|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 5, 2014 13:28:39 GMT -5
I post this quote around this time every year, just to remind everyone of how ACCURATE and RELIABLE the top climate scientists are whose opinions have resulted in massive "carbon" taxation worldwide. www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.htmlThat was 14 years ago. Today, newspapers are reporting - yet again - record low temperatures in the northern hemisphere, and record high snow and ice levels. This week the passengers on a climate research ship in the Antarctic had to be rescued by helicopter when their ship became trapped in ice. The ship that was sent to rescue them is also now stuck in ice. Antarctic sea ice extent is almost 50% higher than average (measured by NASA). Three weeks ago the coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth was recorded in Antarctica. Meanwhile the average global temperature is the same as it was 100 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 5, 2014 15:07:27 GMT -5
In answer to your question...no. No, I'm not. I would invite Dr. Viner to come on over and stick his dumb head in a non existant snowbank.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Jan 5, 2014 16:56:53 GMT -5
Where I live winter snowfall became 'a very rare and exciting event'. We recently had a nice snowfall. Last year, & the year before that, virtually nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 17:28:44 GMT -5
Well, here's something of an explanation. Accept or reject as you like. I just thought I'd add something to the mix.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 5, 2014 18:19:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 3:54:13 GMT -5
What carbon taxation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 3:55:16 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I spent this year's Christmas in the Styrian alps, at 7-12 degrees celsius.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 12, 2014 8:32:59 GMT -5
What carbon taxation??
Well, let's see now...
Example #1 - I used to buy a sixpack of lightbulbs every month or so from my local electrical shop. Price? Just over EUR5 ($7). Then one day they told me they didn't have my regular bulbs as they'd been outlawed. I would have to buy the new, "carbon friendly" bulbs instead. Price? Just over $30 ($41).
Example #2 - I used to use my electric cooker without any problem until one day everything went dark. The fuse had tripped in my hallway. I flipped it back on, but a minute later it went dark again. I was using 3 hotplates to cook. I turned one off to reduce the electricity load, and the power stayed on. The same thing happened the next day, and the day after that. Even when I used an electrical fan at the same time as my cooker, the power was cut off. I rang the electricity company and explained the problem. They told me I was a "level one" customer, and as such there was a limit on the amount of electricity I was allowed to use at the same time. The idea, they said, was to reduce electrical consumption and reduce CO2 emissions. A law had been passed that I hadn't heard about. I told them that was ridiculous, and that I couldn't get by using only two hotplates to cook (or one when the fan was running). They said they were sorry, but that was the new law. However, they said, I could "upgrade" to "level 2", which would increase my electricity limit. And how do I do that? I asked. By paying a EUR50 fee - and then being charged at a higher rate for the "additional" electricity I used.
A similar carbon tax was introduced in Ireland a few years ago, resulting in an immediate increase in the price of natural gas, petrol, oil and kerosene. A carbon tax is also factored into Ireland's car registration tax (as it also is in other countries).
The UK - which started all this AGW baloney - enacted a "climate change levy" back in 2001.
Carbon taxes are being introduced by stealth in most European countries. There are also plans in the pipeline to introduce a carbon tax on all flights over Europe. Australia and New Zealand have also introduced carbon taxes.
The US has so far resisted carbon taxes, but they are coming. I know that Colorado introduced a carbon tax recently. And there are carbon taxes in force in some Canadian provinces.
