4 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

In a free market economy I don't see how this is doable. If you tax a company, the company has the right to pass on the cost to customers. Trying to prevent this would result in rigged prices and eventually severe market problems. I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here.

By reflecting the true cost to society, it would make them less competitive with companies that mitigate or contribute less to global warming.

23 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You might not. Most economists do.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-tax-favored-by-most-economists/

Exactly what I thought...

 

"The first is its impact on low-income households, who use most of their income for consumption. However, this regressivity could be offset in any of a number of ways, including refundable income tax credits or payroll tax credits. Thus, while this is clearly a concern, it should not be prohibitive to implementing a carbon tax."

 

I disagree. This is gonna go south for sure.

Economists are a cancer. Always have been.

They really should stay away from climate change.

1 minute ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

Exactly what I thought...

 

"The first is its impact on low-income households, who use most of their income for consumption. However, this regressivity could be offset in any of a number of ways, including refundable income tax credits or payroll tax credits. Thus, while this is clearly a concern, it should not be prohibitive to implementing a carbon tax."

 

I disagree. This is gonna go south for sure.

Economists are a cancer. Always have been.

They really should stay away from climate change.

That economist's comment takes no account of externalities. The fact that the poor are the most adversely affected by pollution and climate change.

 

8 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

Exactly what I thought...

 

"The first is its impact on low-income households, who use most of their income for consumption. However, this regressivity could be offset in any of a number of ways, including refundable income tax credits or payroll tax credits. Thus, while this is clearly a concern, it should not be prohibitive to implementing a carbon tax."

 

I disagree. This is gonna go south for sure.

Economists are a cancer. Always have been.

They really should stay away from climate change.

Actually, I just looked at the article and it links to a paper that points out that many countries already impose a carbon tax.

Of course the argument you are offering could also be applied to pollution laws,, since the adversely affects some manufacturers more than others.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

By reflecting the true cost to society, it would make them less competitive with companies that mitigate or contribute less to global warming.

My guess is that it would end up exactly like what we've seen recently with inflation.

Every company trying to beat the competition by reducing profit and getting into debt until it becomes obvious that strategy won't work. Then you have a huge wave of inflation and poor people suffer the most.

 

Here it would be something like companies struggling to make a profit because they don't pass on the carbon tax and at some point the system breaks and you get inflation.

1 minute ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

My guess is that it would end up exactly like what we've seen recently with inflation.

Every company trying to beat the competition by reducing profit and getting into debt until it becomes obvious that strategy won't work. Then you have a huge wave of inflation and poor people suffer the most.

 

Here it would be something like companies struggling to make a profit because they don't pass on the carbon tax and at some point the system breaks and you get inflation.

I have never heard of inflation being characterized as the result of the breakdown of hypercompetition. Rather, it is far more rationally explained as due to the lack of competition because of lax enforcement of anti-trust laws.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

That economist's comment takes no account of externalities. The fact that the poor are the most adversely affected by pollution and climate change.

 

True. Thing is we ain't talking about the same kind of poor. You got the poor consumer and you got the poor poor. The poor poor would benefit but the poor consumer is getting screwed and might even end up becoming a poor poor.

 

I don't know, bro. I'm really not convince by this carbon tax. It seems to require a lot of monitoring (hence bureaucracy) in order to have a chance to work.

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, I just looked at the article and it links to a paper that points out that many countries already impose a carbon tax.

Of course the argument you are offering could also be applied to pollution laws,, since the adversely affects some manufacturers more than others.

Yeah the article itself is stating that several countries have done it.

I don't know. I might look into it at some point but I'm pretty skeptical.

The 2008 subprime bs was also triggered by some sort of credit scheme imagined by bureaucrats to allow more people to become house owners. Nice results...

It would require some sort of communist planning of the economy honestly :))

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I have never heard of inflation being characterized as the result of the breakdown of hypercompetition. Rather, it is far more rationally explained as due to the lack of competition because of lax enforcement of anti-trust laws.

