Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[Ecolibertarian]

Oh, well I entirely disagree with you. Being poisoned to solve a fictional problem is something I don't like one bit. Look at Gore-Tex. Gore-tex is teflon, it stays in your body for years. But Gore-tex argues that even though this man-made chemical stays in your body for years, it's actually good for the environment, because you don't have to use as much water to wash it. I don't want to have man-made chemicals in my body. Period. No one knows anything about climate science, but what we do know is that glaciers came and went, right here in the US, with no help from man. The climate just changes some time. Adapt to the new climate, whatever it may be. If it gets cold, Mexico will benefit. If it gets warm, Canada will benefit. Just like always.

I'm a bit confused. What man-made chemicals are you referring to?

[Weston White]

They don't, you're thinking about deniers who cherry pick.

Climategates I and II.; Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has been banned in UK schools’; polar bears cannot swim; the polar ice caps are melting (yea just as they have always done and come winter they will again increase); the temperatures are at record highs (yea only because they are surveying temperatures from airport tarmacs, highways, and building rooftops); and the list goes on and on and on.

Can you?

If they, themselves, cannot, then how would I be able to; let alone you or others for that matter?

The issue to be concerned with is smog pollution and toxic air particulates, neither of which has anything to do with taxing bovines breaking wind or humans exhaling.

This is simply one of the many cogs involved in forging ahead Maurice Strong’s epic scam dubbed “Agenda 21” (now: “sustainable development”, from his beginnings in 1971), just as is “Common Core” (a scheme largely devised by Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground) another of its cogs addressing education. The entirety of this program is intended to provide a polite cover while devising the social reengineering of nations into an era of global governance through the sole control of a U.N. like structure. For such a scam to work the status of first-world nations need to be forcefully descended, while third-world nations are subsequently elevated.


Maurice Strong:

“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

[green73]

I dunno, I could possibly align with the ProIndividual types in wanting to stick a spear through the heart of the $#@!s who display misanthropic $#@! such as this.

[green73]

Ok, not really.

[parocks]

I'm a bit confused. What man-made chemicals are you referring to?

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...teflon-forever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

gore tex apparently doesn't use pfoa any more
http://newsroom.gore-tex.eu/en/en_in...ional-fabrics/

[Weston White]

I'm a bit confused. What man-made chemicals are you referring to?

Gore-Tex and Teflon. By the by, the fumes released from heated Teflon is capable of killing birds, their respiratory system cannot handle the toxins.

[parocks]

Gore-Tex and Teflon. By the by, the fumes released from heated Teflon is capable of killing birds, their respiratory system cannot handle the toxins.

Is it fairly common for people to be pretty pissed off about all the poisoning that's going on, but thinking that all the talk about global warming or climate change is complete BS?

I'm one of those.

We know for a fact that the climate has changed massively, recently, and humans have nothing to do with it. If it's a problem, or not a problem, real, or not real, it's something that we can't do anything about. How would we have stopped the glaciers? We didn't cause the glaciers to come and we didn't cause the glaciers to go.

But this poisoning of everything is new. And I don't like it one bit. But we aren't talking about whether we want to be poisoned by PFOA, or GMOs, etc etc etc. That's the problem. I don't like that one bit, and there's really no Libertarian solution to these problems. Who can afford to do research to determine which of these bad things are causing your specific harm? All of this awful crap that we're forced to consume, but what exactly is causing what specific ailment?

[Weston White]

Yeah. I am uncomfortable proposing taxes myself, but view the carbon tax as an exception (thus my avatar). Seems to me it's just like paying damages. Private ownership certainly protects a rainforest better than government ownership from littering, illegal lumbering, waste dumping, etc. But if I'm driving my Hummer hundreds of miles away on the I-95, I'm not depositing a chunk of something on one person's property in a traceable manner, but aggressing against many, many, many people. See the blackened architecture in old European cities, for example? Much of that is automobile emissions. Or, a better example, the Gulf oil spill. Yes, perhaps tort reform deals with the latter case. But we probably don't want to haul people into court whenever they put their key in the ignition.

