TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Liberal Stephane Dions Carbon Tax
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut This is a much more reasonable argument, but as I stated before, on what evidence do you and others contend that we're just going to wake up one day and see fossil fuel prices skyrocket? There's every reason to believe that prices will climb slowly and gradually and that alternatives will be put into place slowly and gradually. It's a natural equilibrium with economics and technological progress that we've seen demonstrated hundreds of times in the past. Hybrid cars have already become more popular and gone down in price. Electrical distribution and metering allow much finer control of demand and per-use billing. People are buying Compact Fluorescents left and right. Half of what you buy today is made out of recycled material. People never seem to notice that society is improving itself with respect to the environment, and all without the government's help. The CPC hasn't done much because the CPC doesn't need to do much. There are enough incentives other than taxation to improve efficiency and reduce waste (as well as foreign oil dependency of course).

I don't contend that energy prices will skyrocket overnight, I don't think I even implied that in my argument. Of course prices will continue to increase gradually over time; however, we will reach a point where it becomes cost-prohibitive to use petrolium for anything other then the most essential processes. Since that is the case we have three options available to us... 1) ignore it - continue to use fosil fuels at an ever increasing rate until we approach scarcity then search for alternatives or take a massive hit in standard of living, 2) force change - create legislation forcing residents and industry to make changes that reduce their use of fosil fuels, 3) offer incentives to change - offer monetary incentives and disincentives to people and industry to reduce their dependancy on fosil fuels.

Of the three options above I believe most of us here agree that the third is the best option. While your quite right, people and industry will change on their own due to market forces, I also believe that if we can hasten that change we will give ourselves a competative advantage as we approach the dawn of the post-petrolium era. This advantage will come by our petrolium dependance being lower and through the development of technologies that our industry can sell to other states/industries that elected to take the "ignore it" option. The incentives come in a number of ways... grants for retrofitting homes and businesses, R&D tax insentives/grants, subsidies for fuel efficient vehicles, etc. I view the preposed carbon tax as an incentive to increase energy efficiency and/or use of alternative energy sources. People who reduce their use of fosil fuels will benefit by having had their income tax reduced while paying less carbon tax because the use less fosil fuel... ultimately their tax burden will decrease. The same can be said for industries that had been slow to re-tool with more energy efficient equipment and processes... the tax increases the cost of their less efficient methods of manufacture, which will reduce the cost prohibitiveness (is that a word?) of re-tooling. Ultimately, if this works then we're preparing for the new economy before the need actually arises due to market forces, which will allow us to be leaders in the new economy.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Socialists...

Tell me about it!

I bet they are making changes because Canada was sued for ignoring its own Kyoto Protocol Law.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The second chart is just a more colourful version of the infamous "hockey stick" which has been so thoroughly debunked and admitted as misleading by even the most dedicated environmental scientists (except perhaps for David Suzuki).

No the hockey stick theory has been challenged by a rich mining executive and an economist. No suprises there that THEY would come up with some sort of sprious challenge to a theory that while controversial has more supporters than challengers. There has easily been as much scientific work done to prove Mann's theory is correct than to disprove it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The chart begins at 1900 in spite of the fact that we actually have some temperature data dating back much farther. In particular, it ignores the well-documented Medieval Warm period which ended in the 15th century, followed by the Little Ice Age which ended in 1850.

Yes there is some controversy over this part. I don't know enough about this particular piece to comment.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 3. The chart ends at 1990. Which is very convenient, because the warming trend has not continued at all during the past 5-10 years.

The trend continues beyond 1990. You know was well as I do that data analysis and reporting takes time...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 4. The apparent correlation with CO2 emissions (which again, does not correlate so well during the past 5-10 years) is of course interesting and worth looking into - which we have been doing - but does not in and of itself prove causation. If it can be proven that the current warming is part of a natural cycle (and it has been - the current scientific debate focuses on the extent of the cycle and whether or not it fully accounts for the rise), then the correlation is effectively meaningless.

There has been plenty published on this topic. I dont need to rehash it here. Once again, your comment about the past 5-10 years is pure conjecture. Scientists use Co2 as a benchmark for ALL greenhouse gasses that originate from emissions. If you look at graphs, they say GREENHOUSE GASSES, not Co2. We are kind of talking about different things here. Yes, there are probably some flaws in the Co2 benchmark methodology, but as far as I am aware it is the best proxy for measuring emissions.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 5. The average global temperature is in and of itself a questionable figure. Claiming that the average "global" temperature is rising faster than it should be is very much akin to claiming that the average length of people's first names is increasing too fast. Temperature and climate by their very nature aren't global, they are extremely localized, and if you're going to aggregate them into a single number then you have to be damn sure you're accounting for local phenomena (such as the heat island effect, which the hockey stick totally ignores), as well as the statistical uncertainty that results from aggregating data from many statistically-variant sources.

Sure, but look at the huge increase in weather polarization that has been observed over the past twenty years. While Africa is being raped by drought, we've experinced 11 thunder storms so far this month... last year there was 2.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I could go on of course, but I don't think there's any point. I'll just end with this: you claim that one would have to be a moron to doubt that there's a scientific consensus, so I present you this petition, signed by 31,072 scientists, urging reconsideration of Kyoto citing a lack of scientific evidence. But I'm sure they're all just right-wing industry shills. Anyone can get a Ph.D nowadays!

Wow that website looks so legitimate!! IT MUST BE TRUE.. THE INTERNET IS ALWAYS RIGHT... especially the 31,072 scientists (especially the 9021 with PhD's). I am especially fond of the childlike writing of the person who wrote "physics" on the form. More conjecture from you, with no fucking evidence whatsoever.

I dont know about you, but I think the IPCC has JUST A LITTLE more legitimacy than some spark.com personality test about global warming.

The fact that you even remotely dispute the correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming is indicative of the same right-wing quasi-scientific pseudo intellectualism that we have come to expect by the U.S government and its constituents. You must love Macdonald's as much as they do!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Do you even have any argument, other than to say that people who disagree with you are ignorant and/or stupid and/or wingnuts? In almost every remotely controversial thread you post your little 15-words-or-less pearls of wisdom and start firing off insults at anybody who dares to say differently. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it's common sense not to go around trumpeting it when you're unable to back it up with logic and reason (not to mention facts). There are plenty on this forum whom I disagree with, but I can usually count on getting something that's at least interesting or thought-provoking from them. With you it's just empty rhetoric and personal insults, sprinkled liberally with enviro-socialist buzzphrases like "carbon footprint". You're constantly berating others as stupid and ignorant, but I'm starting to think you base most of your opinions on Star editorials and Rick Mercer rants. If you want to persuade people that you're right, then by all means, show us what you've got, but if your only defense is complete and utter contempt for your peers then maybe you should just keep your mouth shut and your hands off the keyboard. Or don't. Continue your mudslinging unabated and see how many people are still listening to you in a few weeks.

Did I sprinkle enough liberal enviro-socialist buzzphrases for you there? Oh Noes! The Liberal Media are coming!

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis Sure, but look at the huge increase in weather polarization that has been observed over the past twenty years. While Africa is being raped by drought, we've experinced 11 thunder storms so far this month... last year there was 2.

Weather and climate are two different things altogether. Weather varies year to year. Climate is conditions over an extended number(hundreds) of years.

Yes we have had more thunderstorms this year than in the past few years. But for the past few years I have actually been wondering what happened to all the thunderstorms. A classic southern ontario summer is about hot humid days followed by a half hour to an hour burst of severe thunderstorms. This used to repeat at least 20 to 30 times per summer when i was younger.

I bet if the barrie tornado were to happen today instead of 1985 everyone would be screaming global warming!

Let's count the number of fallacies in this post:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis No the hockey stick theory has been challenged by a rich mining executive and an economist. No suprises there that THEY would come up with some sort of sprious challenge to a theory that while controversial has more supporters than challengers. There has easily been as much scientific work done to prove Mann's theory is correct than to disprove it.

Circumstantial ad Hominem: attacking the opposing speaker by implying vested interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis Sure, but look at the huge increase in weather polarization that has been observed over the past twenty years. While Africa is being raped by drought, we've experinced 11 thunder storms so far this month... last year there was 2.

Hasty Generalization: Using insufficient evidence or an isolated example as the basis for a widely general conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis Wow that website looks so legitimate!! IT MUST BE TRUE.. THE INTERNET IS ALWAYS RIGHT... especially the 31,072 scientists (especially the 9021 with PhD's). I am especially fond of the childlike writing of the person who wrote "physics" on the form. More conjecture from you, with no fucking evidence whatsoever. I dont know about you, but I think the IPCC has JUST A LITTLE more legitimacy than some spark.com personality test about global warming.

Appeal to Authority: seeking to persuade not by giving evidence, but merely by citing an authority in the form of an appeal to the many.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis The fact that you even remotely dispute the correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming is indicative of the same right-wing quasi-scientific pseudo intellectualism that we have come to expect by the U.S government and its constituents. You must love Macdonald's as much as they do!

