[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Reducing it will result in the same climate conditions we saw before it's introduction. Not exactly difficult to comprehend.

Climate isn't static. Never has been. We could reduce our emissions to zero and the climate on this planet will still change.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Climate models have been correctly predicting climate for 60 years now. Reducing greenhouse gasses to the same levels Y years ago should result in the same climate we saw Y years ago.

Or am I off base?

Now, think of it the other way. Climate models are predicting some pretty drastic weather over the coming century. Which is cheaper, a carbon tax now, or all that damage for all that time?

You're off base.

You're ignoring the natural change within the Earth during that time period. These changes or events will happen on Earth whether we are here or not. Are we pushing the timeline closer? Yes.

How much closer? We don't know.

How much more time can we buy by doing these changes? We don't know.

A carbon tax in Canada will have zero effect on climate change on Earth. It's not needed.

We've already proved this repeatedly as we've advanced so far as a Country without a carbon tax. The massive amount of energy reduction. The removal of certain chemicals that damaged the ozone. All of this stuff was done without a carbon tax.

We can still 'do out part' without a carbon tax.

[Zipperfish]

Coach85 Coach85:

How much closer? We don't know.

No but we have an idea.

$1:

How much more time can we buy by doing these changes? We don't know.

No, but we have an idea.

$1:

We can still 'do out part' without a carbon tax.

What would you propose to do?

[llama66]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What would you propose to do?

Do nothing, I suspect the problem will go away eventually or suddenly.

[Coach85]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Coach85 Coach85:

How much closer? We don't know.

No but we have an idea.

$1:

How much more time can we buy by doing these changes? We don't know.

No, but we have an idea.

$1:

We can still 'do out part' without a carbon tax.

What would you propose to do?

"An idea" isn't enough.

Consider the amount of time we spend to buy something. We research the product and know exactly what we're going to get when we buy it.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is pointless. We should know what we're going to get. It's especially pointless when billions of dollars are in play.

As a country, we've done a fantastic job without a carbon tax at reducing our emissions, our energy use and our water use.

Cars are more efficient than ever in terms of fuel consumption and emissions. Homes are more energy efficient. We've cut out so many chemicals harmful to the environment.

I say we keep going down this path without a carbon tax.

[Zipperfish]

Coach85 Coach85:

"An idea" isn't enough.

$1:

It's what we have. There's no certainty in science. There are models predicti8ng temperatures around 2100, as well as sea level rise. Even some economic models calculating adaptation costs.

$1:

Consider the amount of time we spend to buy something. We research the product and know exactly what we're going to get when we buy it.

If you choose to wait for certainty then your position can be reduced to "do nothing."

Do nothing is kind of where I'm leaning too. Well, I'd probably invest a lot in alternative energies. Probably wouldn't have bought an oil pipeline either if I were in charge.

[Zipperfish]

llama66 llama66:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What would you propose to do?

Do nothing, I suspect the problem will go away eventually or suddenly.

Or another more pressing catastrophe will move global warming to the back burner (get it?--burner). Good airborne ebola could wipe out 80% of the planet in a heartbeat.

[Coach85]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It's what we have. There's no certainty in science. There are models predicti8ng temperatures around 2100, as well as sea level rise. Even some economic models calculating adaptation costs.

No, it's not.

There's no certainty in science? Really? There's a lot of things science has told us.

We don't buy things from the grocery store without certainty and if the item isn't as expected, we get our money back and find another item.

[N_Fiddledog]

[Zipperfish]

Coach85 Coach85:

There's no certainty in science? Really? There's a lot of things science has told us.

None. It many ways science is a study of uncertainty. Certainty lays in the realm of faith; certainty is almost the definition of faith. Here's an article on it, by a guy who spends his time trying to reconcile quantum dynamics and gravity:



https://www.edge.org/conversation/carlo_rovelli-science-is-not-about-certainty-a-philosophy-of-physics

But just becuase it isn't certain doesn't mean it's necessarily untrustworthy.

[BartSimpson]

Science is never wrong but scientists often are.

[DrCaleb]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I was speaking about transportation. When I was a student at University of Louisville the local power plant installed sulfur scrubbers for the big coal fired station near the city (acid rain)I would think something could be engineered to remove carbon as well (and not the Wall\Moe pump it underground crap) and store it.

I was thinking about both transport and power generation. With the move toward EVs, the emissions will be shifted to the power plants. That gives a better place to capture emissions.

And there is a technology being developed to convert CO2 directly back into usable fuel.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/carbon- ... oline.html

fifeboy fifeboy:

Back to transportation though, if you want people to use less fuel, they have to have an incentive, either by making it more expensive to drive (carbon tax) or easier and nicer to not drive (infrastructure.) Tax REDUCTIONS for non driving would also help but require infrastructure to take up the slack.

That's why carbon taxes are applied to gasoline and gasoline taxes exist. Don't drive, pay less tax.

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Reducing it will result in the same climate conditions we saw before it's introduction. Not exactly difficult to comprehend.

Climate isn't static. Never has been. We could reduce our emissions to zero and the climate on this planet will still change.

'Changing' isn't the problem. It's the rate of change. That is unprecedented in the 800,000 year record of temperatures that we have.

The problem is that many species, including our own, can't adapt that quickly to the new biosphere.

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Climate models have been correctly predicting climate for 60 years now. Reducing greenhouse gasses to the same levels Y years ago should result in the same climate we saw Y years ago.

