There are socialists and anarchists who want to destroy our way of life and destroy the wealthiest society ever created.
Some of them are using climate change to push their agenda.
Just like they use homeless people to push their agenda.
Just like they use dilapidated towns with closed down factories and Superfund sites to push their agenda.
But none of these things stop being factual just because bad people want to discuss them.  
There are dilapidated ghettoes.  There are homeless people.  And there is climate change.

Our society will still work fundamentally the same way if we reduce income and payroll taxes and replace them with a carbon tax.  Note that the true socialists out there are more likely to advocate for state takeover of energy companies as their solution.

What, in your opinion, are the negative implications of a Carbon Tax?

That's easy....they the taxes do nothing for the environment..... it only pads to pockets of politicians.... Question is where does the money go.... And how does it help....it doesn't...just like I'm here they ban plastic bags at the supermarket... But you can still buy them for $0.05 a bag... So you're really not banning them... And where does the $0.05 go how does it help the environment... It doesn't it's a money-making scheme... period!!

---

What, in your opinion, are the negative implications of a Carbon Tax?

That's easy....they the taxes do nothing for the environment..... it only pads to pockets of politicians.... Question is where does the money go.... And how does it help....it doesn't...just like I'm here they ban plastic bags at the supermarket... But you can still buy them for $0.05 a bag... So you're really not banning them... And where does the $0.05 go how does it help the environment... It doesn't it's a money-making scheme... period!!

You must have missed the part where they lower other taxes once the carbon tax is implemented. your electric bill and the price for a gallon of gas go up, but your other taxes would go down...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's easy....they the taxes do nothing for the environment..... it only pads to pockets of politicians.... Question is where does the money go.... And how does it help....it doesn't...just like I'm here they ban plastic bags at the supermarket... But you can still buy them for $0.05 a bag... So you're really not banning them... And where does the $0.05 go how does it help the environment... It doesn't it's a money-making scheme... period!!

You must have missed the part where they lower other taxes once the carbon tax is implemented. your electric bill and the price for a gallon of gas go up, but your other taxes would go down...

And your plan fails.  Welcome to econ 101.

---

You must have missed the part where they lower other taxes once the carbon tax is implemented. your electric bill and the price for a gallon of gas go up, but your other taxes would go down...

And your plan fails.  Welcome to econ 101.

Why does it fail? 
Think about the length that people go to today to avoid taxes.
They move just across the county line to get a lower property tax.
They think about state income tax rates before they move.
They demand receipts for all charitable contributions.
Similarly, people will try to avoid and minimize this tax.
They will put up solar panels and buy electric cars.
They won't travel by air as often.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

There is so much wrong with this.

First off, calling people "deniers" is just a means of trying to disparage the scientists who disagree with the dogma by equating them with holocaust deniers. It's a clue that the alarmists don't actually have a scientific basis for their claims. If you want to use a better term, try "skeptics." If you want to call me a name, "heretic" is probably the best, since Climastrology is more of a religion than a science.

Secondly, blaming "the oil industry" is a lie. The oil industry has donated far more money to Climastrology labs than they have to scientist who disagree with the alarmism. It's sort of hard to make the case for Climate Realism when over 99% of the funding goes to the alarmist side.

I like the claim that it's OK for windmills to kill birds because millions of birds are killed by windows and cats. That's as valid as the argument that it's OK to kill rhinos because millions of mammals are killed by rat poison. Killing eagles is not  the same as killing sparrows.

There are enough provable lies coming out of the alarmist camp that you should be very skeptical of them.

Note that I have mentioned that not all scientists are on board with the alarmist rhetoric. Most aren't, they are on board with warming, and consider it mostly from CO2, but they are not on board with the disaster scenarios you read about in the NYT. However, they benefit from the continued flow of money to support their research and will not criticize the lies the mainstream media publishes. In the world of acadamia, no research grants == losing your faculty position and flipping hamburgers. Here  is a list of 31,000 scientists who disagreed. And before Mikey comes to claim that there are "Mickey Mouse" names on the petition, a handful of jerks does not invalidate the 31,000 actual scientists who signed it. Of course, they are not the ones riding the Global Warming gravy train. So no, the 97% claim is just another lie.

Orbital mechanics has a solid basis. It's not handwaved like climate "science." I'd be the first to be in favor of stopping the asteroid, but be sure the measurements have been validated before we spend the 50 trillion dollars. In the case of climate, warmer is better.

As far as sea level rise, the claim that it is accelerating is just a proof that the alarmist side is flat out lying. Here's the Key West tide gauge (chosen for longevity). It shows a constant rate of sea level rise since the beginning over 100 years ago, long before humans were adding CO2 to the atmosphere.




