Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... airy-tale/
They corrected a mistake that many other studies and model forecasts leave uncorrected: First, they used only satellite data, the most comprehensive and accurate temperature numbers available.
Then, they took out the temporary, yet significant, impact of both volcanoes and the El Niño and La Niña climate episodes that periodically wreak havoc on weather around the world.
Once removing the influence of those naturally occurring events, the study's authors were able to come up with a stable base temperature for the world. Doing this, they found that the rate of global warming currently was 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade — exactly what it was 23 years ago.
holessssssssAnd by the way, this is a published, peer-reviewed journal study
brain go brrrrrr
Do you try to do things that are good for your health?Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:34 am https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... s-a-fraud/
I believe I addressed this at some point and people called bs on me, but here it is from IPCC itself.
UN basically admits that even if paris climate accord is 100% successful it still dooms the planet by their numbers.
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
You are baiting me, and it workedKYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:44 pmDo you try to do things that are good for your health?Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:34 am https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... s-a-fraud/
I believe I addressed this at some point and people called bs on me, but here it is from IPCC itself.
UN basically admits that even if paris climate accord is 100% successful it still dooms the planet by their numbers.
Demonizing carbon and/or taxing it to levels that would affect 'change' will kill more people than its saves on 20 year time scales at our current state of the art.
Look, im all for using our carbon energy responsibility. Coal sucks for lots of reasons outside Co2 emissions. Cross ocean shipping vessels that burn unrefined heavy fuel oil are just as bad. Those are REAL pollution sources.
brain go brrrrrr
It was a slow news day.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:52 pmYou are baiting me, and it worked
Demonizing carbon and/or taxing it to levels that would affect 'change' will kill more people than its saves on 20 year time scales at our current state of the art.
Look, im all for using our carbon energy responsibility. Coal sucks for lots of reasons outside Co2 emissions. Cross ocean shipping vessels that burn unrefined heavy fuel oil are just as bad. Those are REAL pollution sources.
- Tar
- Chief Master Sirloin
- Posts: 14145
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:06 pm
- Drives: Beige Family Sedan sans Dent
- Location: Canuckistan
I get pretty worked up when .govs come up with these carbon taxes. Hogwash!!Big Brain Bradley wrote:You are baiting me, and it worked
Demonizing carbon and/or taxing it to levels that would affect 'change' will kill more people than its saves on 20 year time scales at our current state of the art.
Look, im all for using our carbon energy responsibility. Coal sucks for lots of reasons outside Co2 emissions. Cross ocean shipping vessels that burn unrefined heavy fuel oil are just as bad. Those are REAL pollution sources.
- coogles
- First Sirloin
- Posts: 5069
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:52 am
- Drives: Hooptie Crotchfruit Carrier
- Location: Indianapolis
I must say, I don't understand how everyone gets all about the idea of a carbon tax. It seems pretty well established at this point that there are negative externalities to our usage of fossil fuels, so providing some negative feedback to those who use carbon-producing energy the most makes some sense to me. "Tax what you don't like, don't tax what you do" sort of thing.
If you have a person in an urban area who walks to the grocery, has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income. The person in the urban area is producing no emissions for her commute, the person driving 100 miles/day most certainly is and is damaging roads that everyone think should be free but in actuality cost real money. Why is this such a crazy idea? The revenue generated from such a tax could then go to reducing income taxes. Taxing work makes economists nuts, why do we punish people for being productive? If you use fossil fuels and generate carbon emissions you give that money back to the gubmint, if you don't, you keep that money in your pocket.
If you have a person in an urban area who walks to the grocery, has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income. The person in the urban area is producing no emissions for her commute, the person driving 100 miles/day most certainly is and is damaging roads that everyone think should be free but in actuality cost real money. Why is this such a crazy idea? The revenue generated from such a tax could then go to reducing income taxes. Taxing work makes economists nuts, why do we punish people for being productive? If you use fossil fuels and generate carbon emissions you give that money back to the gubmint, if you don't, you keep that money in your pocket.
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
Im gonna stop you right there.coogles wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:56 am I must say, I don't understand how everyone gets all about the idea of a carbon tax. It seems pretty well established at this point that there are negative externalities to our usage of fossil fuels, so providing some negative feedback to those who use carbon-producing energy the most makes some sense to me. "Tax what you don't like, don't tax what you do" sort of thing.
If you have a person in an urban area who walks to the grocery, has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income.
you clearly don't know much about energy and where it comes from.
Transport costs in terms of energy use are only like a third of our use. FWIW, I 100% agree that fuel taxes should be higher to cover the cost of roads and encourage better behavior, 100 mile commutes are stupid, etc, etc. Its an argument I stand behind. But the larger ENERGY picture in regards to AGW is much bigger:
Let's just say for the sake of argument that they throw a 30% tax per kwhr on all carbon energy. So 20% of our energy is non-carbon based, the other 80 is. Thats a 24% tax on all energy overall.