Carbon taxes are not going to put an end to mishaps, such as tanker spills or prevent another Deepwater Horizon from taking place, if anything they would likely increase such incidents, due to being taxed more and thus compelling companies to cut corners anywhere they can to remain competitive and profitable.

Also you should realize that per the U.S. Constitution—and further substantiated through common law, the government may not impose taxes as a method of punishment or to compel behaviors; ergo, its power of taxation is obliged to generate necessary revenue and no more.

Curiously enough, nobody in this environmental movement is jazzed to address the beneficial aspects of manufacturing and buying locally as a means to reducing the so-called “carbon footprint”, as opposed to having most of their products and staples shipped in from other nations. And nobody is calling for federal, state, and local governments to exercise more energy efficiency in their daily activities, work practices, or building and equipment configurations, etc.

[PRB]

Climategates I and II.;

That's exactly what cherry picking is.

Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has been banned in UK schools’;

A film being allegedly banned in schools means it's untrue? Huh?

polar bears cannot swim; the polar ice caps are melting (yea just as they have always done and come winter they will again increase);

You can swim too (i'm sure the whole MH370 could too), doesn't mean you can be thrown in water and never rest, not to mention sleep. Yes, come winter it'll increase, but does it always increase at the same rate?

the temperatures are at record highs (yea only because they are surveying temperatures from airport tarmacs, highways, and building rooftops); and the list goes on and on and on.

Hypocrisy, because you'll use the same temperatures when somebody says temperatures are at some record low. The temperature stations don't move around from season to season to prove a point, they're taken at the same place every day, year, and so on so that differences can be accounted for, and baselines can be drawn.

If they, themselves, cannot, then how would I be able to; let alone you or others for that matter?

How do you know they can't?

[PRB]

The issue to be concerned with is smog pollution and toxic air particulates, neither of which has anything to do with taxing bovines breaking wind or humans exhaling.

Who's disagreeing with you?

[PRB]

I'm in the Continental US right now. 20,000 years ago, where I am right now was completely covered by a sheet of ice.

Forget 20,000 years ago, forget even 10 years ago.

How many Katrina and Sandys can you survive? How many would you do nothing in preparation for if you could know about it in advance? How many people died in both hurricanes combined?

The climate changes all the time, we didn't cause the glaciers to come or go or come back or leave again. At all. If the sea level rises a foot, you move a foot. If NYC is covered with a sheet of ice, as was the case only 20K years ago, we have much much more severe problems. Yet, you just move somewhere else.

What's the more severe problems? Obviously Katrina & Sandy victims mean nothing to you. Hell, I'm sure people died in plane crashes before Malaysia 370 and 9/11 too, what's the point of caring?

[PRB]

Oh, well I entirely disagree with you. Being poisoned to solve a fictional problem is something I don't like one bit. Look at Gore-Tex. Gore-tex is teflon, it stays in your body for years. But Gore-tex argues that even though this man-made chemical stays in your body for years, it's actually good for the environment, because you don't have to use as much water to wash it. I don't want to have man-made chemicals in my body. Period. No one knows anything about climate science, but what we do know is that glaciers came and went, right here in the US, with no help from man. The climate just changes some time. Adapt to the new climate, whatever it may be. If it gets cold, Mexico will benefit. If it gets warm, Canada will benefit. Just like always.

Not all first world countries are equipped to deal with climate instability, third world countires will have an even harder time. Adapting to the new climate is great, but denying it's happening won't help you adapt. You want to only react? Are you not the same person who thinks you must have stock piles of canned food and guns because the apocalypse is coming?

[Ecolibertarian]

Carbon taxes are not going to put an end to mishaps, such as tanker spills or prevent another Deepwater Horizon from taking place, if anything they would likely increase such incidents, due to being taxed more and thus compelling companies to cut corners anywhere they can to remain competitive and profitable.

Also you should realize that per the U.S. Constitution—and further substantiated through common law, the government may not impose taxes as a method of punishment or to compel behaviors; ergo, its power of taxation is obliged to generate necessary revenue and no more.

Curiously enough, nobody in this environmental movement is jazzed to address the beneficial aspects of manufacturing and buying locally as a means to reducing the so-called “carbon footprint”, as opposed to having most of their products and staples shipped in from other nations. And nobody is calling for federal, state, and local governments to exercise more energy efficiency in their daily activities, work practices, or building and equipment configurations, etc.