Here is the link if you want to check out other stations. Link

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

And your plan fails.  Welcome to econ 101.

Why does it fail? 
Think about the length that people go to today to avoid taxes.
They move just across the county line to get a lower property tax.
They think about state income tax rates before they move.
They demand receipts for all charitable contributions.
Similarly, people will try to avoid and minimize this tax.
They will put up solar panels and buy electric cars.
They won't travel by air as often.

Mike mike...  it's only getting worse.

---

And your plan fails.  Welcome to econ 101.

Why does it fail? 
Think about the length that people go to today to avoid taxes.
They move just across the county line to get a lower property tax.
They think about state income tax rates before they move.
They demand receipts for all charitable contributions.
Similarly, people will try to avoid and minimize this tax.
They will put up solar panels and buy electric cars.
They won't travel by air as often.

RICH people move to avoid taxes.
Poor people are stuck paying the taxes, since they can't afford the electric cars.

A carbon tax is very regressive. Poor people pay a lot higher percentage of their income on gasoline and electricity.

And before you claim that the idea is to send everyone a check, that never actually happens.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

And your plan fails.  Welcome to econ 101.

Why does it fail? 
Think about the length that people go to today to avoid taxes.
They move just across the county line to get a lower property tax.
They think about state income tax rates before they move.
They demand receipts for all charitable contributions.
Similarly, people will try to avoid and minimize this tax.
They will put up solar panels and buy electric cars.
They won't travel by air as often.

We already saw this economic plan with cigarettes. It didnt work there either.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How did a scientific question become a political argument?   Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?  

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it.  And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions.  They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.  

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory.   Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.  

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years.  That would not be a political issue at all.   But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then?  Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud?  That's what's happening with the climate change question.  Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem.  Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from.  Denialism originated in the oil industry.  

You're standing in the road.  I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road.  You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming.  Is that a logical response?  It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

Blaming "the oil industry" is a lie. The oil industry has donated far more money to Climastrology labs than they have to scientist who disagree with the alarmism. It's sort of hard to make the case for Climate Realism when over 99% of the funding goes to the alarmist side.

No one would benefit more from CO2 turning out to be harmless than oil companies.
Yet according to you, they could be funding 'climate realists' dedicated to proving that hypothesis, but they choose instead to give '99% of the funding' to the other side?
Why would that be?
Two possible explanations:
1) you're just wrong about who funds what
2) the evidence just isn't there for what you call 'climate realism' no matter how hard we look for it.

---

Why does it fail? 
Think about the length that people go to today to avoid taxes.
They move just across the county line to get a lower property tax.
They think about state income tax rates before they move.
They demand receipts for all charitable contributions.
Similarly, people will try to avoid and minimize this tax.
They will put up solar panels and buy electric cars.
They won't travel by air as often.

RICH people move to avoid taxes.
Poor people are stuck paying the taxes, since they can't afford the electric cars.

A carbon tax is very regressive. Poor people pay a lot higher percentage of their income on gasoline and electricity.

And before you claim that the idea is to send everyone a check, that never actually happens.

The end consumer isn't the only one to look at.
if there is stability around this policy, industry will also work to change what they offer. Electric cars and solar panels will benefit from greater economies of scale and be more accessible.
Of course the checks would go out. the EITC checks go out reliably every year...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why does it fail? 
Think about the length that people go to today to avoid taxes.
They move just across the county line to get a lower property tax.
They think about state income tax rates before they move.
They demand receipts for all charitable contributions.
Similarly, people will try to avoid and minimize this tax.
They will put up solar panels and buy electric cars.
They won't travel by air as often.

We already saw this economic plan with cigarettes. It didnt work there either.

Help me understand what you mean.
The number of people who smoke in this state and in this country is down, is it not?
Sounds like the tax worked.
No one ever said that the tax would eliminate tobacco use.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's easy....they the taxes do nothing for the environment..... it only pads to pockets of politicians.... Question is where does the money go.... And how does it help....it doesn't...just like I'm here they ban plastic bags at the supermarket... But you can still buy them for $0.05 a bag... So you're really not banning them... And where does the $0.05 go how does it help the environment... It doesn't it's a money-making scheme... period!!

You must have missed the part where they lower other taxes once the carbon tax is implemented. your electric bill and the price for a gallon of gas go up, but your other taxes would go down...

Lmao sure.... You obviously don't believe that right Democrats lowering taxes on anything? ? Sure ok you believe that I got some land on the Moon could sell you... Real cheap

---

Blaming "the oil industry" is a lie. The oil industry has donated far more money to Climastrology labs than they have to scientist who disagree with the alarmism. It's sort of hard to make the case for Climate Realism when over 99% of the funding goes to the alarmist side.

