Jump to content

I solved the carbon issue in Canada


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah some coastal flooding.   We’ll adapt easily.   

 


The Greenland ice sheet is 2900 km long and 1100 km wide at its widest point. It's average depth is 1.5 km. If it melts, we are f*****d. And then there is the Antarctic. which dwarfs Greenland.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 


The Greenland ice sheet is 2900 km long and 1100 km wide at its widest point. It's average depth is 1.5 km. If it melts, we are f*****d. And then there is the Antarctic. which dwarfs Greenland.

We should ship the melting water for human consumption.  Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2022 at 2:45 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Solution:  slap a large fee to the price of any new gas-only vehicle that has a hybrid or EV alternative, then use these fees to add more rebates to the cost of new hybrid and EVs.

ie:  A Toyota Corolla, which starts at $20k new, has a $5000 carbon fee, so costs 25k.  Toyota Prius starts at 30k new.  Add a $5k rebate, and the Prius and Corolla now cost the same, while the drivers get savings on gas refills due to the hybrid tech, and therefore many will choose the hybrid over the gas-only car.

This program is revenue-neutral.  You can also lower or eliminate the controversial carbon taxes.

Interesting idea….  Except, because ICE vehicle manufacturing vastly outnumbers EVs, it would not be revenue neutral whatsoever.  

Wouldn't it take forcing car makers to increase EVs so they’re available 1 for 1 to ICE’s?   How would little Canada do that?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh FFS here we go again with the blockheads repeating their denials.... 60% of this site's content.

Denier argument point #11: Why should we stop shitting in the well the Chinese kid is still shitting in the well...

 

As to you reply on subject - because we're still trying to get people to go EV in numbers abd initially subsidizing them should make more buyers, more production and therefor lower costs. That's the way it's supposed to work right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS here we go again with the blockheads repeating their denials.... 60% of this site's content.

Denier argument point #11: Why should we stop shitting in the well the Chinese kid is still shitting in the well...

 

As to you reply on subject - because we're still trying to get people to go EV in numbers abd initially subsidizing them should make more buyers, more production and therefor lower costs. That's the way it's supposed to work right?

There are already more buyers than EV's. As long as that is the case we don't need to subsidize them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm not talking about the second thing...  You brought up Al Gore not me.

Sorry Bud, it's cut the crap time. So are you trying to convince me that when you talk about "Climate Change" you're not talking about human caused climate catastrophism? Very well what's your problem then? Climate changes. So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

2. "Every winter we hear about something" Of course there are record cold temps every year but more heat records broken than cold records...

I don't know...

There's been some pretty freaky winter weather here and there for the last little while, causing all kinds of chaos.

Did you seriously not hear the one from some of those political scare merchants you call scientists trying to convince us warming causes cooling to excuse it?

Seriously...they have a whole theory and everything. I forget exactly how it goes. I was too busy laughing. Apparently some suckers actually take it serious.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

3. Can I have a link to the source ?

 

 

 

Of this graph, you mean?


24.jpg

See on the bottom left where it says JR Christy Univ. Alabama in Huntsville.

That's the source. Dr. Christy was appearing before a May 13 hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee where he "argued that the state-of-the-art models informing agency analyses of climate change “have a strong tendency to over-warm the atmosphere relative to actual observations.” To illustrate the point, Christy provided a chart comparing 102 climate model simulations of temperature change in the global mid-troposphere to observations from two independent satellite datasets and four independent weather balloon data sets."

https://cei.org/blog/manufacturing-alarm-dana-nuccitellis-critique-of-john-christys-climate-science-testimony/

Do you not know who John Christy is? He is the scientist who co-coordinates the global satellite temperatures with Dr. Roy Spencer.

In fact Dr. Spencer has another one:

certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


4. Why would somebody pick 2017-2021 or whatever ?   

 

I don't know why the Navy Scientists chose those dates for their prediction of Arctic Ice disappearing.

I do know they were wrong. 

I also know they are not the only dummies that have been wrong about Arctic ice disappearing.

Quote

 

2007 Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer 2013, and said the prediction was conservative. See here.

2007 NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally predicted that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer in 2012. See here.

2008 University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber predicted an ice-free North Pole for the first time in history in 2008, see here.

2010 Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC predicts the Arctic will be ice free in the summer by 2030, see here.

2012 Prof. Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge (UK), predicted a collapse of the Arctic ice sheet by 2015-2016, see here.

 

You can find the links to those warmist scientists incorrect predictions at the climate skeptic site, Watts Up With That, HERE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Sorry Bud, it's cut the crap time. So are you trying to convince me that when you talk about "Climate Change" you're not talking about human caused climate catastrophism? Very well what's your problem then? Climate changes. So what?

We have arrived at the second big topic: what to do.

The options are: accept risk or mitigate.

I actually haven't advocated much for either option.  Both have costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

I don't know why the Navy Scientists chose those dates for their prediction of Arctic Ice disappearing.

I do know they were wrong. 

I also know they are not the only dummies that have been wrong about Arctic ice disappearing.

You can find the links to those warmist scientists incorrect predictions at the climate skeptic site, Watts Up With That, HERE.

Ok I'll look these up... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Aristides said:

Learn the difference between an element and a compound. Compounds have characteristics that are totally different from the individual elements that make them up.

Sulfur, hydrogen and oxygen are all pretty benign, mix them together and you have sulphuric acid. Go drink a litre of that.

 

That has zero to do with what I posted.

We are supposedly discussing allotropes of oxygen. Not oxygen compounds.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2022 at 5:45 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Solution:  slap a large fee to the price of any new gas-only vehicle that has a hybrid or EV alternative, then use these fees to add more rebates to the cost of new hybrid and EVs.

ie:  A Toyota Corolla, which starts at $20k new, has a $5000 carbon fee, so costs 25k.  Toyota Prius starts at 30k new.  Add a $5k rebate, and the Prius and Corolla now cost the same, while the drivers get savings on gas refills due to the hybrid tech, and therefore many will choose the hybrid over the gas-only car.

This program is revenue-neutral.  You can also lower or eliminate the controversial carbon taxes.

Problem is that you've now priced out lower income families from the car market, which is always the Achilles heel of feel-good green plans. 

Economy cars are not our carbon problem.  Truck driving suburbanites and city-folk are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I did not. You just can't admit CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You just dance around it with nonsense.

 

I never claimed it wasn't.

CO2 is most certainly a greenhouse gas. We also breath it and it keeps the planet from freezing into a ball of ice. Too much oxygen is just as problematic as too much carbon dioxide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Problem is that you've now priced out lower income families from the car market, which is always the Achilles heel of feel-good green plans. 

Economy cars are not our carbon problem.  Truck driving suburbanites and city-folk are.  

Lower income families take the bus.  It's green!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I never claimed it wasn't.

CO2 is most certainly a greenhouse gas. We also breath it and it keeps the planet from freezing into a ball of ice. Too much oxygen is just as problematic as too much carbon dioxide.

Ok but we don't have too much oxygen, we have too much CO2.

If the best argument you have is that carbon is not the same as carbon dioxide, which most people with a high school diploma already know, then I'm not sure what your point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Ok but we don't have too much oxygen, we have too much CO2.

If the best argument you have is that carbon is not the same as carbon dioxide, which most people with a high school diploma already know, then I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Do we have too much CO2? Earth has had way higher CO2 levels in the past. So we're really not sure what too much is for this planet. Too many people...I can believe that. But unless we talk some sort of forced birth control...or worse...that ain't gonna happen easy. In not too too many years, we'll be looking at 10-12 billion by extrapolations. What good will civilization's sacrifice be today while there are 8 billion? Any gains will simply vanish in the growing numbers. So what to do...what to do....

BTW, Carbon isn't the same as Carbon-Dioxide. One is an allotrope element while the other is an atomic compound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,350
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    TomT
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Tony Hladun went up a rank
      Explorer
    • TomT earned a badge
      First Post
    • Contrarian went up a rank
      Veteran
    • ptif219 earned a badge
      First Post
    • waterman32 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...