I don't know. It might be multi-factorial. But I feel like many many many companies have been struggling to make consistent money and went deep into debts to remain attractive. I don't know who's to blame for that. Maybe digital platforms and globalization ? I don't know.

 

Anyhow the private sector was drowning in debt and the inflation crisis we're going through wasn't that much of a surprise to me. At some point the situation became unsustainable and prices went going up because companies needed the money to avoid death.

 

Lack of competition among larger companies might be another reason prices went up like they did. Some people were talking about greedflation if I remember well.

 

I don't know :)

A post with unsubstantiated, conspiracy remarks has been reported and removed. 

 

Climate deniers are people keen to look intellectually challenged in public.... but how would they know??

They use cliche'd excuses and conspiracy theories which just show they own inability to make sound judgements.

THey love to blame the media ye fail to say where they get they "information"

THey always refer to recurring ice ages - but fail to understand that these are studied as far back ad 800 million years and we know the causes of them - including the current causes of climate change

Then the absolute clincher that they are unhinged is they  say that money is behind it and scientists, by generating this theory,  are making money out of the poor unsuspecting oil companies - they also ignore the fact that Exxon scientists accurately predicted MMCC in the 1970s.

The final idiocy. is to suggest we can't afford it  to combat it - when the truth is we can't afford not to

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by kwilco

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

I have never heard of inflation being characterized as the result of the breakdown of hypercompetition. Rather, it is far more rationally explained as due to the lack of competition because of lax enforcement of anti-trust laws.

If you think you can explain inflation by one factor alone, I suggest you go back to the drawing board. You might even question what it actually is and if it is always a  bad thang

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me. 

You don't need to continue to drive home your ignorance and lack of interest in the science of global warming; you have us convinced.

 

No, we are not going to attempt to explain the science or explain how a carbon tax reduces demand for carbon intensive products, makes less carbon intensive products more competitive, and motivates research and investment in less carbon intensive alternatives.  It's pointless to attempt to educate those who don't want to learn.

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Trying to pull a fast one? You concluded before thusly:  "So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2," Now you've changed the meaning to "climage change ending the world as we know it"

And if your referring to the natural world,, the answer to that is a big fat abvious yes. Glaciers are disappearing. Coral reefs are  beginning to vanish, etc. Southern Europe is drying up. And if you're referring to the human world, the answer to that is yes too. Climate change is causing humans to migrate, helping to foment wars, making cities in warm climes a lot less liveable..

Sorry, I'll rephrase: So, both the natural world and the human world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me. 

 

Is that better?

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

The carbon tax is a tax on industry not individuals. It was meant to reflect the real cost of pollution and climate change. You know, externalities.

Sorry, I'll rephrase: The idiotic carbon tax is just a permit the rich industries (left and right) can buy so they do not have to alter their lifestyle operations. Of course, rich people own the industries, and keeping their the industry's operations going allows the rich owners to maintain their lifestyle.

 

One has to fly private if one is going to save the world in time don't 'cha know! 

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

You don't need to continue to drive home your ignorance and lack of interest in the science of global warming; you have us convinced.

What I said was: "So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me." 

 

So rather than address what I've said you call me ignorant, typical. 

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

No, we are not going to attempt to explain the science or explain how a carbon tax reduces demand for carbon intensive products, makes less carbon intensive products more competitive, and motivates research and investment in less carbon intensive alternatives.  It's pointless to attempt to educate those who don't want to learn.

I understand how a carbon tax works, I've explained it couple of times already. What don't I understand is why you refuse to respond to what I said. 

 

Is the world ending because we are generating too much CO2 or not? 

 

Is the plan to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points, or isn't it? 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What I said was: "So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me." 

 

So rather than address what I've said you call me ignorant, typical. 

I understand how a carbon tax works, I've explained it couple of times already. What don't I understand is why you refuse to respond to what I said. 

 

Is the world ending because we are generating too much CO2 or not? 

 

Is the plan to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points, or isn't it?

"I understand how a carbon tax works, I've explained it couple of times already."