I personally would not imagine more emissions if companies pay damages for their emissions. If you raise the minimum wage, a firm can afford to hire fewer workers. If you make emitters pay for damages, business becomes more expensive, so less production. But--and this is an important "but"--it means that cutting emissions is
cutting corners. So goes my thinking.

Thank you for addressing the constitutionality of carbon taxation. I suppose, then, if it were to be done, it would have to be "carbon damages," to be paid to those on the receiving end of the pollution--allocated, I suppose, at some rate per hectare. It might be argued that changing the name is irrelevant, but the concept, to begin with, seems more akin to damages than taxation.

On your other observation, I don't know about your neck of the woods, but those sustainability-oriented people I know are very much into local consumption. Shipping and transportation really takes its toll. I don't know if there is a lot of outcry about government energy efficiency, but I agree, on both environmental and fiscal grounds. Problem is...efficiency renovations cost money. Having said that, it seems the federal government has a program to cut their emissions, signed into law by George W. Bush. https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...or-renovations

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Thank you for addressing the constitutionality of carbon taxation. I suppose, then, if it were to be done, it would have to be "carbon damages," to be paid to those on the receiving end of the pollution--allocated, I suppose, at some rate per hectare. It might be argued that changing the name is irrelevant, but the concept, to begin with, seems more akin to damages than taxation.

What damages? You are still asking wrong questions, then acknowledge and agree that you are asking the wrong questions, and then turn around and say "but if I went ahead and asked the wrong question what...." and then proceed to ask the wrong question again.

It is the WRONG question. There is no proof of ANY damage whatsoever. Therefore there is no basis for using violence AT ALL.


Stop promoting Rothchild's fraud! Are you getting paid for this Mr. "I love Carbon Tax?" Even your avatar says it all!

[Ecolibertarian]

What damages? You are still asking wrong questions, then acknowledge and agree that you are asking the wrong questions, and then turn around and say "but if I went ahead and asked the wrong question what...." and then proceed to ask the wrong question again.

It is the WRONG question. There is no proof of ANY damage whatsoever. Therefore there is no basis for using violence AT ALL.


Stop promoting Rothchild's fraud! Are you getting paid for this Mr. "I love Carbon Tax?" Even your avatar says it all!

Oh, yeah. I'm making the big bucks on this. That last post alone netted me a $25,000 from the Illuminati. In seriousness, though, by damages, I refer to the cost of removing or counteracting carbon emissions (like spilling wine on someone's shirt, and paying for the cost of dry-cleaning or a new shirt). I understand how someone could be opposed to a carbon tax. But to argue that the great business interests of the world are in favor of such taxes seems much less likely than the contrary. As for whether it is damaging, I am not a climate scientist, and so I defer to the broad consensus (not to say unanimity) of the climate science community.

On a side note, I feel that it is rather unhealthy to reject differences of opinion as indications that posters somehow on the take from conspiratorial actors. I certainly don't believe that you're being paid by a coal company.

[Henry Rogue]

Actually, that's something with which I've been wrestling. I'd love to hear what others think. On paper, I guess you'd split it up and award damages to people based on the things they own (land, lakes, what have you) that is being polluted. That would be unbelievably, immensely difficult. Impossible, even. So, some options:

1) Revenue-neutral carbon taxation. Cut other taxes.
2) Use of taxes for defense of property--i.e., environmental law enforcement.
3) Build nuclear power plants, then privatize. (probably the least libertarian answer).
4) Pay down the debt.

There are many options, and I'm not certain what my answer would be yet.

What do you guys think? If you're in favor of a carbon tax--or opposed, but can come up with a least-bad use of the revenue (other than, you know, returning the exact amount that each person paid in tax/damages)--I'd be really interested in hearing it.

[Danke]

But to argue that the great business interests of the world are in favor of such taxes seems much less likely than the contrary.

Big business lobbies for regulations and taxes to hurt small business and to get others from getting into competing business in the first place. They can then pass alone any costs to the consumer and don't have the competition eating into they profits. An incompetent manager (which we have a surplus of these days) loves taxes and regulations, doesn't need to be efficient in a laissez faire market place.

