Expert report questions

[bush_cheney2004]

....We heard a lot of prediction of California going down the pike when it introduced some of the strongest smog related legislation.

What were the results? Huge decreases in CFCs, a reported improvement in the ozone and no major economic downturn. Nor did people lose refrigeration like some predicted.

Similarly, California remains fairly prosperous and now has more smog-free days.

"We" did? Citations please....CARB actions and state laws were a direct response to immediate health threats in specific areas of California, not a global climate change circle jerk designed to redistribute wealth.

...Sometimes it takes the government and the market to respond. I wonder how many people living in New Orleans wished the government acted on improving safety over the objections of the people complaining about the cost and those that said the chance of being hit by something with that force was small.

Actually, they now wish the government never messed with the Mississippi delta in the first place.

[Wilber]

Too often damage has been greater because of a lack of government acting. It has been demonstrated in terms of safety and health many times. It has been shown in regard to world events many times.

Not when governments act on speculation. They probably don't do better than 50/50.

We can only make a policy for Canada and encourage others to act in the interests of the rest of the world. Some will try to take advantage of it but may end up worse off for it. We have seen that happen many times in industrialization.

You still won't address the effect your tax will have on those who are in a marginal financial situation. I guess they are the cannon fodder of your great cause.

What are you doing personally to set an example other than waiting for someone to give you a grant to install a geo thermal system?

This is a waste of time.

[jdobbin]

Not when governments act on speculation. They probably don't do better than 50/50.

If they acted without expert advice, probably not.

You still won't address the effect your tax will have on those who are in a marginal financial situation. I guess they are the cannon fodder of your great cause.

Think I've addressed this several times. The tax is formulated to make sure lower income people don't take a hit that and to make sure that taxes are lowered on incomes for everyone else.

What are you doing personally to set an example other than waiting for someone to give you a grant to install a geo thermal system?

Think we have gone over this as well.

This is a waste of time.

Well, I certainly don't think I'm going to convince you. Why would you think it was any different for me.

By all means though, vote for the Tories if you think they will be better. I guess that would be speculation on your part though but what else can I say?

[Wilber]

If they acted without expert advice, probably not.

Which is also speculation. Educated speculation possibly but speculation none the less.

Think I've addressed this several times. The tax is formulated to make sure lower income people don't take a hit that and to make sure that taxes are lowered on incomes for everyone else.

Low income people pay little in taxes. Not going to make much difference especially if consumption does go down and those revenues are no longer there to provide for them. You also say that the tax will only be a few hundred dollars but that is only the direct tax to the individual. You ignore the added increase in prices on everything else due to those taxes.

Think we have gone over this as well.

Yes we have, I believe you said you were waiting for the price to come down or a grant.

By all means though, vote for the Tories if you think they will be better. I guess that would be speculation on your part though but what else can I say?

Of course, voting for anyone is really just close your eyes, fingers crossed speculation no matter what we may think to the contrary.

[jdobbin]

Which is also speculation. Educated speculation possibly but speculation none the less.

Think I'll take that information over a lot of other stuff that is out there.

Low income people pay little in taxes. Not going to make much difference especially if consumption does go down and those revenues are no longer there to provide for them. You also say that the tax will only be a few hundred dollars but that is only the direct tax to the individual. You ignore the added increase in prices on everything else due to those taxes.

The income tax cuts weren't just aimed at the lowest incomes.

Yes we have, I believe you said you were waiting for the price to come down or a grant.

And selling a car, downsizing, reducing energy use and buying offsets.

Of course, voting for anyone is really just close your eyes, fingers crossed speculation no matter what we may think to the contrary.

The other option is not to vote at all.

[Riverwind]

Neither have I, but I can give you a huge list causes of death that don't exist in northern climates. Malaria kills about 1 million people a year. Sleeping sickness infects 10's of thousands. Leprosy and Schistosomiasis are bitches.

Malaria has occured everywhere on the planet. Disease experts have repeatedly disputed the alarmist claims:

http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/reiter-042606.pdf

Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, and there were 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths in Archangel, close to the Arctic circle. The disease persisted in many parts of Europe until the advent of DDT. Clearly, temperature was not a limiting factor in its distribution or prevalence.

Here is an example of a cold related health problem that was omitted from the report:

http://err.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/15/101/185

I really don't believe that report was sufficiently objective and it is misleads people by making them think that warming is going to be all bad and no good.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Riverwind