EVERYTHING from soap to medical supplies to CITY WATER (look up how chlorine is made not to mention pumping energy) will get 24% more expensive at a minimum.
You wont make 24% more money. Where are you going to cut a quarter of your spending?
brain go brrrrrr
1. do you know where your electric power comes from?coogles wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:56 am
has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income. The person in the urban area is producing no emissions for her commute, the person driving 100 miles/day most certainly is and is damaging roads that everyone think should be free but in actuality cost real money. Why is this such a crazy idea? The revenue generated from such a tax could then go to reducing income taxes. Taxing work makes economists nuts, why do we punish people for being productive?
2. do you know how many resources are used to produce a product for end users?
3. Use taxes already exist and are poorly utilized for ALL FUELS CONSUMED.
but again, they are free to be stupid. I should be free to not worry about it.[user not found] wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:15 pm
But seriously, passing some basic human healthcare questionnaire before having a baby should be... something. I mean, we test people for driving, right?
Waaaaaay too many idiots having kids. And then those kids take after their parents, and so on and so on. Generations upon generations raising kids
Its a pure (albeit shitty) world, if you were a low performer having too many kids you couldnt feed/care for, you and or kids kids would suffer/die. This is common in 3rd world countries. droves of orphans roaming the streets. We are extremely filtered from that mess. The idea of helping your fellow man only propagates the issues (over population) you take offense to.
So 1st world do-gooding is actively you.
muh steaks.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:12 pmcoogles wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:56 am I must say, I don't understand how everyone gets all about the idea of a carbon tax. It seems pretty well established at this point that there are negative externalities to our usage of fossil fuels, so providing some negative feedback to those who use carbon-producing energy the most makes some sense to me. "Tax what you don't like, don't tax what you do" sort of thing.
If you have a person in an urban area who walks to the grocery, has electric drones dropping toilet paper on their rooftop, and works from home, that person should probably pay less in taxes than someone who has a 100 mile round-trip commute given an equal income.
You wont make 24% more money. Where are you going to cut a quarter of your spending?
also dem
so why do we keep expanding this social welfare, endlessly, and hoping for a better resolve? The problem can't shrink if you keep feeding it.[user not found] wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:32 pmIt's the burden on society that me. The generations of welfare-riders that know no different because their parents knew no different, and their parents before them did the exact same thing.dubshow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:23 pm
but again, they are free to be stupid. I should be free to not worry about it.
Its a pure (albeit shitty) world, if you were a low performer having too many kids you couldnt feed/care for, you and or kids kids would suffer/die. This is common in 3rd world countries. droves of orphans roaming the streets. We are extremely filtered from that mess. The idea of helping your fellow man only propagates the issues (over population) you take offense to.
So 1st world do-gooding is actively you.
Welfare shouldn't be a permanent bus ride. It should be a safety net for if hits the fan. You then bounce back and try again. You don't just keep sitting in the net, popping out kids like a Pez dispenser.
It ends in 2 ways: Full socialism with no :waxers: and everyone makes just what they need to exist "for the greater good". After massive class warfare of course. Money would be taken at gun point.
or
The slow spiral into more unsustainable fiat magic debt money where we get our bluff called and the rest of the world finds a knew currency scheme. Which would probably result in an epic ww3 thing.
- Apex
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 29815
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:36 pm
- Drives: Abominable
- Location: NJ
[user not found] wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:32 pmIt's the burden on society that me. The generations of welfare-riders that know no different because their parents knew no different, and their parents before them did the exact same thing.dubshow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:23 pm
but again, they are free to be stupid. I should be free to not worry about it.
Its a pure (albeit shitty) world, if you were a low performer having too many kids you couldnt feed/care for, you and or kids kids would suffer/die. This is common in 3rd world countries. droves of orphans roaming the streets. We are extremely filtered from that mess. The idea of helping your fellow man only propagates the issues (over population) you take offense to.
So 1st world do-gooding is actively you.
Welfare shouldn't be a permanent bus ride. It should be a safety net for if hits the fan. You then bounce back and try again. You don't just keep sitting in the net, popping out kids like a Pez dispenser.
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
I can't disagree with any of this, however i don't think government sponsored birth licensing is the solution.[user not found] wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:32 pmIt's the burden on society that me. The generations of welfare-riders that know no different because their parents knew no different, and their parents before them did the exact same thing.dubshow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:23 pm
but again, they are free to be stupid. I should be free to not worry about it.
Its a pure (albeit shitty) world, if you were a low performer having too many kids you couldnt feed/care for, you and or kids kids would suffer/die. This is common in 3rd world countries. droves of orphans roaming the streets. We are extremely filtered from that mess. The idea of helping your fellow man only propagates the issues (over population) you take offense to.
