So then if the gigatons of greenhouse gases being released annually aren't an issue, what is? Do these dissenting scientists have a hypothesis?
What an impotent response where dance around the issue. We shouldn't base our emissions on how it impacts the environment? Don't we live in Earth's environment or do you mean "environment" as in "nature and sh*t"? Punishing businesses? Such hyperbole as ultimately the cost would be put on consumers if you stopped subsidizing emissions as people can choose whether to be more efficient or keep the status quo.
She is also not saying what you think she is saying. She's saying you can't predict how severe of a nuclear winter 10,000 nukes going off would result in, not that they wouldn't be the cause of a nuclear winter. It's not the difference between 1% and 99%. It's the difference between 50% and 99%.
Well, firstly, you have to question the premise that climate is static. The earth has had warmings and coolings throughout its history.
fair enough, but I honestly don't think the "consensus" has even narrowed that range down to between 50-100%, at least not authoritatively/definitively. That's precisely what's up for debate. And because the models have been running hot, there is good reason to believe that the % attributable to anthropogenic causes is lower than what scientists had previously guessed. And they are guessing, ultimately.
Then punish the entity that is creating the demand; ie: you. Lets do this fairly. Every person gets a minimum energy usage allowance. After they exceed it, then they start getting taxed. If im driving 5000 miles a year and you are diving 50,000 miles a year, you should pay. If you have a 3500sqft house and want to keep it 68 degrees, you should pay. If you drive an energy inefficient vehicle, you should pay the tax. Liberals will never go for this ... because its called hypocrisy. Liberals love to demonize everyone else and expect them to foot their bill.
No... that's pretty irrelevant as no climate scientist would say climate is static. Just stick your love and knowledge of Judaism and let me handle the science stuff.
I'll go for it. Sounds awesome. Trump flying around in his airplane all the time, using all that water and power for his residences: def. should be paying way more taxes than I am. In fact, my tax dollars have been subsidizing Trump's lifestyle pretty much since I started paying taxes. (I know: you think it's cool he "played" us taxpayers.) I'm done with providing government welfare to Trump and other rich people. Then of course, we should tax corporations the same way. . . .
More impotent, hyperbolic nonsense. I prefer less government regulations/quotas than you do as a tax would be simple. Conservatives will never go for it because it's called hypocrisy. Conservatives love to pretend they want smaller government until the bill comes as conservatives are inherently cheap people. See what I did there Teddy Bro-sevelt?
In what alternate universe would conservatives support anything resembling this? Maybe Im missing the point but it sounds like cap and trade to me if consumers could buy/sell their unused allowance. Why would liberals not go for this and how is it hypocrisy? Seriously, im not reacting to your broad characterization of liberals, Im asking honestly what you mean and if I missed it in the thread, shame on me.
Climate change is real and inevitable. It happens periodically and has since ages before mankind ever set foot on the earth. Environmental alarmists can suck eggs until 2020, but, if they want to do something constructive, campaign for a $500 a month tax penalty on all private jets, houses with more than 6,000 square feet and $10M for movies that have explosions or fires. However, until China, India, Europe and Africa quit burning coal, we shouldn't put any restrictions on our mining resources.
Yeah except the right is not campaigning on environmental issues or big government. Learn what hypocrisy means.
How is this cap and trade? I didnt suggest people could trade unused allowances. Cap and trade logic is idiotic. That fact remains that everyone uses some form of energy. We shouldn't punish everyone. Carbon Tax punishes everyone. When liberals punish a business, the businesses pass those charges directly to the consumers. News flash! Its the poor who are going to be hurt the most. Then the middle class. And it effect the rich the least as they can afford it. Liberals love to punish businesses. Remember Obamacare and how those awful evil insurance companies refused pre-existing conditions? How is that working out? Complete utter failure should be your answer.
I giant wall, deporting millions, task forces to indict, isn't big govt? What the literal F are you talking about.
I guess you've reached your limits on scientific debate. Carbon tax is the small government solution yet you oppose it. Hypocrisy. You seem to favor more heavy handed regulations. Hypocrisy.
More impotence. So what's your solution and be as clear as possible instead of shrinking.... Now the GOP has control of the government, I can't t wait to see what they replace ACA with.... TrumpAwesomeFreedomCare?
Modern famines are almost entirely political, not climatic. Look at Yemen. Salafi Arabia has bombed Yemen into the brink of famine. Yet, the people who whine and b**** the most about climate change won't confront this reality. They are the same people who laugh when they hear about salafis throwing gays off buildings. They are the same people who proclaim themselves "champions of women's rights" yet accept the money of those who not only oppress and truncate women's rights but everyone else's rights. They weep crocodile tears and are the embodiment of a Catch-22. Would these people care to see tough action against a regime that is not only responsible for the plague of takfirism in the world but also responsible for much of the world's CO2? Of course not. Americans love cheap oil. Some viewing for your lunch break:
Pretty sure it was American shale producers that caused the current supply glut since we reached historic domestic production under Obama. Take your faux outrage somewhere else as gas is cheap because of America.
Because no one credible is arguing that the climate is static or that the normal factors in climate change aren't in play. We are adding an additional factor on top our climate's natural mechanism, such as geologic and solar activity. Human induced emissions are adding extra co2, methane, sox, nox, and particulate matter into the equation.
