US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

That you buy into the concept that there is a benefit to increasing any tax is adorable. Naivé but adorable.

Ah, you're one of those special folks who was born on second base, made it to third, and think you hit a triple.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ah, you're one of those special folks who was born on second base, made it to third, and think you hit a triple.

Childish

[Montanan]

Let's remain civil and on point.

[Bycrick]

Where I’m at, propane is used for cooking by almost everybody. I can’t remember ever seeing an electric stove because the electrical service can be unreliable and it’s expensive. So electricity and propane costs are deeply subsidized by the government. To fill my US style 20# propane bottle costs me a 50-mile round trip in a taxi and $13. The locals, who can use the national-standard 25# bottle can swap an empty with a full bottle for about $5. Outside of the cities, if one doesn’t use propane, they burn wood.

Getting rid of fossil fuel and/or raising the costs would get a politician run out of office, if not out of town.

The same lefty folks that in rich countries are talking carbon taxes are demanding higher subsidies here. That’s why the save-the-world-by-raising-prices crowd don’t stand a chance in most of the world.

[GordMay]

At the moment, the biggest gasoline producers, including Exxon, Chevron and BP, are posting profits they haven't seen in years. Yet according to reporting [1] by the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, they have rejected efforts to reduce the pain at the pump, in the U.S., by releasing more product.

[1] Oil companies’ profits soared to $174bn last year [2021] as US gas prices rose
➥ https://www.theguardian.com/business...hell-exclusive

See also:

Corporate Profits Drive 60% of Inflation Increases
➥ https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/c...ey19mYvQbM&s=r

Corporate Profiteering Findings
➥ https://groundworkcollaborative.org/...s-22.02.04.pdf

So, let's not blame it all on the 'greenies', or the 'warriors'.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

The same lefty folks that in rich countries are talking carbon taxes are demanding higher subsidies here. That’s why the save-the-world-by-raising-prices crowd don’t stand a chance in most of the world.

I don't know the specifics of Panama, but at face value, what is intrinsically wrong with taxation in rich countries to try to moderate excessive per-capita energy consumption, and to fund cleanup and transition... AND subsidizing users in poorer countries who have no alternatives yet?

No matter how you slice it, the people in the poorer countries are using a small fraction of the energy consumed by us in the rich countries.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Proof of that? Recent experience suggests that such externally-driven windfalls enrich a relative few, and that any ripple effects (more hiring, equipment purchases, returns on 401ks) are modest.

Now, an increase in gas price because of a carbon tax would definitely benefit more people, long-term. Longer than the lifespan of most CFers though.

Really if you believe that ask someone from BC how that works for them

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I am sorry that you don't have the background or ability to understand what you are trying to argue.
What legitimate scientists do is to build a model, based on solid principles, make some kind of prediction or hypothesis, then design an experiment or data collection method that has the potential to refute the model, gather it, and ask if it refutes or supports the prediction. The same experiment is often repeated for a validity check. If a model is fundamentally valid, then numerous other logical predictions from it are so tested. If a model yields numerous predictions that are validated by data, it is overwhelmingly likely to be correct. This is exactly what has happened with ACC - the model predicts tons of things for which innumerable observations demonstrate support for the model.

The model can be overturned by coming up with a different/better model that is consistent with the data and (hopefully) leads to some new predictions that can also be tested. The model is not overturned by small numbers of contradictory results - what you are trying to do is utterly pointless and proves only that you have no idea what you are doing. The tiny number of things that you have raised have another, simpler explanation rather than than ACC is wrong.

Some deniers say "but science isn't about voting or consensus, it should be about truth". This represents a middle school level of science sophistication. All experiments or gathered datasets are sample sets of all possible data. Samples are susceptible to random variation. You would expect to see a small number of results of experiments contradict a model that is absolutely correct, due to known, measurable statistical variation. In fact, you want to see this - if science is being done honestly, people should be occasionally coming up with data that don't fit the model.

An honest scientist would try to understand why their particular dataset might not fit the model. Methodology, statistical variation, etc. If all those problems have been excluded AND the scientist can come up with a better model that explains their anomalous result AND fits with the huge mass of data that were consistent with the old model - voila! You have overturned the paradigm.

Nothing you have said here comes remotely close to doing that. You are just fumbling around in the dark of your biases, presumptions, and biases to desperately find crumbs of conflicting data. They mean nothing and you are accomplishing nothing by doing this.

Great lecture on general scientific methods LS, and that is the way that science ought to work. But the bottom line on climate research is that it originated by political incentive. Margaret Thatcher incentivized science to support her political agenda. Her advisor, Crispin Tickell was not even a scientist. He was a history graduate. He had done a complete reversal on his thinking on climate from from imminent ice age to imminent global warming. This should be enough to put the entire climate change “enterprise” into disrepute. A flip flopping self appointed “expert” with no science background is certainly a weak basis for an unprecedented giant societal shift. Thatcher was desperate to resolve a national crises caused by a coal miners strike. Demonizing coal and favoring the nuclear option was her means of resolving the crisis.


A degree in science is not required to smell BS disguised as science.

The political origin of anthropomorphic climate change can be cloaked with the cover of false science in countless studies. But all this is still rooted in the original fraud promulgated by Thatcher and Tickell. A false cult is still a false cult, even when they produce reams of biased study to back their doctrine. Editing out truth that contradicts and embellishing sketchy supporting evidence are common techniques.


The climategate scandal that broke in 2009 should be all that is required to put the climate change issue to rest. The evidence certainly indicates bias and fraud by some scientists in the movement. The media enjoyed a short blitz of the sensational story, but it was soon forgotten. Large institutions and governments continue to pretend that climategate never happened. This hiding of dirt under the rug method is nothing new.


When alarming predictions of the past are reviewed and compared to real outcomes, the climate change fraud becomes obvious. Dire predictions of the past have not become reality. Drastic sea level rises, disappearance of arctic ice, drastic reduction of Antarctic ice, drastic reductions in agricultural production related to climate have just not occurred. The Northwest passage is still not navigable for large scale routine commercial traffic.


Slight warming effects that have been observed in some areas are explainable by natural climate variation. The heat island effect has been another source of false data. We know that climate variation occurred long before people began burning oil and coal in large volume. The midieval warming period and little ice age are two examples that the climate change enthusiasts try to deny. More recently, the North American mid west dust bowl of the 1930's occurred while coal and petroleum use were at a small scale compared to post WWII consumption.


Extensive climate research designed for predetermined results are moot. Such practice was established by Margaret Thatcher early in her political climate scheme. Her injection of Money into the Hadley Centre that was linked with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit is clear evidence of such political tampering with science. The CRU was the repository of global terrestrial temperature records. The CRU later became the centre of the notorious Climategate scandal of 2009 that provided clear evidence that some climate scientists were behaving very badly.

This political incursion into climate science was furthered by Thatcher when she gave large amounts of taxpayer money to the UK’s National Academy of Science, asking them to produce “science” that would further raise public concern about the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Those scientists were certainly not out to bite Thatcher's feeding hand. Financial incentive to skew science is an oft overlooked factor in the climate research field. The ideals of science can be compromised by monetary incentive. Lucrative research grants can be the grease to corrupt scientific institutions.


Your discourse on pure and logical methods of science is fine background for a propaganda campaign. When read through rose colored glasses it seems fine. But in reality there has been too much evidence of political interference, bias, and fraud to blindly assume honesty in all climate related endeavors of science. Such a dynamic phenomena as climate is a perfect prop to use for political purposes. Major weather events can be instantly blamed on climate change without proof to further alarmism. The fact is that seemingly unusually intense storms, droughts, heat waves, wild fires etc. have occurred long before the era of large scale hydrocarbon consumption.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

But the bottom line on climate research is that it originated by political incentive. Margaret Thatcher incentivized science to support her political agenda.

Margaret Thatcher was not even born when Eunice Foote did her research, nor when Arrhenius published his findings, nor when Guy Callendar concluded CO2 was resulting in increased warming.

https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents

[Bycrick]

In the abstract, any government has to collect taxes to achieve whatever it thinks it should do. Whether that’s 4 months work a year to build pyramids, or build stone calendars, or dig ditches for irrigation.

Where the arguments happen is where one group of people want somebody else taxed to change behavior that they don’t like. You think people are too fat? Let’s tax soft drinks. Or when I was in Europe ages ago, food in supermarkets wasn’t taxed. If you stood up to drink your coffee in a coffee shop, it was taxed at half the rate than if you sat down to drink it.

The climate zealots complain about all the subsidies given to acts or businesses they don’t like while at the same time demanding that the government subsidize their save-the-world schemes. Nobody really wants a level-playing field.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

The climate zealots complain about all the subsidies given to acts or businesses they don’t like while at the same time demanding that the government subsidize their save-the-world schemes. Nobody really wants a level-playing field.

If a given activity is harmful to our long-term situation, we should be smart enough to try to limit that activity, and find an alternate activity. At the very least, we shouldn't subsidize continued excessive activity. Duh.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

.

If a given activity is harmful to our long-term situation, we should be smart enough to try to limit that activity, and find an alternate activity. At the very least, we shouldn't subsidize continued excessive activity. Duh.

Then why does every government spend so much on offensive use weaponry?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The political origin of anthropomorphic climate change can be cloaked with the cover of false science in countless studies.

That may be true of "anthropomorphic climate change", because there is no such thing.

Anthropogenic climate change has been well researched and documented for the past 2 centuries.

[Bycrick]

So once you and your like-thinking cronies decide something is "harmful," you should be able to force your solutions on everybody else.

That’s why this is a political problem. Not everybody likes your hare-brained schemes or agrees with you proposed "solutions."

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That may be true of "anthropomorphic climate change", because there is no such thing.

Anthropogenic climate change has been well researched and documented for the past 2 centuries.

Actually jack both terms are correct for what you and others are pushing because your politicians told you to.