So 1st world do-gooding is actively you.
Welfare shouldn't be a permanent bus ride. It should be a safety net for if hits the fan. You then bounce back and try again. You don't just keep sitting in the net, popping out kids like a Pez dispenser.
brain go brrrrrr
It also eliminates an entire subsection of the population that can't afford a Prius, thus reducing the carbon footprint of the US per capita[user not found] wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:12 pmJust make sure the bags that the babies are burned in are carbon-neutral.
- coogles
- First Sirloin
- Posts: 5069
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:52 am
- Drives: Hooptie Crotchfruit Carrier
- Location: Indianapolis
Oh my. Couple things. 1 - Why pick 30%? The percentage applied using a carbon tax wouldn't even be flat, for goodness' sake. It would vary based on the ratio of carbon emissions against kwh or some other unit of measure. 2 - Obviously energy prices go beyond just personal spending habits. But when energy costs become a bigger weight on a company's COGS, they'll do what they can to reduce them. Businesses will compete to bring costs back down to where they were prior to the carbon tax. Gubmint could reduce company paid payroll taxes, siphon off some of the carbon tax to replace the employer-paid portion of the social security tax, further reduce the corporate tax rate...any number of things to keep the tax changes revenue neutral while encouraging a shift away from carbon-based fuels. There are brilliant actuaries and economists who can and have figured this shit out.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:12 pm Im gonna stop you right there.
you clearly don't know much about energy and where it comes from.
Transport costs in terms of energy use are only like a third of our use. FWIW, I 100% agree that fuel taxes should be higher to cover the cost of roads and encourage better behavior, 100 mile commutes are stupid, etc, etc. Its an argument I stand behind. But the larger ENERGY picture in regards to AGW is much bigger:
Let's just say for the sake of argument that they throw a 30% tax per kwhr on all carbon energy. So 20% of our energy is non-carbon based, the other 80 is. Thats a 24% tax on all energy overall.
EVERYTHING from soap to medical supplies to CITY WATER (look up how chlorine is made not to mention pumping energy) will get 24% more expensive at a minimum.
You wont make 24% more money. Where are you going to cut a quarter of your spending?
- Melon
- Trollistrator
- Posts: 10884
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:09 pm
- Drives: Blue things, Orange thing
- Location: 2' Underwater
What do you plan on powering your nation with? Hopes and dreams?coogles wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:31 pmOh my. Couple things. 1 - Why pick 30%? The percentage applied using a carbon tax wouldn't even be flat, for goodness' sake. It would vary based on the ratio of carbon emissions against kwh or some other unit of measure. 2 - Obviously energy prices go beyond just personal spending habits. But when energy costs become a bigger weight on a company's COGS, they'll do what they can to reduce them. Businesses will compete to bring costs back down to where they were prior to the carbon tax. Gubmint could reduce company paid payroll taxes, siphon off some of the carbon tax to replace the employer-paid portion of the social security tax, further reduce the corporate tax rate...any number of things to keep the tax changes revenue neutral while encouraging a shift away from carbon-based fuels. There are brilliant actuaries and economists who can and have figured this shit out.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:12 pm Im gonna stop you right there.
you clearly don't know much about energy and where it comes from.
Transport costs in terms of energy use are only like a third of our use. FWIW, I 100% agree that fuel taxes should be higher to cover the cost of roads and encourage better behavior, 100 mile commutes are stupid, etc, etc. Its an argument I stand behind. But the larger ENERGY picture in regards to AGW is much bigger:
Let's just say for the sake of argument that they throw a 30% tax per kwhr on all carbon energy. So 20% of our energy is non-carbon based, the other 80 is. Thats a 24% tax on all energy overall.
EVERYTHING from soap to medical supplies to CITY WATER (look up how chlorine is made not to mention pumping energy) will get 24% more expensive at a minimum.
You wont make 24% more money. Where are you going to cut a quarter of your spending?
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
- Apex
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 29815
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:36 pm
- Drives: Abominable
- Location: NJ
Melon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:37 pmWhat do you plan on powering your nation with? Hopes and dreams?coogles wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:31 pm
Oh my. Couple things. 1 - Why pick 30%? The percentage applied using a carbon tax wouldn't even be flat, for goodness' sake. It would vary based on the ratio of carbon emissions against kwh or some other unit of measure. 2 - Obviously energy prices go beyond just personal spending habits. But when energy costs become a bigger weight on a company's COGS, they'll do what they can to reduce them. Businesses will compete to bring costs back down to where they were prior to the carbon tax. Gubmint could reduce company paid payroll taxes, siphon off some of the carbon tax to replace the employer-paid portion of the social security tax, further reduce the corporate tax rate...any number of things to keep the tax changes revenue neutral while encouraging a shift away from carbon-based fuels. There are brilliant actuaries and economists who can and have figured this shit out.