Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Daradon

How nice of you. Please search when you have time.

Or just do a search of your own posts under your profile. It gives a very clear idea of what topics you've frequently visited.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by kirant

Or just do a search of your own posts under your profile. It gives a very clear idea of what topics you've frequently visited.

Clever girl.

[Tinordi]

Ultimately we need policy to reduce GHG emissions. The carbon tax is attractive because it's proven that it's the most efficient way to reduce emissions with the broadest coverage to our economy. It isn't a "cash-grab." It's an attempt to build in the costs of pollution to get socially optimal levels of consumption for fossil fuels. The alternatives to the carbon tax are all much worse like command and control regulation (higher costs) or subsidies (ineffective and expensive).

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ultimately we need policy to reduce GHG emissions. The carbon tax is attractive because it's proven that it's the most efficient way to reduce emissions with the broadest coverage to our economy. It isn't a "cash-grab." It's an attempt to build in the costs of pollution to get socially optimal levels of consumption for fossil fuels. The alternatives to the carbon tax are all much worse like command and control regulation (higher costs) or subsidies (ineffective and expensive).

I was always taught cap-and-trade was a bit more effective. Granted, this was given to me by professors...and they have an agenda of their own. And it'll also likely turn into small companies finding ways to work with fewer emissions and bigger companies buying more space.

[photon]

A cap-and-trade system makes sense to me on the surface, since it's a combination of a hard limit (which a free market system wouldn't adhere to by itself) and a free market within that limit to find the best way to meet that limit itself.

In practice though measurement and enforcement are real problems.

[Azure]

Is it really a problem if you have reasonable regulations in place that force companies to reduce emissions a certain percentage by a certain date?

[SeeBass]

When we start talking taxes to help get rid of an issue I always think that we didn't tax the horse and buggy. Just the next best thing knocked it out.
I feel the same way today with the combustion engine.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is it really a problem if you have reasonable regulations in place that force companies to reduce emissions a certain percentage by a certain date?

Not if you want the compliance pathway to be much more expensive.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is it really a problem if you have reasonable regulations in place that force companies to reduce emissions a certain percentage by a certain date?

No, and that's fine too as long as they give companies enough time and reasonable targets.

Just that way the government is deciding what's appropriate for each company or industry, and what might be easy to do for one type of company might be very difficult to do for another, so why not let them trade emission credits? Overall the reduction still happens even though one company might be marginal in terms of emissions but another is outstanding (by the nature of what they do, conventional vs. non-conventional for example, non-conventional can't go away and if you put too much pressure on non-conventional all you are going to do is move it to countries that don't care about emissions at all).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

No, and that's fine too as long as they give companies enough time and reasonable targets.

Just that way the government is deciding what's appropriate for each company or industry, and what might be easy to do for one type of company might be very difficult to do for another, so why not let them trade emission credits? Overall the reduction still happens even though one company might be marginal in terms of emissions but another is outstanding (by the nature of what they do, conventional vs. non-conventional for example, non-conventional can't go away and if you put too much pressure on non-conventional all you are going to do is move it to countries that don't care about emissions at all).

Seems to me the problem often is what are reasonable targets. Some people expect the oil sands to cut all emissions within a short time frame.

I think perhaps we should have a combination of both. Have reasonable regulations in place that companies are willing to word towards, as well as the carbon tax.

But it has to be carried out in such a way that the companies are willing to get on board. You can't just regulate the hell out of the oil sands and then wonder why new development isn't happening and jobs are being lost.

[HOZ]

I am sure this will involve "someone" falsely accusing me of calling them a liar. And I also accept that this will involve 3-4 abusive posts explaining my stupidity/ insanity/ unconfirmed love affair of Climategate.

But worth a read for those actually looking for the truth.

Matt Ridley

Now before you all rush for the exits, and I know it is traditional to walk out on speakers who do not toe the line on climate at the RSA – I saw it happen to Bjorn Lomborg last year when he gave the Prince Philip lecture – let me be quite clear. I am not a “denier”. I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible. When a study was published recently saying that 98% of scientists “believe” in global warming, I looked at the questions they had been asked and realized I was in the 98%, too, by that definition, though I never use the word “believe” about myself. Likewise the recent study from Berkeley, which concluded that the land surface of the continents has indeed been warming at about the rate people thought, changed nothing.
So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

[photon]

First you accuse me of lying, then ignore when I prove you wrong, you spend pages of a thread taunting me for a specific piece of information which I didn't want to give and when I finally do you don't even read it and continue to taunt me.

Now rather than spend 30 seconds with the search tool to find the thread and posts in question you just call me a liar a second time.

Your behaviours dictate how people react to at treat you.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by photon

First you accuse me of lying, then ignore when I prove you wrong, you spend pages of a thread taunting me for a specific piece of information which I didn't want to give and when I finally do you don't even read it and continue to taunt me.

Now rather than spend 30 seconds with the search tool to find the thread and posts in question you just call me a liar a second time.

Your behaviours dictate how people react to at treat you.

Been there done that.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

First you accuse me of lying, then ignore when I prove you wrong, you spend pages of a thread taunting me for a specific piece of information which I didn't want to give and when I finally do you don't even read it and continue to taunt me.

Now rather than spend 30 seconds with the search tool to find the thread and posts in question you just call me a liar a second time.

Your behaviours dictate how people react to at treat you.

I don't get what makes you tick. I really don't.

You said I called you a liar and I asked you where and offered to apologize for it hoping it was some kind of misunderstanding and we could move on from it. AND You told me to go find it myself and that it was too late for apologies. WTF?

So, anyways, I did. Looked back over that "horrendous taunting I gave you" of asking you "What did Muller lie about" and even a few years back.

That post above was the very first, and last time I point blank called you a Liar. Welcome to the Lanny MacDonald zone photon.

[photon]

That's exactly where it is, in the whole discussion of the Muller video.

I'm not precisely sure how you could miss you saying I never watched the video before commenting, or miss the screenshots I posted proving I watched it.

Also you put the words "horrendous taunting" in quotes, but nowhere did I ever use the words horrendous. I couldn't think of a better word for it, though taunting isn't really the right word.. you wanted me to give details and I didn't want to, so you decided that the details didn't exist and said so in many posts.

(Do you notice a pattern here? One where you arbitrarily decide what's true based on what serves you best?)

I don't seem to be in anyone else's Lanny MacDonald zone, and I've done nothing except point out what you've done, so that would indicate the problem is in your own perceptions.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

But worth a read for those actually looking for the truth.

Matt Ridley

Surprise surprise, more question avoidance and a random posting of same old, same old, posted in the dead of night.

Anyways ....

"So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be."

A chairman of a bank that was taken over by the government and had to be bailed out to the tune of 27billion (yes BILLION) UK sterling due to "recklessness and over-exposure to financial risk" is suddenly "the truth" of risk assessment?

I don't think so.

Hey, but at least he seems to keep good company. Find his name in this list and go four names up. It's your x1000 CO2 buddy

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/ac...y-council.html

Good old George Monbiot critiques "the truth" that is Ridley and his book.

The Rational Optimist is riddled with excruciating errors and distortions.

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/th...ck-the-planet/

Oh, and Bill Gate's thoughts on Mr "the truth (but don't mention the 27bn collapse)" Ridley.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...699028330.html

First Plimer, now Ridley. You sure do know how to pick them!

[photon]

Ridley says he isn't a denier and then regurgitates some of the most flawed statements about climate change to be used by deniers.

So he's basically doing exactly what he's condemning.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I don't get what makes you tick. I really don't.

You said I called you a liar and I asked you where and offered to apologize for it hoping it was some kind of misunderstanding and we could move on from it. AND You told me to go find it myself and that it was too late for apologies. WTF?

So, anyways, I did. Looked back over that "horrendous taunting I gave you" of asking you "What did Muller lie about" and even a few years back.

That post above was the very first, and last time I point blank called you a Liar. Welcome to the Lanny MacDonald zone photon.

Post #131

Originally Posted by HOZ

This is getting very pathetic. You are being evasive, not coy. This has nothing to do with belief in AGW or not.....

You said the man blatantly lied at 1:30 of the video. He was talking about the Freedom of Information Act and getting the raw data at that point.

I surmise with conviction now: You had not seen the video when you posted that message. You looked who was the poster (me) and went straight into Denier-Liar-No credibility mode.

You were caught now are trying to squirm out of it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Post #131

Why?

Why Bother?

He's demonstrated the kind of individual he is.

Why waste your time?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Post #131

Honestly. If this is the evidence then you are really, really, REALLY reaching to help photon out.

Originally Posted by HOZ
I surmise with conviction now: You had not seen the video when you posted that message. You looked who was the poster (me) and went straight into Denier-Liar-No credibility mode.

I will put more clearly for you

photon looked at the poster (me) and went straight into MULLER IS A DENIER - MULLER IS A LIAR- MULLER HAS NO CREDIBILITY mode.