Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears...

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you are against subsidies of any kind for any reason, the government should never be involved with business for any reason? They should never have bailed out GM and such and they never should give subsidies or tax breaks for solar or efficient houses?

I believe politicians should decide winners and losers when it comes to who receives money from the government and who simply has money taken away.

After all, isn't that why we have a government? We need people to take from one group to give to another!

Originally posted by Eladar
... We need people to take from one group to give to another!

and I think preferably from the rich to the poor; and I say this despite the fact I am not a socialist although I have some socialist sympathies.

Originally posted by Eladar
I believe politicians should decide winners and losers when it comes to who receives money from the government and who simply has money taken away.

After all, isn't that why we have a government? We need people to take from one group to give to another!

No, that is not at all why we have government.

And only someone utterly ignorant of how civilisation functions could think otherwise.

However, this is the SCIENCE forum, not the politics forum.

And NOTHING in politics has any bearing on whether or not the SCIENCE of climate change is correct.

Whether or not any given policy for dealing with climate change makes sense is utterly irrelevant to the
reality of whether climate change is real, or what is causing it.

So please take your ignorant and idiotic politics to debates, and but out of science.

Originally posted by humy
Irrelevant: Your stated 'argument' against solar energy was that solar energy causes hunger and poverty because poor people are taxed for solar energy. My rebut to that, which still stands unchallenged by you, is merely pointing out the fact that, even if that is true, then the problem isn't solar energy but poor people being taxed thus the obvious solution is ...[text shortened]... is against solar energy. Can you explain to us this illogic? Can you explain to me this illogic?

You are thinking irrationally again. Solar cannot compete without subsidies and that is why you will not invest in it. You have completely destroyed your position because of that. Now that I have you in a corner you are finally admitting solar cannot compete with fossil fuels. You are making yourself look stupid.

Solar costs too much, that is why you are losing this debate. The amount of subsidies to get the results you want would require an astonishing amount of increased taxation which would hurt the poor. Your assertion that the poor would not be taxed is laughable. That isn't how it works in the real world.

"So, if you are not against gasoline if poor people are taxed for it, why are you against solar energy if poor people are taxed for it?"

I already explained that in my last post. Roads are needed by anyone that drives on them. Solar is not needed, it is an option that poor people can do without.

"The solution is still, simply. don't tax poor people."

Poor people are taxed. They will continue being taxed because that is how government works.

"But by the some 'logic' then, you should be against the gasoline fossil fuel because poor people are taxed for it."

Poor people use roads. The gasoline tax is used to repair and build roads so it is one of the most fair taxes. People who drive more on roads use more gasoline and therefore generally pay more taxes. Poor people drive less because they can't afford to buy a lot of gas so they pay less on this specific tax. Roads are essential. They are needed for everyone that drives on the roads. Solar is not essential. Perfect logic. There you go.

Originally posted by humy
and I think preferably from the rich to the poor; and I say this despite the fact I am not a socialist although I have some socialist sympathies.

Is that how it works in your country? 🙄

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/29/socialism-for-the-rich

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you are against subsidies of any kind for any reason, the government should never be involved with business for any reason? They should never have bailed out GM and such and they never should give subsidies or tax breaks for solar or efficient houses?

"They should never have bailed out GM and such and they never should give subsidies or tax breaks for solar or efficient houses?"

I agree with that statement except for the tax breaks. Solar should get comparable tax breaks to fossil fuels.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"They should never have bailed out GM and such and they never should give subsidies or tax breaks for solar or efficient houses?"

I agree with that statement except for the tax breaks. Solar should get comparable tax breaks to fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels should not get tax breaks.

And all of your are forgetting hidden costs.

Emitting pollution [of any sort] has costs which impact everyone one way or another.

Global warming certainly does this, as do other pollution problems such as bad air quality.

They reduce productivity, have clean up costs, increase medical and other insurance costs...

All of which get paid by taxpayers indirectly by higher costs, and directly by having worse
health or by being in the path of a global warming strengthened hurricane [etc].

These costs are hidden, because they are not paid when you buy the electricity [or other
fossil fuel product] but are instead spread over the rest of the economy.

When you pay extra for your health insurance or higher taxes for medical programs because
millions of people are sick due to bad air quality you are paying a hidden cost of fossil fuels.

A revenue neutral carbon tax [as an example] would put that cost back on the original purchase
of the energy making that reflect the true cost of that product.

At which point already competitive nuclear and renewable energy sources become vastly more so.

Even without factoring the human cost in terms of suffering instead of dollars that this would alleviate.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b]...Solar cannot compete without subsidies ..../b]

even if that were currently true, that will change in due course. Then what would your objection be for solar?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Your assertion that the poor would not be taxed is laughable. ....

Obviously, I clearly never made any such assertion. I clearly implied that the poor morally SHOULD not be taxed, NOT that they are ACTUALLY not taxed. Even your incredibly low intellect must be able to comprehend this not-so-subtle difference in meaning. Do you understand the difference between "morally should" and "actually"?