No one would benefit more from CO2 turning out to be harmless than oil companies.
Yet according to you, they could be funding 'climate realists' dedicated to proving that hypothesis, but they choose instead to give '99% of the funding' to the other side?
Why would that be?
Two possible explanations:
1) you're just wrong about who funds what
2) the evidence just isn't there for what you call 'climate realism' no matter how hard we look for it.

---

RICH people move to avoid taxes.
Poor people are stuck paying the taxes, since they can't afford the electric cars.

A carbon tax is very regressive. Poor people pay a lot higher percentage of their income on gasoline and electricity.

And before you claim that the idea is to send everyone a check, that never actually happens.

The end consumer isn't the only one to look at.
if there is stability around this policy, industry will also work to change what they offer. Electric cars and solar panels will benefit from greater economies of scale and be more accessible.
Of course the checks would go out. the EITC checks go out reliably every year...

You need to read more carefully. Big Oil has donated more to Climastrology than to the Skeptics, but not 99%. The "over 99%" includes ALL funding for Climate Science. I wonder why everyone seems to be on the side that gets the funding? Must be coincidence.

Solar panels and wind energy is much more expensive than fossil fuel energy, nuclear, or hydro. There's very little room for savings from economy of scale there. Having the electric companies switch to so-called renewables would mean that poor people would have higher electric bills whether or not it was because of the companies paying a carbon tax or using windmills.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The interesting thing about it is the fact that if Trump woke up tomorrow morning and tweeted Climate Change is Real, you'd have his 35% Base panting like dogs supporting his statement.

That you actually believe this is 90% of the issue.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You must have missed the part where they lower other taxes once the carbon tax is implemented. your electric bill and the price for a gallon of gas go up, but your other taxes would go down...

Lmao sure.... You obviously don't believe that right Democrats lowering taxes on anything? ? Sure ok you believe that I got some land on the Moon could sell you... Real cheap

Put the tax cuts in the same bill as the carbon tax then.
They pass together.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No one would benefit more from CO2 turning out to be harmless than oil companies.
Yet according to you, they could be funding 'climate realists' dedicated to proving that hypothesis, but they choose instead to give '99% of the funding' to the other side?
Why would that be?
Two possible explanations:
1) you're just wrong about who funds what
2) the evidence just isn't there for what you call 'climate realism' no matter how hard we look for it.

---

The end consumer isn't the only one to look at.
if there is stability around this policy, industry will also work to change what they offer. Electric cars and solar panels will benefit from greater economies of scale and be more accessible.
Of course the checks would go out. the EITC checks go out reliably every year...

You need to read more carefully. Big Oil has donated more to Climastrology than to the Skeptics, but not 99%. The "over 99%" includes ALL funding for Climate Science. I wonder why everyone seems to be on the side that gets the funding? Must be coincidence.

Solar panels and wind energy is much more expensive than fossil fuel energy, nuclear, or hydro. There's very little room for savings from economy of scale there. Having the electric companies switch to so-called renewables would mean that poor people would have higher electric bills whether or not it was because of the companies paying a carbon tax or using windmills.

Why would big oil donate even one cent to someone who says their product is creating lots of long-term problems on the planet?
Unless of course it's actually true?

As for your graph, I'm advocating for low-carbon energy, not renewable energy. Nuclear energy is low carbon but not renewable.

France has a very low carbon electrical grid and look how inexpensive the electricity is. They rely very heavily on nuclear. 

Germany also has quite a few nuclear power plants but after 2011 they decided to shut them down.

Building a nuclear power plant is very expensive. It's even more expensive if you don't use it.  That's why Germany's costs are so high. Denmark used to import a lot of nuclear electricity from Germany but that's not there anymore. Now they are stuck importing Germany's overly expensive coal and wind based electricity instead.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That is as good of an explanation as I am likely to get....

In all seriousness, it doesn't take a nobel laureate to conclude that, directly or indirectly, humans and their endeavors are the main factor responsible for this increase in the earth's surface temperature. I would be remiss if i did not thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

Because the industrial military complex was directly responsible for the melting of the icecaps during the last global thaw?

At what point can this discussion ever become centered?  I grew up on a a farm at one of the highest points in Meigs County Ohio.  There was an exposed boulder that was my sanctuary.  Upon this boulder there are numerous ocean fossils.  No man existed when these were placed upon that rock.  Can any of you climate change extremest explain this to me?  By the same token, we continue to cut down trees, pave roads, put up concrete and buildings.  Can any of you climate change deniers explain to how this does not affect our environment?  My God why do we continue to let the extreme views and opinions define the scope of the discussion?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

In all seriousness, it doesn't take a nobel laureate to conclude that, directly or indirectly, humans and their endeavors are the main factor responsible for this increase in the earth's surface temperature. I would be remiss if i did not thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

Because the industrial military complex was directly responsible for the melting of the icecaps during the last global thaw?