Or am I off base?

Now, think of it the other way. Climate models are predicting some pretty drastic weather over the coming century. Which is cheaper, a carbon tax now, or all that damage for all that time?

You're off base.

You're ignoring the natural change within the Earth during that time period. These changes or events will happen on Earth whether we are here or not. Are we pushing the timeline closer? Yes.

No, they will not occur if we are not here. As pointed out, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is never seen before, except in the extreme events such as a volcanic eruption. And even then, not at this rate of change, and the evidence is directly related to burning fossil fuel.

Nothing else on Earth burns fossil fuel.

Coach85 Coach85:

How much closer? We don't know.

Yes, we do. And we also know that by the time we have enough data to say statistically "for sure" that we are the cause of global warming, it will already mean that parts of the Earth will be uninhabitable and many species will already be gone. It's that pesky 'rate of change' again.

0:

Climate record all.png [ 61.09 KiB | Viewed 121 times ]

Coach85 Coach85:

How much more time can we buy by doing these changes? We don't know.

Yes, we do. How bad its going to be and how soon is the only debate left. Starting earlier means less cost later. We were told that Hurricane Katrina was just the start of things to come. Then Hurricane Sandy pummelled New York, and there were more warnings. Then Hurricane Harvey set a new standard for destruction, and highlighted exactly what was predicted for Hurricane development affected by global warming.

It wasn't just a powerful storm, it was also met with totally calm upper winds that let it dump it's full force on Houston for days, instead of the upper winds moving it along.

Coach85 Coach85:

A carbon tax in Canada will have zero effect on climate change on Earth. It's not needed.

We've already proved this repeatedly as we've advanced so far as a Country without a carbon tax. The massive amount of energy reduction. The removal of certain chemicals that damaged the ozone. All of this stuff was done without a carbon tax.
We can still 'do out part' without a carbon tax.

Given the level of denial around here, show me the political will to change without being forced to change. Humans are a fickle creature. We don't plan well for the future longer than a season, we don't like the uncertainty required in planning for things on a global environmental scale, and we don't like to do something if it's going to cost us.

Well, we've been dumping toxins and pollutants into our environment for a couple generations because we thought it had no effect, and now the bill is coming due. Time to pay the cheque.

[llama66]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

llama66 llama66:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What would you propose to do?

Do nothing, I suspect the problem will go away eventually or suddenly.

Or another more pressing catastrophe will move global warming to the back burner (get it?--burner). Good airborne ebola could wipe out 80% of the planet in a heartbeat.

And on some levels, I'm fine with that.

[CharlesAnthony]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Well, we've been dumping toxins and pollutants into our environment for a couple generations because we thought it had no effect, and now the bill is coming due. Time to pay the cheque.

Tell that to your kids.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Thankfully young people are not buying your parasitic lies. The clock is ticking.

Please enumerate the things I have lied about.

I will only deal with 1 or 2 of them: obligation and responsibility.

Young folks know they are neither legally nor morally responsible nor obligated to pay for the mess created by their gullible/lazy fore-fathers who are struggling with the mental illness of raping and pillage the land or glowbull-climate-war-mongering change -- however you want to call it.

This:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Go stand on the street corner with a rainbow plackard saying "Carbon Taxes are good!" and let us know how your day goes.

There are no 'good' taxes, but governments have few options with how to limit products that are harmful or unwanted. Banning, and taxes are pretty much the sum total.

is a lie. Tell that to a class of undergraduate economics majors and tell us how that works out for you. I trust those youngsters do not get all of their education from the silver screen.

I do not need to lend credence to your fake science fiction tricks. I just need to wait until the old professional dinosaur liars die off because the problem has nothing to do with natural science. The dispute is legal.

[DrCaleb]

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Well, we've been dumping toxins and pollutants into our environment for a couple generations because we thought it had no effect, and now the bill is coming due. Time to pay the cheque.

Tell that to your kids.

I have none. Check.

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Thankfully young people are not buying your parasitic lies. The clock is ticking.

Please enumerate the things I have lied about.

I will only deal with 1 or 2 of them: obligation and responsibility.

Young folks know they are neither legally nor morally responsible nor obligated to pay for the mess created by their gullible/lazy fore-fathers who are struggling with the mental illness of raping and pillage the land or glowbull-climate-war-mongering change -- however you want to call it.

So, why do you think that I advocate cleaning it up so they don't have to? I'll be dead long before any effects get to bad. I don't have to give a shit. Check.

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

This:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Go stand on the street corner with a rainbow plackard saying "Carbon Taxes are good!" and let us know how your day goes.

There are no 'good' taxes, but governments have few options with how to limit products that are harmful or unwanted. Banning, and taxes are pretty much the sum total.

is a lie. Tell that to a class of undergraduate economics majors and tell us how that works out for you. I trust those youngsters do not get all of their education from the silver screen.

Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed. Economics majors know this. Check.

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

I do not need to lend credence to your fake science fiction tricks. I just need to wait until the old professional dinosaur liars die off because the problem has nothing to do with natural science. The dispute is legal.

Science is the way it is so that anyone can repeat it, and find the same results and draw the same conclusions. You refuse to use Science to disprove Science, because you either don't know how or already know you won't be able to. Instead, you rely on your warped faith to tell you what is true, despite the things you see all around you.

And not once did you enumerate anything I have lied about. Checkmate.