Question about the Green Shift

[White Doors]

I joined this forum today, but already I have noticed a trend with you. I encourage everybody to check my claim. You think that by calling other subscibers "extreme",or "right wing" that you have made a point. My or anybody else's political leanings are not "points" or "facts", nor are they in anyway relevent to a discussion.

He enjoys labelling people extreme right wing if they do not agree with him.

He has labeled this to riverwind about 10 times in this thread.

When one has a weak argument you need to resort to labels.

I refer to the extreme left wing as the 'retarded left' but if I were to refer jdobbin as a member of the 'retarded left' I may get banned.

[madmax]

Now this Woman is PISSED !!!

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...reen-shift.aspx

Jennifer Wright: Mr. Dion, give me back my Green Shift

Posted: August 05, 2008, 10:00 AM by Kelly McParland

Full Comment

Put yourself in my sandals for a moment.

Having put the past 10 years of my life into growing a successful mission-based environmental company called Green Shift, I was furious when an official from Liberal leader Stephane Dion's office called me one evening a month ago to tell me that the following morning, the Liberal Party of Canada would release its proposed new environmental tax program under my trademark. She said we would benefit from the confusion they were about to foment.

[madmax]

You catch on quick.

I have been called "right wing" and "leftist" by those who disagree with my thoughts, positions or comments on these forums.

Obviously, the Right only see the labelling done by those on the left and the Left only see the labelling of those on the right.

Wilbers is right, you catch on quick.

Keep the discussion moving forward.

My favourite quote is a bi line used on this forum by one regular poster who keeps moving the discussion forward, amidst the flames, whether you agree with him or not.

Courtesy of Riverwind....

"To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.".

Of course, I am typing this from my Helicopter.

Edited August 5, 2008 by madmax

[madmax]

He enjoys labelling people extreme right wing if they do not agree with him.

He has labeled this to riverwind about 10 times in this thread.

When one has a weak argument you need to resort to labels.

I refer to the extreme left wing as the 'retarded left' but if I were to refer jdobbin as a member of the 'retarded left' I may get banned.

The irony of ironies being that you support the Green Shift in your Province.

White Doors Said

I think this is a good thing.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/316148

To pay for the deep tax cuts, the document is suggesting the Harmonized Sales Tax be raised by two per cent, essentially moving into the tax room vacated by the federal government. As well, the government will examine a carbon tax modeled after British Columbia, which includes a $100 climate action dividend and low-income tax credits.

You appear to argue both for and against a Carbon Tax at the same time. Good for New Brunswick, Bad for Canada.

Infact you argue that it is good to INCREASE the PST 2% and have a Carbon Tax.

The position you advocate is more taxing then the Campbell Government. More taxing then the Green Shift.

More importantly, you like to engage in cheap shots like this.

I refer to the extreme left wing as the 'retarded left' but if I were to refer jdobbin as a member of the 'retarded left' I may get banned.

No, you aren't going to get banned.

[jdobbin]

I refer to the extreme left wing as the 'retarded left' but if I were to refer jdobbin as a member of the 'retarded left' I may get banned.

I have no problem if someone wants to classify a position as left wing or right wing.

I do have a problem with someone using the word retarded to describe someone's thinking processes in any conversation though. It is an offensive word to many people.

Edited August 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

No, you aren't going to get banned.

No, he will likely be warned as others have for his use of word that is considered insulting to those with mental disabilities.

[jdobbin]

Courtesy of Riverwind....

"To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.".

Who seems prone to insults and labelling in many of the replies I receive.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stop the personal attacks and insults. If they continue, posting privileges will be suspended.

Focus on discussing various questions regarding "The Green Shift" in a civil manner or do not post in this thread.

[White Doors]

The irony of ironies being that you support the Green Shift in your Province.

White Doors Said

I think this is a good thing.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/316148

You appear to argue both for and against a Carbon Tax at the same time. Good for New Brunswick, Bad for Canada.

Infact you argue that it is good to INCREASE the PST 2% and have a Carbon Tax.

The position you advocate is more taxing then the Campbell Government. More taxing then the Green Shift.

More importantly, you like to engage in cheap shots like this.

No, you aren't going to get banned.

I see. You sure you aren't projecting what you think I think?

If so, I am sure you will be able to find exactly where I said this 'taxation' policy that Dion is proposing is bad?

waiting anxiously for that - or an apology.

thanks

[White Doors]

I have no problem if someone wants to classify a position as left wing or right wing.

I do have a problem with someone using the word retarded to describe someone's thinking processes in any conversation though. It is an offensive word to many people.

Well luckily you aren't a moderator so until a moderator tells me that retarded is not an acceptable adjective i will continue to use it when I see fit - your sensibilities notwithstanding.

[madmax]

I see. You sure you aren't projecting what you think I think?

If so, I am sure you will be able to find exactly where I said this 'taxation' policy that Dion is proposing is bad?

waiting anxiously for that - or an apology.

thanks

It may be coming. Clarify this for me.

You Support Dion and his Green Shift Platform.

Yes or No?

A simple YES and I will retract, clarify and apologies for suggesting that you are both for and against a Tax/green Shift Stratetgy.

I will not project what you "think". You have the opportunity to do so yourself.

[White Doors]

You already projected it.

What do I think about the greenshift tax? I like consumption based taxes better than income taxes so at first blush, I liked this policy initiative. However, after I looked at the details I found it to be alot about tax shifting, more credits to lower income people etc etc and it is not revenue neutral.

NB tax plan however (if you bothered to look into it in detail) is giving more in tax breaks than it is making up for in tax increases. Just the opposite of this plan.

So in short, I like the overall philosophy of both, but in practice NB's plan is much better in my opinion, than Dion's.

PS: NB's tax system is also going flat tax income tax and their tax reform is not 'sold' as environmental policy - it is sold as tax reform which is exactly what both are. If Dion's included a flat tax income tax in this and was truly revenue neutral or revenue negative (like NB's) I would vote for Dion in the next election. As it is, I will be voting liberal in the next NB election. Incidentally, the tax reform being proposed and hopefully implemented is being brought in by the provincial liberal party.

Any other stereotypes of me that I can shatter for you today?

Are you going to man-up and apologize now?

[madmax]

You already projected it.

What do I think about the greenshift tax? I like consumption based taxes better than income taxes so at first blush, I liked this policy initiative. However, after I looked at the details I found it to be alot about tax shifting, more credits to lower income people etc etc and it is not revenue neutral.

NB tax plan however (if you bothered to look into it in detail) is giving more in tax breaks than it is making up for in tax increases. Just the opposite of this plan.

So in short, I like the overall philosophy of both, but in practice NB's plan is much better in my opinion, than Dion's.

PS: NB's tax system is also going flat tax income tax and their tax reform is not 'sold' as environmental policy - it is sold as tax reform which is exactly what both are. If Dion's included a flat tax income tax in this and was truly revenue neutral or revenue negative (like NB's) I would vote for Dion in the next election. As it is, I will be voting liberal in the next NB election. Incidentally, the tax reform being proposed and hopefully implemented is being brought in by the provincial liberal party.

Any other stereotypes of me that I can shatter for you today?

Are you going to man-up and apologize now?

I said

You appear to argue both for and against a Carbon Tax at the same time. Good for New Brunswick, Bad for Canada.

I certainly will.

Did you just tell me you were in favour of Dions Plan or Not?

regardless

I apologise for projecting that you were for the NB Tax Shift and Against the Dion Tax shift.

[White Doors]

My contention was with how I appeared I was against Dion's greenshift when I had not said where I stood.

Then I explain exactly where I do stand on it.

carry on.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Can we hold on a second here? As per another thread, what is the point in increasing taxes on carbon?

The world hasn't warmed in ten years.

Can we address the REASON for a tax increase before talking about it's merits please?

As well, anyone who thinks the Liberals are going to cut taxes by the same amount that they increase carbon taxes is living in a fantasy world.

Sure. Trust us. Elect us and we'll cut your taxes?

Haven't we heard this before, in the RED BOOK which promised to eliminate the GST?

[jdobbin]

Haven't we heard this before, in the RED BOOK which promised to eliminate the GST?

As far as the warming has stopped claim:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5000117,00.html

Last year the World Meteorological Organisation announced that the 11 hottest years on record have all occurred in the past 13 years.

This finding was based on the UK's Hadley Centre temperature data.

Even Andrew's favoured satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere show that the hottest decade was 1999 to 2008 and that the decade before that was cooler, and the decade before cooler still.

Andrew also claims that the seas have stopped rising because of a dip in 2007.

But he left out the standard "inverse barometer" correction - with this the blip then vanishes.

Also, the Tory policy book said they would end the excise tax and not eliminate income trusts.

[Riverwind]

Even Andrew's favoured satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere show that the hottest decade was 1999 to 2008 and that the decade before that was cooler, and the decade before cooler still.

This is a BS argument. The number of record years in row has no bearing on whether the temperatures are rising or falling. No matter how much the alarmists spin they cannot refute the fact that temperatures over the last 8 years have not risen as they should have according to AGW theory. The only defence they have is to insist that the trend is a blip and will turn around soon but that is an expression of faith - not fact.

The sea temperatures did show a dramatic cooling but were revised to show a slight cooling. A slight cooling is still trouble for the AGW theory because it demonstrates that the extra heat is not going into the oceans. In fact, one alarmiss scientist Kenneth Tremberth actually suggested the missing heat is being radiated into space which is an interesting claim because this is extactly the behavoir predicted by scientists like Linzden and Spencer who feel the IPCC dramatically over estimates the sensitivity of the climate to CO2.

[noahbody]

Even Andrew's favoured satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere show that the hottest decade was 1999 to 2008 and that the decade before that was cooler, and the decade before cooler still.

...and the decade before we were headed for another ice age.

[jdobbin]

...and the decade before we were headed for another ice age.

Only the media was saying that. There certainly wasn't a consensus of scientists.

[jdobbin]

This is a BS argument. The number of record years in row has no bearing on whether the temperatures are rising or falling. No matter how much the alarmists spin they cannot refute the fact that temperatures over the last 8 years have not risen as they should have according to AGW theory. The only defence they have is to insist that the trend is a blip and will turn around soon but that is an expression of faith - not fact.

The sea temperatures did show a dramatic cooling but were revised to show a slight cooling. A slight cooling is still trouble for the AGW theory because it demonstrates that the extra heat is not going into the oceans. In fact, one alarmiss scientist Kenneth Tremberth actually suggested the missing heat is being radiated into space which is an interesting claim because this is extactly the behavoir predicted by scientists like Linzden and Spencer who feel the IPCC dramatically over estimates the sensitivity of the climate to CO2.

I'm afraid that no matter how angry you get about it that most scientists still disagree with your point of view.

[Riverwind]

I'm afraid that no matter how angry you get about it that most scientists still disagree with your point of view.

Actually, I don't think any respectable scientist would disagree with my statements above. The planet has not been warming - that is an undenial fact and the alarmists have no choice but to pray that the weather changes and it starts warming again.

[jdobbin]

Actually, I don't think any respectable scientist would disagree with my statements above. The planet has not been warming - that is an undenial fact and the alarmists have no choice but to pray that the weather changes and it starts warming again.

A respectable scientist did disagree with you.

Barry Brooks is no alarmist.

[Riverwind]

Barry Brooks is no alarmist.

His words demostrate otherwise. Only an alarmist would use red herring arguments like the number of record temperatures and misrepresent what is happening which the ocean temperature measurements.

[jdobbin]

His words demostrate otherwise. Only an alarmist would use red herring arguments like the number of record temperatures and misrepresent what is happening which the ocean temperature measurements.

Only a denialist would categorize a respected scientist as an alarmist.

He makes his case very clearly and calmly and does so without raising the spectre of alarm with it.

Edited August 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[eyeball]

Its unfortunate there's no military solution to AGW. I bet 90% of the skeptics around here would be on board in a flash.