think it won't spread you're really being naïve.

Laughable.  

Neal

[02sled]

9 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

There is a difference between carbon tax and carbon credits. I think we could do more with subsidizing good behavior in a carbon credit environment that would incentivize reducing emissions. Tax breaks to companies that are good stewards of their environmental impact. We made a huge push with our paper recycling program. Sure it’s great to recycle better, but it drastically increased our profitability. I think there is a middle ground where environmental conservancy and business can both benefit. 

You sound just like the politicians here that try to convince the sheeple that a cap and trade program that requires business to purchase carbon credits isn't a carbon tax. We had a premier once that promised during the election to not raise taxes and right after added a "levy" to income tax that he said isn't a tax, it's a levy.

Bottom line it's government taking money OUT of your pocket. Try and sell it any way you want by putting your spin on it.

It's not going to change the emissions. It's going to mean it costs more to do business.

Edited January 1, 2018 by 02sled

[02sled]

7 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Laughable.  

Neal

What's laughable is the fact you ignore the cap & trade carbon credits in California claiming that isn't a carbon tax. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck.... it's a duck.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 minute ago, 02sled said:

You sound just like the politicians here that try to convince the sheeple that a cap and trade program that requires business to purchase carbon credits isn't a carbon tax. We had a premier once that promised during the election to not raise taxes and right after added a "levy" to income tax that he said isn't a tax, it's a levy.

Bottom line it's government taking money OUT of your pocket. Try and sell it any way you want by putting your spin on it.

It’s incentivizing low carbon emissions through tax breaks. No different than incentivizing bringing jobs back or money back through lower Corp rates. Green jobs are the future whether you like it or not. CapX will follow opportunity in reduced rates. It’s pretty simple and has externality benefits in terms of jobs, spending, innovation, and a cleaner environment. Not saying anyone has figured out the right equation yet, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a good way to make environmental conservancy profitable while also not fleecing the average citizen.  

[smokin george]

The geese up here haven't flown south in years, polar bears have less sea ice, we don't get snow like we used to but a strange thing still happens to the ice cubes in the tray. They shrink from the cold in the freezer if we don't use them up fast enough. I think we should all meet for a beer and get to the bottom of this

[02sled]

2 minutes ago, smokin george said:

The geese up here haven't flown south in years, polar bears have less sea ice, we don't get snow like we used to but a strange thing still happens to the ice cubes in the tray. They shrink from the cold in the freezer if we don't use them up fast enough. I think we should all meet for a beer and get to the bottom of this

[ArcticCrusher]

44 minutes ago, smokin george said:

The geese up here haven't flown south in years, polar bears have less sea ice, we don't get snow like we used to but a strange thing still happens to the ice cubes in the tray. They shrink from the cold in the freezer if we don't use them up fast enough. I think we should all meet for a beer and get to the bottom of this

To check if your freezer experienced local warming, place an American penny on top of one of those ice cubes.  If you find it has moved to the bottom extreme local warming has occured right inside your freezer.

[smokin george]

5 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

To check if your freezer experienced local warming, place an American penny on top of one of those ice cubes.  If you find it has moved to the bottom extreme local warming has occured right inside your freezer.

Lol

[SnowRider]

 Idiots 

[Momorider]

6 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

 Idiots 

Extreme weather meme, talk about a gullible moron of the highest order  

[Kev144]

5 hours ago, 02sled said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/29/weather/cold-weather-wrap-trnd/index.html

yup... sharks are dying due to cold shock.... below normal for all of the US... snow in New Orleans and Mississippi

That age old example of "it's cold here so global climate change is a myth " is me saying I ate today so world hunger is solved.  

[02sled]

Chicken Little has been crying the sky is falling way too many times. Coastal cities like New York were supposed to be underwater years ago. Others that experience snow in winter were supposed to be tropical now. The polar caps were supposed to be gone and so much more that the "experts" predicted that has proven their science is far from accurate

[NaturallyAspirated]

28 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Chicken Little has been crying the sky is falling way too many times. Coastal cities like New York were supposed to be underwater years ago. Others that experience snow in winter were supposed to be tropical now. The polar caps were supposed to be gone and so much more that the "experts" predicted that has proven their science is far from accurate

Any links to those predictions?

Neal

[02sled]

25 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Any links to those predictions?

Neal

lots of them out there easy to find - these were just after the first Earth Day in 1970.

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

This was predicted back in the 1970's that places like New York City would be under water no later than 2000

Now the revised predictions - Note - the header at the top isn't Global Warming, it isn't Climate Change, it's EXTREME WEATHER. I wonder what will be next

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/us/weather-cities-inundated-climate-change/index.html