[parocks]

Forget 20,000 years ago, forget even 10 years ago.

How many Katrina and Sandys can you survive? How many would you do nothing in preparation for if you could know about it in advance? How many people died in both hurricanes combined?



What's the more severe problems? Obviously Katrina & Sandy victims mean nothing to you. Hell, I'm sure people died in plane crashes before Malaysia 370 and 9/11 too, what's the point of caring?

If you could shoot an arrow that's attached to a long wire up in the air and break the thing that's making the weather, you might have a point, sorta, but the weather doesn't work like that.

Pretty sure that there are destructive hurricanes every single year, and there always have been. There is weather. Weather exists.

[parocks]

Not all first world countries are equipped to deal with climate instability, third world countires will have an even harder time. Adapting to the new climate is great, but denying it's happening won't help you adapt. You want to only react? Are you not the same person who thinks you must have stock piles of canned food and guns because the apocalypse is coming?

You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying on this matter. "Are you not the same person ..."? You haven't read me saying anything like that here. You have me confused with someone else.

Glaciers come, glaciers go, we have nothing to do with that. Weather changes all the time, everybody knows this. For the people who live in the Northeast US, it's helpful to property values that their land isn't covered by a thick sheet of ice, like it was before, than it wasn't, than it was again, then not again.

Yup, there are always winners and losers when the glaciers come, but we didn't cause the glaciers to come and go, and we can't do anything about them. Warmer is better than colder for those folks who would be covered by ice when it's colder.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Oh, yeah. I'm making the big bucks on this. That last post alone netted me a $25,000 from the Illuminati.

Maybe not directly from Illuminati but from their lackeys, and maybe not $25k per post but an addition to your paycheck. At least you admitted that you sold out. You are on the wrong side.

[Ecolibertarian]

Maybe not directly from Illuminati but from their lackeys, and maybe not $25k per post but an addition to your paycheck. At least you admitted that you sold out. You are on the wrong side.

Yeah, my real job is posting "FIRST!!" comments on YouTube.

[PRB]

Yup, there are always winners and losers when the glaciers come, but we didn't cause the glaciers to come and go, and we can't do anything about them. Warmer is better than colder for those folks who would be covered by ice when it's colder.

do you know who will be the winners and losers? are you prepared to be a loser in any situation? there's a difference between stopping the effect and preparing for it.

[parocks]

do you know who will be the winners and losers? are you prepared to be a loser in any situation? there's a difference between stopping the effect and preparing for it.

Yeah, if colder - Mexico, if warmer, Canada.

There isn't any way to stop the effect. Remember. GLACIERS. It just happened.

[PRB]

Yeah, if colder - Mexico, if warmer, Canada.

There isn't any way to stop the effect. Remember. GLACIERS. It just happened.

you assume it's only and always that simple, never droughts, floods, hurricanes...let's tell Sandy and Katrina people to just move. What's so hard about that?

[parocks]

[parocks]

you assume it's only and always that simple, never droughts, floods, hurricanes...let's tell Sandy and Katrina people to just move. What's so hard about that?

There have ALWAYS been Hurricanes. There has always been weather. But people are smart enough to figure out where the dangerous places are. They're smart enough to figure out that places below sea level are dangerous, that you aren't in the safest possible place of your property is being hit by waves. Etc., etc.

[PRB]

There have ALWAYS been Hurricanes. There has always been weather. But people are smart enough to figure out where the dangerous places are. They're smart enough to figure out that places below sea level are dangerous, that you aren't in the safest possible place of your property is being hit by waves. Etc., etc.

and people have always been murdered, therefore we should act like it never happens or do nothing to prepare and respond?

Meaning, people who live near oceans just deserve what came to them, because they're too stupid to know it's dangerous, right?

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

All of the planets in the solar system were experiencing global warming. It's because of solar flare activity.

Sources?

[Dr.3D]

The fact we're having one of our worst droughts in history doesn't at least make some of think maybe something IS wrong?

[PRB]

Sources?

evidence is for Fascists, freedom lovers are immune to facts. you DO notice that you can't spell FAsCisT without FACT, right?