Poor people are taxed. They will continue being taxed because that is how government works.

false implied inference; the fact that at least some governments currently work that way doesn't mean they will continue to do so.
Is there any particular reason why NO government can ever work WITHOUT taxing the poor? Is such a thing logically impossible? If so, explain the logic of why so.


Your entire post is riddled with the same kind of dreadfully appalling stupid flaws as the two above.


My original assertion still stands unchallenged by you:

If poor people are taxed for solar energy, then the problem there is not solar energy but poor people being taxed.
So at is a reason to be against poor people being taxed, NOT, as you make out, a reason to be against solar energy.

Suppose a country went all renewable without taxing poor people; what would your rejection be to that?

Originally posted by humy
Obviously, I clearly never made any such assertion. I clearly implied that the poor morally SHOULD not be taxed, NOT that they are ACTUALLY not taxed. Even your incredibly low intellect must be able to comprehend this not-so-subtle difference in meaning. Do you understand the difference between "morally should" and "actually"?


[quote] Poor people are tax ...[text shortened]... e a country went all renewable without taxing poor people; what would your rejection be to that?

misprint:
"So at is a reason..."
should be
"So that is a reason..."
I have got a very old worn-out keyboard and computer that doesn't always respond to pushes of the buttons + other bugs so I have to look out for that.

Originally posted by humy
even if that were currently true, that will change in due course. Then what would your objection be for solar?

None. I'd be all for it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Fossil fuels should not get tax breaks.

And all of your are forgetting hidden costs.

Emitting pollution [of any sort] has costs which impact everyone one way or another.

Global warming certainly does this, as do other pollution problems such as bad air quality.

They reduce productivity, have clean up costs, increase medical and other insuranc ...[text shortened]... out factoring the human cost in terms of suffering instead of dollars that this would alleviate.

You don't understand the financial risks of drilling for oil and natural gas. If you get rid of the tax breaks it will hurt small start ups so the big wealthy corporations have little competition from the little guys.

You need to educate yourself on this subject.

Originally posted by humy
Obviously, I clearly never made any such assertion. I clearly implied that the poor morally SHOULD not be taxed, NOT that they are ACTUALLY not taxed. Even your incredibly low intellect must be able to comprehend this not-so-subtle difference in meaning. Do you understand the difference between "morally should" and "actually"?


[quote] Poor people are tax ...[text shortened]... e a country went all renewable without taxing poor people; what would your rejection be to that?

Your problem is with how government works, but instead of putting your efforts there you expect changes without effort. Both our governments work in much of the same flawed ways. You can't expect desirable results with mere hope and faith.

What you meant to say is that the poor should not be burdened with additional new taxes. We can agree on that, but you would be insane to think it will actually turn out that way just because you hope it will.

I have told you before and I'm telling you again, Solar will not solve the things you think it will. The internal combustion engine is here to stay. Your stupid assertions that solar will change that is absurd. Get used to high CO2 levels and stop trying to scare people into thinking it will cause catastrophic global warming. I have pointed out the flaws of that argument and it still stands unchallenged by you.

Your heat capacity assertion is ridiculous, but even if it was not it only says it is too late to do anything about it and the logical course is to adapt to it instead of pushing an agenda that will do nothing to lower CO2 levels. OPEC countries will always burn their fossil fuels and so will Russia. You live in a fantasy land in your own mind. I wish there was a reality pill you could take because your mind is twisted by leftist propaganda. In the end you will support a carbon tax just like ExxonMobile and the Rockefellers want. Your mind is clearly too feeble to resist propaganda.

http://www.livescience.com/1956-study-gossip-trumps-truth.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Your problem is with how government works, but instead of putting your efforts there you expect changes without effort. Both our governments work in much of the same flawed ways. You can't expect desirable results with mere hope and faith.

What you meant to say is that the poor should not be burdened with additional new taxes. We can agree on that, b ...[text shortened]... o feeble to resist propaganda.

http://www.livescience.com/1956-study-gossip-trumps-truth.html

That is a nice study but your implication is it is just word of mouth that CO2 effects heating.

The thing is, we already see glaciers disappearing all over the world and large amounts of ice in the Antarctic is calving off. It is clear the atmosphere is heating up and it is also clear for many studies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, delays or not.

I looked at the solar issue and even if they were very cheap, like 1/10th the cost of them now, every rooftop in the US could be filled with Solar and we would still be short of getting off the tit of fossil fuels. It would take paving a state the size of Pennsylvania with PV to get anywhere near the amount of energy the US consumes so Solar to me is not a total answer, maybe a great fill in but I think we will have to wait for fusion reactors to come on line to get us off the fossil tit.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You don't understand the financial risks of drilling for oil and natural gas. If you get rid of the tax breaks it will hurt small start ups so the big wealthy corporations have little competition from the little guys.

You need to educate yourself on this subject.

No, I understand the risks perfectly.

You do not understand that I want to END all drilling for oil and gas [and mining for coal]
due to the damage using such fossil fuels does for the environment.

And one part of that is to end the billions upon billions in subsidies given to massive multinationals
with multi-billion dollar profit margins.