The purported idea behind carbon taxes is that they will cause people and companies to use less electricity. But of course this is nonsense. For example, I had no choice but to "upgrade", and pay the fee (as did most people) in order to be able to cook my breakfast or turn on a heater without being plunged into darkness. And companies have to use whatever amount of electricity they need to use in order to stay in business. If a machine in a factory requires X amount of power to make it run, then it can't run if there is less than X amount of power available. So while extra charges will obviously force people to use slightly less electricity, the reduction in the amount of CO2 produced will be miniscule (bearing in mind that humans are only responsible for 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere anyway). For example, the Australian carbon tax aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 5%. Since Australia produces 1.5% of the world's man-made CO2 emissions, this means that if Australia achieves this target it will, by the year 2050, have lowered global temperature by 0.00007C - and that's if you believe CO2 is causing the temperature to rise. The figures just don't add up. But billions of euros are being collected in carbon taxes. In short, it's a scam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 10:15:35 GMT -5
What carbon taxation?? Well, let's see now... Example #1 - I used to buy a sixpack of lightbulbs every month or so from my local electrical shop. Price? Just over EUR5 ($7). Then one day they told me they didn't have my regular bulbs as they'd been outlawed. I would have to buy the new, "carbon friendly" bulbs instead. Price? Just over $30 ($41). Not a tax, a regulation that is a) supposed to reduce overall energy consumption (because, you know, oil and gas are running out) and the environmental impact of electrical devices, such as lightbulb. That is no "carbon tax" by any reasonable definition of the word, unless your definition includes every environmental regulation imaginable. See here: www.eceee.org/ecodesignSounds like you got a shitty energy supplier. Again, how is that a "carbon tax"? Fuel taxes have been around forever, because they give a lot of revenue and are really simple to collect while having the benefit of also offsetting some of the public costs that car traffic tends to produce. How are those a "carbon tax" by any but the most strained of definitions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 10:17:17 GMT -5
BTW, you have yet to answer how it is possible that one harsh winter in the US is totally an argument against the very possibility of global warming, but a non-winter outside the US is not.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 12, 2014 10:48:35 GMT -5
Not a tax, a regulation that is a) supposed to reduce overall energy consumption (because, you know, oil and gas are running out) and the environmental impact of electrical devices, such as lightbulb. That is no "carbon tax" by any reasonable definition of the word, unless your definition includes every environmental regulation imaginable.
1. Oil and gas are not running out. 2. You mean the *alleged* environmental impact of lightbulbs. There's no evidence that lightbulbs have a negative impact on the environment. 3. The government collects more sales tax on a $5 lightbulb than it does on a $1 lightbulb, right? So this is an indirect carbon tax.
Sounds like you got a shitty energy supplier. Again, how is that a "carbon tax"?
No, I have the national supplier. How is it a carbon tax? Because I'm being charged a premium to use the same amount of electricity I've always used, in order to allegedly reduce CO2 emissions. How is that NOT a carbon tax?
Fuel taxes have been around forever, because they give a lot of revenue and are really simple to collect while having the benefit of also offsetting some of the public costs that car traffic tends to produce. How are those a "carbon tax" by any but the most strained of definitions?
The government calls them a carbon tax. They have not been around "forever". There have always been taxes on fuel, but not specifically CARBON taxes. In Ireland they were onkly introduced in 2010. In Australia they have just been introduced. They are charged specifically to (allegedly) reduce CO2 emissions to (allegedly) reduce global warming.
BTW, you have yet to answer how it is possible that one harsh winter in the US is totally an argument against the very possibility of global warming, but a non-winter outside the US is not.
I have never claimed that one harsh winter is an argument against anything.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 12, 2014 10:49:34 GMT -5
1. Oil and gas are not running out. 2. You mean the *alleged* environmental impact of lightbulbs. There's no evidence that lightbulbs have a negative impact on the environment. 3. The government collects more sales tax on a $5 lightbulb than it does on a $1 lightbulb, right? So this is an indirect carbon tax. No, I have the national supplier. How is it a carbon tax? Because I'm being charged a premium to use the same amount of electricity I've always used, in order to allegedly reduce CO2 emissions. How is that NOT a carbon tax? The government calls them a carbon tax. They have not been around "forever". There have always been taxes on fuel, but not specifically CARBON taxes. In Ireland they were onkly introduced in 2010. In Australia they have just been introduced. They are charged specifically to (allegedly) reduce CO2 emissions to (allegedly) reduce global warming. I have never claimed that one harsh winter is an argument against anything. It's climate alarmists who do that. Whenever there's there's severe weather anywhere in the world (they call it *extreme* weather, to link it to AGW), the alarmists are on TV or in the papers claiming it as an example of climate change. For example, at the moment there is flooding in some parts of the UK, and there has been a spate of articles on the BBC and elsewhere linking this to climate change. But of course there has always been flooding in these areas, going back thousands of years. The Thames Barrier was built precisely because London was flooded so often. I do cite prolonged "snow events" as evidence that the warmists are wrong, because 20 years ago they predicted that within 5 years snow would become a rare event. In fact snow is as plentiful as it has ever been. But of course now that they've changed "global warming" to the catchall "climate change", they are claiming that the record snow levels of recent winters are actually caused by climate change.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 13, 2014 2:07:20 GMT -5
|
|