 

Your explanations indicate an ignorance of how a carbon tax would affect the economy by altering the balance of supply, demand and pricing of carbon intensive goods.

 

"What don't I understand is why you refuse to respond to what I said."

 

Because you and other posters react to this subject like four year old boys who seek attention by "why-ing" things to death.  If I encounter a climate change denier who actually presents a science based challenge, instead of a "why" question about accepted science, I will try to give an intelligent answer.

 

"Is the world ending because we are generating too much CO2 or not?"

 

More likely a mass extinction, but if poorly understood tipping points are breached, there is the possibility of turning the planet into something like Venus.  I think mass extinction(s) are the more likely outcome.  No, I will not explain the science to you.

 

"Is the plan to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points, or isn't it? "

 

No, the plan is to rapidly slow the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and then get them to drop.  The sooner the better.  No, I will not explain the science to you, and I suspect you already knew the obvious answer to your question, so you are just trolling.

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"I understand how a carbon tax works, I've explained it couple of times already."

 

Your explanations indicate an ignorance of how a carbon tax would affect the economy by altering the balance of supply, demand and pricing of carbon intensive goods.

 

"What don't I understand is why you refuse to respond to what I said."

 

Because you and other posters react to this subject like four year old boys who seek attention by "why-ing" things to death.  If I encounter a climate change denier who actually presents a science based challenge, instead of a "why" question about accepted science, I will try to give an intelligent answer.

 

"Is the world ending because we are generating too much CO2 or not?"

 

More likely a mass extinction, but if poorly understood tipping points are breached, there is the possibility of turning the planet into something like Venus.  I think mass extinction(s) are the more likely outcome.  No, I will not explain the science to you.

 

"Is the plan to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points, or isn't it? "

 

No, the plan is to rapidly slow the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and then get them to drop.  The sooner the better.  No, I will not explain the science to you, and I suspect you already knew the obvious answer to your question, so you are just trolling.

How much had CO2 output been reduced over the last twenty years?

 

I do not expect you to be able to explain the science to me because I think it clear you do not understand it, that's why you have to call me a troll.

 

You claim: "...the plan is to rapidly slow the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and then get them to drop." That is not a plan, that's the desired result. The fact is, that we're twenty years in on the plan and humanity is generating more CO2 than ever, and the rate of increase has not slowed.

 

 

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

 

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How much had CO2 output been reduced over the last twenty years?

 

I do not expect you to be able to explain the science to me because I think it clear you do not understand it, that's why you have to call me a troll.

 

You claim: "...the plan is to rapidly slow the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and then get them to drop." That is not a plan, that's the desired result. The fact is, that we're twenty years in on the plan and humanity is generating more CO2 than ever, and the rate of increase has not slowed.

 

 

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

 

 

 

 

 

Your point being....?

On 7/23/2023 at 9:52 PM, liddelljohn said:

Earth climate has always  been changing in Cycles ,, it was much warmer than now in Europe  5000 years ago   and it was much colder in in 16th century,, and if it is caused by human industrial activities in last 200 years  its a drop in the ocean

 

Its all needless panic and manipulation  to allow politicians , big business to rip us all off and  give them more control

 

as if we can really do anything about it   ha ha   Its a natural cycle ,, might as well try affecting gravity or the  Sun

i have worked  in 50deg temperature in ME   and im ok in 5 year time there will be a new craze to scare  and manipulate  the public   .

 

 

 

As was noted, Europe is just a portion of the planet. A shift in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or "AMOC," accounts for cooling temperatures in Europe. An exhaustive review of many sites through time shows our planet was warmer earlier in the Holocene, then began cooling towards another Ice Age... until the cumulative increase in greenhouse gases (predominately of CO2) halted, then reversed the cooling. We are now warmer than at any time in since the beginning of the last Ice Age. We are aiming to soon surpass temperatures since over 3 million years ago.

The rapidity of change is not something trees, mammals , and the web of life upon which we depend can handle. The rapidity of change outpaces what killed of most species in past mass extinctions.

 

20 hours ago, bignok said:

Im amazed these alarmists can't read a graph. The graphs they post show cooling from 1940 to 1980, warming from 1980 to 2016, cooling from 2016 to 2022.

 

They whine about warming but ignore the cooling.

 

I wonder why.

 

I also wonder why they still use cars and planes.

This was answered with a graph accurately showing repeated 15 yr trends and the long term trend. Cherry picking the data does allow showing multiple periods of cooling (La Nina dominated cycles when the oceans soak in the heat into their depths.) BUT, the long term trend is warming... obvious to anyone who'll look.

12 hours ago, Keep Right said:

I am not a climate change denier but realize that climate records have only been kept for a few hundred years. A drop in the bucket compared to the earths age of perhaps 4.5 - 5 billions years. Our climate has been changing for millions of years. The city that I was born in was once (10,000 years perhaps) buried in two miles thick of ice. According to scientists, the antarctic was once a tropical rain forest. This all occurred without the existence of man. So does anyone want to dispute that it was not a natural cycle?

The natural cycles our planet was in for the last few million years was cooler than the norm for our planet. Weathering of rocks from past lava flows reduced the CO2 of the atmosphere as it weathered rocks into carbonates. BUT that natural cycle that allowed orbital cycles of our planet to go in and out of ice ages was halted and then reversed by the release of greenhouse gases that we humans did as we accessed and burned fossilized deposits of coal, oil and gas.
(see the very long term temperature history in the bottom left portion of my first graphic.)

 

The scientists at EXXON were tasked with researching the impact of the continued use of EXXON's main product back in the 70s, and delivered their answer in the 80's They did a remarkably good job of predicting the temperature increase we are already experiencing.

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

The carbon tax is a tax on industry not individuals. It was meant to reflect the real cost of pollution and climate change. You know, externalities.

This Carbon Tax idea has been reviewed and improved upon. James Hansen has been promoting a CARBON FEE & DIVIDEND plan since at least 2015. Here is his PDF on the subject as of 2019 https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Fee-and-Dividend-Miller-Hansen-20191110-1.pdf
A search for the topic shows attempts to pass it into law in the USA, though the partisanship of politics has prevented rational application. Benefits of a Carbon Fee/Tax would be to disincentivize moving manufacturing to nations with dirtier production - automatically imposing tariffs. The benefits of the Dividend is to eliminate this as a governmental income stream. Pass the Fees back to the population on a per capita basis. Those who generate more CO2 would be incentivized to shift their habits. Those who generate less CO2 would receive cash (monthly?) to cover rising costs.


 

2 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

As was noted, Europe is just a portion of the planet. A shift in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or "AMOC," accounts for cooling temperatures in Europe. An exhaustive review of many sites through time shows our planet was warmer earlier in the Holocene, then began cooling towards another Ice Age... until the cumulative increase in greenhouse gases (predominately of CO2) halted, then reversed the cooling. We are now warmer than at any time in since the beginning of the last Ice Age. We are aiming to soon surpass temperatures since over 3 million years ago.

The rapidity of change is not something trees, mammals , and the web of life upon which we depend can handle. The rapidity of change outpaces what killed of most species in past mass extinctions.

 

This was answered with a graph accurately showing repeated 15 yr trends and the long term trend. Cherry picking the data does allow showing multiple periods of cooling (La Nina dominated cycles when the oceans soak in the heat into their depths.) BUT, the long term trend is warming... obvious to anyone who'll look.

The natural cycles our planet was in for the last few million years was cooler than the norm for our planet. Weathering of rocks from past lava flows reduced the CO2 of the atmosphere as it weathered rocks into carbonates. BUT that natural cycle that allowed orbital cycles of our planet to go in and out of ice ages was halted and then reversed by the release of greenhouse gases that we humans did as we accessed and burned fossilized deposits of coal, oil and gas.
(see the very long term temperature history in the bottom left portion of my first graphic.)

 

The scientists at EXXON were tasked with researching the impact of the continued use of EXXON's main product back in the 70s, and delivered their answer in the 80's They did a remarkably good job of predicting the temperature increase we are already experiencing.

This Carbon Tax idea has been reviewed and improved upon. James Hansen has been promoting a CARBON FEE & DIVIDEND plan since at least 2015. Here is his PDF on the subject as of 2019 https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Fee-and-Dividend-Miller-Hansen-20191110-1.pdf
A search for the topic shows attempts to pass it into law in the USA, though the partisanship of politics has prevented rational application. Benefits of a Carbon Fee/Tax would be to disincentivize moving manufacturing to nations with dirtier production - automatically imposing tariffs. The benefits of the Dividend is to eliminate this as a governmental income stream. Pass the Fees back to the population on a per capita basis. Those who generate more CO2 would be incentivized to shift their habits. Those who generate less CO2 would receive cash (monthly?) to cover rising costs.


 

Yes cooling since 2016 despite all the hype. 6 years of lies. 

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your point being....?

Exactly

16 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

As was noted, Europe is just a portion of the planet. A shift in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or "AMOC," accounts for cooling temperatures in Europe. An exhaustive review of many sites through time shows our planet was warmer earlier in the Holocene, then began cooling towards another Ice Age... until the cumulative increase in greenhouse gases (predominately of CO2) halted, then reversed the cooling. We are now warmer than at any time in since the beginning of the last Ice Age. We are aiming to soon surpass temperatures since over 3 million years ago.

The rapidity of change is not something trees, mammals , and the web of life upon which we depend can handle. The rapidity of change outpaces what killed of most species in past mass extinctions.

 

This was answered with a graph accurately showing repeated 15 yr trends and the long term trend. Cherry picking the data does allow showing multiple periods of cooling (La Nina dominated cycles when the oceans soak in the heat into their depths.) BUT, the long term trend is warming... obvious to anyone who'll look.

The natural cycles our planet was in for the last few million years was cooler than the norm for our planet. Weathering of rocks from past lava flows reduced the CO2 of the atmosphere as it weathered rocks into carbonates. BUT that natural cycle that allowed orbital cycles of our planet to go in and out of ice ages was halted and then reversed by the release of greenhouse gases that we humans did as we accessed and burned fossilized deposits of coal, oil and gas.
(see the very long term temperature history in the bottom left portion of my first graphic.)

 

The scientists at EXXON were tasked with researching the impact of the continued use of EXXON's main product back in the 70s, and delivered their answer in the 80's They did a remarkably good job of predicting the temperature increase we are already experiencing.

This Carbon Tax idea has been reviewed and improved upon. James Hansen has been promoting a CARBON FEE & DIVIDEND plan since at least 2015. Here is his PDF on the subject as of 2019 https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Fee-and-Dividend-Miller-Hansen-20191110-1.pdf
A search for the topic shows attempts to pass it into law in the USA, though the partisanship of politics has prevented rational application. Benefits of a Carbon Fee/Tax would be to disincentivize moving manufacturing to nations with dirtier production - automatically imposing tariffs. The benefits of the Dividend is to eliminate this as a governmental income stream. Pass the Fees back to the population on a per capita basis. Those who generate more CO2 would be incentivized to shift their habits. Those who generate less CO2 would receive cash (monthly?) to cover rising costs.


 

That way the rich can continue generating all the CO2 they like. 

10 hours ago, kwilco said:

Climate deniers are people keen to look intellectually challenged in public.... but how would they know??

They use cliche'd excuses and conspiracy theories which just show they own inability to make sound judgements.

THey love to blame the media ye fail to say where they get they "information"

THey always refer to recurring ice ages - but fail to understand that these are studied as far back ad 800 million years and we know the causes of them - including the current causes of climate change

Then the absolute clincher that they are unhinged is they  say that money is behind it and scientists, by generating this theory,  are making money out of the poor unsuspecting oil companies - they also ignore the fact that Exxon scientists accurately predicted MMCC in the 1970s.

The final idiocy. is to suggest we can't afford it  to combat it - when the truth is we can't afford not to

I suppose it was inevitable that after Covid petered out, and monkeypox fell at the first, the serial hysterics would have to find something else to wail "The End Is Nigh!" and "Beware the Apocalypse!" about.

 

They may have to replace Greta, though - she's getting a bit long in the tooth now to play the role of the child saint in this story.

 

Still, climate change is the perfect scare story, as it can claim responsibility for every piece of weather , wet, dry, hot, cold, and so can be kept going indefinitely.

53 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry, I'll rephrase: The idiotic carbon tax is just a permit the rich industries (left and right) can buy so they do not have to alter their lifestyle operations. Of course, rich people own the industries, and keeping their the industry's operations going allows the rich owners to maintain their lifestyle.

 

One has to fly private if one is going to save the world in time don't 'cha know! 

Well, thanks for outing yourself as a Marxist. As for me, being a confirmed believer in the efficacy of free markets, I would project that companies needing a carbon tax would innovate to reduce their carbon emission output in order to keep gain advantage over their competitors and/or to protect themselves out of fear of losing market share to their innovative competitors if they didn't. 

Since some here can't seem to speak truthfully about trends visible in line graphs, and cherry pick short time frames to point to cooling (especially as applies to Europe) ... here are a pair of images using colored maps to convey temperature changes.

The first is from June 2023 Temperature Update - Berkeley Earth ,


and the second is from https://scottduncanwx.com/

Meanwhile, CNN Business is reporting on the early estimates of economic costs now being encountered Scorching summer temperatures could strain the economy even further | CNN Business . Lastly, insurance companies are pulling out of insuring real estate for Florida and California due to floods, storms and fires.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry, I'll rephrase: So, both the natural world and the human world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me. 

 

Is that better?

Nobody ever said the natural world would end although many species would be wiped out alongside humans. A very graphic chart was shown to you illustrating that the level of CO2 has near doubled in 200 years, mostly in the past 50 years but you still cling to the notion that you can put words into other people's mouths and not be called out for trolling.
 

You absolutely refuse to address the science presented to you and continue to make arguments in bad faith.

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by ozimoron

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Nobody ever said the natural world would end although many species would be wiped out alongside humans. A very graphic chart was shown to you illustrating that the level of CO2 has near doubled in 200 years, mostly in the past 50 years but you still cling to the notion that you can put words into other people's mouths and not be called out for trolling.

Placeholder indeed confirmed the natural world would end, please try to follow along. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You absolutely refuse to address the science presented to you and continue to make arguments in bad faith.

You accuse me of making arguments in bad faith, yet you refuse to make an argument at all. You clearly stated that the warming was caused 100% by burning fossil fuels. That statement is absolutely false, yet you refuse to support it, and in fact you doubled down on it. 

 

Please, I want it to understand what Raw Story related "science" supports your claim. 

 

 

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by Yellowtail

6 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

I suppose it was inevitable that after Covid petered out, and monkeypox fell at the first, the serial hysterics would have to find something else to wail "The End Is Nigh!" and "Beware the Apocalypse!" about.

 

They may have to replace Greta, though - she's getting a bit long in the tooth now to play the role of the child saint in this story.

 

Still, climate change is the perfect scare story, as it can claim responsibility for every piece of weather , wet, dry, hot, cold, and so can be kept going indefinitely.

THere's one! ...and a misogynist too!

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, thanks for outing yourself as a Marxist.

I'm not a marxist, I'm a classical liberal.

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

As for me, being a confirmed believer in the efficacy of free markets, I would project that companies needing a carbon tax would innovate to reduce their carbon emission output in order to keep gain advantage over their competitors and/or to protect themselves out of fear of losing market share to their innovative competitors if they didn't. 

Well, thanks for outing yourself a leftist. You claim to be "a confirmed believer in the efficacy of free markets..." yet you propose and support massive government intervention in the market.

 

Truth is not a left-wing value. 

19 hours ago, kwilco said:

THere's one! ...and a misogynist too!

If that little comment makes one a misogynist you must be surrounded by them. Must feel horrible.