What do you believe has been adequately demonstrated in climate change science?

[Kuciwalker]

It's the implication that subsidizing green programs is what would make a carbon tax green, rather than the tax itself.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Right, like promoting using of ethanol and clean natural gas.

[HalfLotus]

Global temps have been stable or declining for the past 11 or so years. How much longer can the "end is nigh" camp keep up their rhetoric while that is the case?

[Lul Thyme]

Current human civilisation exists because the climate has been relatively benign for the last 15,000 years - it's called an interglacial because ice ages are largely driven by the position of landmasses isolating the ice at the poles so it builds up, the planet cools and North America and Europe go into the freezer and that's likely to happen again within the next few hundred to few thousand years if not sooner (OK solar cycles and other things also have an effect but this is the major driver).

This is silly even for this type of discussion.

Position of the landmasses is essentially constant over the non-geological time frames you refer to (few thousand years).

[Felch]

It's the implication that subsidizing green programs is what would make a carbon tax green, rather than the tax itself.

If people can travel a greater distance, and have an economic incentive to do so, then the tax isn't necessarily green. Of course, the number of people who would drive to the six counties just for cheap gas is negligible, but theoretically you could have a situation where the carbon tax itself is creating an incentive to emit more carbon.

Slightly off topic: Smoke some weed, Kuci, and you might have more patience.

[BlackCat]

This is silly even for this type of discussion.

No, this is silly :

Position of the landmasses is essentially constant over the non-geological time frames you refer to (few thousand years).

Last time there where an ice age, the land masses was like now plus/minus a meter or so.

[Berzerker]

This is silly even for this type of discussion.

Position of the landmasses is essentially constant over the non-geological time frames you refer to (few thousand years).

There are competing theories, one says the Himalayas changed air patterns but ice age/temp graphs show a cooling trend starting ~3 million years ago, hence another theory that says the closing of the Panama isthmus stopped an important transfer of water from the E Pacific to the Gulf Stream weakening the warming in the N Atlantic. But you're right, on that short of timescale ice ages and interglacials aren't driven by geography. Celestial and terrestrial cycles drive the coming and going of ice sheets. We dont know enough about long term ocean current patterns...

[KrazyHorse]

No, this is silly :



Last time there where an ice age, the land masses was like now plus/minus a meter or so.

Why are you saying that his statement was silly, then agreeing with him?

[CerberusIV]

It's the implication that subsidizing green programs is what would make a carbon tax green, rather than the tax itself.

Sigh.

If you tax fuel and call it a carbon tax and claim it benefits the environment then there has to be some sort of environmental benefit. No?

Taxing petrol and heating oil doesn't cause people to use less of the product - because they generally can't. OK they might get a slightly more fuel efficient car when they replace their existing model but usually can't stop driving to work or heating their homes. Taxes are not an effective way of changing behaviour, their real purpose is to raise money (if taxes did change behaviour then no-one in the UK or Ireland would smoke because of the high cost - largely due to high taxes on the product).

To get a significant environmental benefit from this sort of tax the proceeds need to be reinvested in developing and promoting low carbon alternatives. In the case I am referring to that isn't going to happen to any meaningful extent.

The point I am trying to make is that carbon taxes are a godsend to politicians as they can raise more money whilst, usually falsely, claiming to act for the "good" of their electorates.

It has happened where I live already - it's almost certainly going to happen to you too.

There, is that simple enough for you to grasp?

[KrazyHorse]

You're a moron.

[CerberusIV]

This is silly even for this type of discussion.

Position of the landmasses is essentially constant over the non-geological time frames you refer to (few thousand years).

Ice age climate conditions fluctuate. Essentially there has been an ice age for the last couple of million years with cold periods interspersed with warmer interglacial periods. It is not clear whether the warmer climate of the last few thousand years represents the end of an ice age or just an interglacial period before it freezes again.

Evidence from ice cores and lake and ocean sediments also suggests that the switch from cooling to warming (glacial and interglacial) and vice-versa can kick in over a timescale of only a few decades.

Paleo-geography suggests that the position of the Earth's landmasses (which affects ocean circulation) is a significant factor, although not the only one, in determining whether there is an ice age (of which there have been several in the last 2-3 billion years) or not.

I tried to find a link that explains this in simple terms

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

[CerberusIV]

You're a moron.

If so I'm in good company around here.

[MOBIUS]

The climate change talks have failed. Abjectly. Not like this hasn't been on the cards for the last year or so...

I for one think it's quite exciting!

[Kuciwalker]

Taxing petrol and heating oil doesn't cause people to use less of the product - because they generally can't. OK they might get a slightly more fuel efficient car when they replace their existing model but usually can't stop driving to work or heating their homes.

you are arguing that petroleum fuel consumption is 100% inelastic over long periods of time, despite the massive and obvious empirical evidence to the contrary we've seen in just the past decade.

Taxes are not an effective way of changing behaviour

lol

Have you ever heard of supply and demand?

(if taxes did change behaviour then no-one in the UK or Ireland would smoke because of the high cost - largely due to high taxes on the product).

You're an idiot. It's only necessary (or likely) that FEWER people smoke, or that people smoke fewer cigarettes, compared to not having a tax.

To get a significant environmental benefit from this sort of tax the proceeds need to be reinvested in developing and promoting low carbon alternatives.

No, people's behavior just has to change - and we have massive evidence that people do, indeed, change their behavior in response to increases in the price of gas.

There, is that simple enough for you to grasp?

KH's response to you was better. You're a ****ing idiot.

[HalfLotus]

The Copenhagen Accord establishes a "High Level Panel" to oversee a "Copenhagen Climate Fund", which includes the $100b/yr promised by Hillary, among other tbd sums- i.e. whatever else they can suck out of the legislatures of the world. Also a broadly defined "Technology Mechanism".

It's being deemed a failure in the media and among True Believers as far as emissions and temperature targets, but it appears to have been successful in setting up a political framework. The proverbial wedge in the door.

So while they may fail at addressing their so-called crisis, you can be damn sure they're going to get your money and their global government one way or another.