Genetic Fallacy: attacking a thesis by condemning its background or origin.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Energy costs are rising as is. Industry doesn't want to invest now, because in spite of going up, the cost is still cheap.

http://www.oesc.ca/index.taf?t=1&n=70

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis

I'm going to respond to the only part of your reply which wasn't more empty rhetoric and fallacies:

quote:

The trend continues beyond 1990. You know was well as I do that data analysis and reporting takes time...

Indeed it does take time, which is why it makes a lot more sense to look at the trend before 1900:








Not quite such damning evidence on a large scale, is it?

quote:

Sure, but look at the huge increase in weather polarization that has been observed over the past twenty years. While Africa is being raped by drought, we've experinced 11 thunder storms so far this month... last year there was 2.

There is no evidence - none - that warming causes any sort of extreme weather. Further to that, may I point out that this summer has not been as warm as last summer, so using your vast sample size of 2 years, it would seem to prove the opposite of your hypothesis.

In any case, instances of extreme weather are statistically as common now as they were hundreds of years ago. Because of modern telecommunications and the internet, we just hear about them more often.

quote:

I dont know about you, but I think the IPCC has JUST A LITTLE more legitimacy than some spark.com personality test about global warming.

It's a petition. Signed by scientists. Nobody's arguing for the scientific merit of those few paragraphs (and spark.com... wtf?), it's the opinions of the scientists on it that matter. On what basis do you purport to know that their credentials are inferior to the IPCC?

And in fact, the IPCC and all things UN-related have well-known socialist agendas. I think their last contribution to "science" was the WHO on second-hand smoke. If you really need me to dredge up their track record then I will, but come on, would you really expect a panel on climate change to come out and tell us that we're doing fine? That would undermine the entire reason for their existence! I don't wish to commit a circumstancial ad hominem of my own here, I'm just saying that if an agenda implies a lower trust level, then you have to look at everyone's agenda, not just the "right-wing quasi-scientific pseudo-intellectuals".

Are we done yet??

Global warming is sounding more and more like the y2k bug to me... a big ball of bullshit to push some agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by malek Global warming is sounding more and more like the y2k bug to me... a big ball of bullshit to push some agenda.

DING DING DING

quote:

Originally posted by malek Global warming is sounding more and more like the y2k bug to me... a big ball of bullshit to push some agenda.

Sad, but true.

Man, this thread is so entertaining

Global warming is such over hyped bs...

ya I said it.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan Man, this thread is so entertaining

it certainly is.

we have a bunch of keyboard scientists, who have zero formal training or education in the field , dismissing global warming claims by professionals as a Y2K myth.

TA never ceases to amaze me.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT we have a bunch of keyboard scientists, who have zero formal training or education in the field , dismissing global warming claims by professionals as a Y2K myth.

Two things:

1) Most scientists aren't actually claiming the full man-made cataclysmic global warming "theory". Many confirm various bits and pieces of that theory (i.e. that the earth is getting warmer, or that some gases could potentially cause a very minute greenhouse effect), but it's the media and groups like the IPCC (redistributionist bureaucrats) cobbling it all together into the alarmist hype that most people are used to hearing.

Actually, the most common statement heard by scientists and even several members of the IPCC itself is that there may be a problem and that we should make some changes just to be on the safe side. However, scientists coming to that particular conclusion are very much like scientists believing in God; though their research and arguments have merit, the conclusion itself - the so-called "precautionary principle" - is knee-jerk and highly unscientific and belies the need for a rational cost-benefit analysis.

2) Of course many scientists do support the entire hypothesis. To say otherwise would be foolish, and to dismiss their claims out of hand would be equally foolish. However, to only listen to the scientists who support it and ignore the myriad of other scientists with alternative theories would be even more foolish.

The skeptics aren't some loose collective of deranged lunatics like the 9/11 nuts who can never keep their facts straight and change their story every few weeks. They are huge (and clearly growing!) in number, and all agree on the same fundamental tenets of the global warming movement.

It's fine if you don't agree with those scientists - but don't try to tell us that they don't exist and that we're all "keyboard scientists" dismissing the "real" scientists.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Two things: 1) Most scientists aren't actually claiming the full man-made cataclysmic global warming "theory". Many confirm various bits and pieces of that theory (i.e. that the earth is getting warmer, or that some gases could potentially cause a very minute greenhouse effect), but it's the media and groups like the IPCC (redistributionist bureaucrats) cobbling it all together into the alarmist hype that most people are used to hearing. Actually, the most common statement heard by scientists and even several members of the IPCC itself is that there may be a problem and that we should make some changes just to be on the safe side. However, scientists coming to that particular conclusion are very much like scientists believing in God; though their research and arguments have merit, the conclusion itself - the so-called "precautionary principle" - is knee-jerk and highly unscientific and belies the need for a rational cost-benefit analysis. 2) Of course many scientists do support the entire hypothesis. To say otherwise would be foolish, and to dismiss their claims out of hand would be equally foolish. However, to only listen to the scientists who support it and ignore the myriad of other scientists with alternative theories would be even more foolish. The skeptics aren't some loose collective of deranged lunatics like the 9/11 nuts who can never keep their facts straight and change their story every few weeks. They are huge (and clearly growing!) in number, and all agree on the same fundamental tenets of the global warming movement. It's fine if you don't agree with those scientists - but don't try to tell us that they don't exist and that we're all "keyboard scientists" dismissing the "real" scientists.

I bet when your backyard smells bad you go outside and spray it with CFCs. lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Akermanis I bet when your backyard smells bad you go outside and spray it with CFCs. lol.

OH NOES HE'S POLLUTING THE ENVIRONMENT, SOMEBODY STOP HIM!!




Actually I live in a condo, so I don't have a backyard. But if I did, I would totally spray it with CFCs every day. As it is, I like to take big spray cans of pure CFC with a little chemical dye and use them for graffiti and to supplement my Hummer H2's natural sheen.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to dump 5 tons of aluminum cans into the local landfill.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut

Better watch out... he's mandated to take pollution down to zero!

How in the hell can you create a new tax because the earth has warmed .8 th of a degree in the last 100 years. WTF.

GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST SCAM EVER!!!!!

I hope people can research things for themsleves and not listen to a politician (Al Gore).

quote:

Originally posted by SniFFleS How in the hell can you create a new tax because the earth has warmed .8 th of a degree in the last 100 years. WTF. GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST SCAM EVER!!!!! I hope people can research things for themsleves and not listen to a politician (Al Gore).

AS VP, Al Gore voted against ratifiying Kyoto. That is until he was unemployed and found a new schtick to make money with.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut ...[/COLOR][/FONT]

my post is more a comment that the vast majority of people here probably have made up their mind without even taking the time to skim over the arguments put forth by each side, let alone actually gain a solid understanding of them.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Akermanis
CO2 emissions are caused by humans, there is a direct relationship between greenhouse gases and the rise in temperature observed on earth. How can you possibly postulate that humans are not responsible?

The oceans give off thousands more times CO2 than anything we put in the air. The other thing is that the relationship you are talking about is true but rising tempuratures cause an increase in CO2, CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature. There are so many other things that give off CO2 as well volcanoes, leaves etc.... CO2 is also such a small part of the atmosphere and is only a fraction of green house gasses. I don't think you are very much informed on the issues. Haven't you heard? Over the last winter it was so cold that the ice caps have frozen right up!

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT my post is more a comment that the vast majority of people here probably have made up their mind without even taking the time to skim over the arguments put forth by each side, let alone actually gain a solid understanding of them.

That's fair enough, although I think there are people on both sides of the debate doing that, and you don't really call attention to the ones in support of Kyoto or similar policies.

It's funny how the more the pressure mounts from the environmental groups, the more skeptics seem to come out of the woodwork. Personally, I think it's the blatantly patronizing tone and rabid hate directed toward the skeptics; to people who are merely on the fence, this is insulting and is often enough to push them over to the other side. Because of that, we now for the first time have ignorant skeptics in addition to ignorant believers. I hope that people continue to call us morons and shills and selfish hicks, because it really pisses off Joe Average and gives us right-wing nuts a much better opportunity to explain our position!

Of course it's better for people to be informed than to be ignorant, but if I have to choose, I'll take an ignorant skeptic over an ignorant alarmist any day of the week!

^^^ indeed and that's a good point. it's not just the 'naysayers' who are often ignorant, but also the proponents of the various theories and initiatives too.

I think there are plenty of 'green' folk who just jump on whatever bandwagon the environmentalists choose to drive, without bothering to educate themselves or even question if there might be an agenda of some sort.

I also think that many naysayers are simply lazy and don't want to change their more comfy, wasteful ways or accept that all of society is going to have to 'pay' in some sense to be 'green' until being green becomes the norm, rather than the exception, thereby (hopefully) becoming less costly to be so.

as for what's better, the ignorant skeptic or the ignorant alarmist, I suppose that depends on who ends up being right...in which case it may be too late

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.