At what point can this discussion ever become centered?  I grew up on a a farm at one of the highest points in Meigs County Ohio.  There was an exposed boulder that was my sanctuary.  Upon this boulder there are numerous ocean fossils.  No man existed when these were placed upon that rock.  Can any of you climate change extremest explain this to me?  By the same token, we continue to cut down trees, pave roads, put up concrete and buildings.  Can any of you climate change deniers explain to how this does not affect our environment?  My God why do we continue to let the extreme views and opinions define the scope of the discussion?

To the extent that we know how quickly carbon dioxide concentration increased in the past, and our data isn't perfect, the increase of the last 100 years is wildly steeper than any other that we've been able to document using sediments or ice cores. The kind of swing we are going through, a doubling of the CO2 concentration, usually plays out over thousands and tens of thousands of years, not 100.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You need to read more carefully. Big Oil has donated more to Climastrology than to the Skeptics, but not 99%. The "over 99%" includes ALL funding for Climate Science. I wonder why everyone seems to be on the side that gets the funding? Must be coincidence.

Why would big oil donate even one cent to someone who says their product is creating lots of long-term problems on the planet? Unless of course it's actually true?

As for your graph, I'm educating for low-carbon energy, not renewable energy. Nuclear energy is low carbon but not renewable.

France has a very low carbon electrical grid and look how inexpensive the electricity is. They rely very heavily on nuclear. 

Germany also has quite a few nuclear power plants but after 2011 they decided to shut them down.

Building a nuclear power plant is very expensive. It's even more expensive if you don't use it.  That's why Germany's costs are so high. Denmark used to import a lot of nuclear electricity from Germany but that's not there anymore. Now they are stuck importing Germany's overly expensive coal and wind based electricity instead.

Big Oil donates money to the politically correct side in order to appease the politicians. You can't be so dense as to fail to understand that.

I agree that if you believe CO2 is a problem then nuclear is the only sensible way to deal with it. The fact that almost all of the alarmists oppose nuclear power should be a red flag to you.

I applaud humanity enriching the atmosphere with CO2. Warmer is better. I don't see many people retiring to North Dakota. It's been warming since the "little ice age" in the 1700s and human-released CO2 has only been a significant factor since 1950. But if mankind is responsible for the warming then it might prevent the next glaciation, so we could be preventing a real disaster. Whether or not CO2 causes warming, more CO2 is better for the planet because plant growth is much more robust with higher CO2. The edges of the Sahara are greening because of higher CO2 levels.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Lmao sure.... You obviously don't believe that right Democrats lowering taxes on anything? ? Sure ok you believe that I got some land on the Moon could sell you... Real cheap

Put the tax cuts in the same bill as the carbon tax then.
They pass together.

The Democrats are the ones who are writing that bill.... they don't do tax cuts.... And maybe the dumbest thing I've heard in the whole climate change issue.... Carbon tax is just another tax they want to put on you to get money has nothing to do with saving the environment... Once you understand that you'll get the whole picture....this has nothing to do with saving our planet and everything to do with money...power and greed.... Cut taxes LMAO.... Come on dude you don't honestly believe that to you

---

We already saw this economic plan with cigarettes. It didnt work there either.

Help me understand what you mean.
The number of people who smoke in this state and in this country is down, is it not?
Sounds like the tax worked.
No one ever said that the tax would eliminate tobacco use.

And what happens to the funds that the vice tax provides once the number of participants declines?

---

In all seriousness, it doesn't take a nobel laureate to conclude that, directly or indirectly, humans and their endeavors are the main factor responsible for this increase in the earth's surface temperature. I would be remiss if i did not thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

Because the industrial military complex was directly responsible for the melting of the icecaps during the last global thaw?

At what point can this discussion ever become centered?  I grew up on a a farm at one of the highest points in Meigs County Ohio.  There was an exposed boulder that was my sanctuary.  Upon this boulder there are numerous ocean fossils.  No man existed when these were placed upon that rock.  Can any of you climate change extremest explain this to me?  By the same token, we continue to cut down trees, pave roads, put up concrete and buildings.  Can any of you climate change deniers explain to how this does not affect our environment?  My God why do we continue to let the extreme views and opinions define the scope of the discussion?

You do know that we have more trees today globally than we did 100 years ago, yes? That all that cutting and paving and concrete didn't reduce the trees on Earth a bit?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato