You can watch my whole debate with Mark Cameron here. He tried to convince me that carbon taxes can be "conservative." I don't buy it. Here are my final thoughts...
WATCH the rest of my show when you become a Premium Member of TheRebel.media. It's fast and easy to join -- just CLICK HERE and get exclusive access to news, analysis and interviews the mainstream media won't show you!
> 1. What is the normal concentration of CO2 for the earth’s atmosphere and why is that value considered normal?
It depends upon what time range you are looking at. For the last million years or so, it is around 220 – 250 ppm, and we are now at 407 ppm of CO2.
But “normal” over the last 150 million years is more in the range of 2000 to 4000 ppm.
Plants will do much better with CO2 over 400 ppm.
At that point, you lose the election because we don’t vote for you any more. You just wait, we will get someone else.
At that point, you lose the election because we don’t vote for you any more. You just wait, we will get someone else.
Here are my questions:
1. What is the normal concentration of CO2 for the earth’s atmosphere and why is that value considered normal?
2. What are all of the natural causes that contribute to CO2 levels? Do they vary?
3. What are the other GHG’s in the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect? I know of methane and water vapour (technically not a gas)?
4. What factors other than GHG’s contribute to global temperatures and how do they vary? Examples might be ocean currents and the Suns radiation and solar activity.
5. How much CO2 emitted by human activity would need to be stopped to reduce global temperatures by one degree Celsius? What would be the cost in US dollars to achieve this one degree temperature reduction?
6. What happens to the money collected from carbon levies, taxes, etc? Who gets that money? How does the money prevent CO2 emissions?
7. Why do people refer to CO2 as carbon and not CO2?
8. Since human beings exhale CO2, why would there not be a tax for every human over their lifetime to account for their CO2 ‘pollution’?
9. Since we know that the earth’s climate has changed dramatically without human activity why do we think something unique is happening now?
10. Why do so many of the most vocal climate change alarmists (David Suzuki, Al Gore, Leonardo Decaprio, etc) live some of the most lavish lifestyles and ostensibly emit more CO2 than the average citizen? Why the double standard?
11. Why would anyone falsify data to support the climate change narrative? We know that numbers were deliberately cooked in studies to support a global temperature rise? Why would people do that in the name of science? Can the public trust scientists?
12. Why has there been so little (none from what I can see) objectivity in the major media outlets on this topic? Why has the CBC, BBC, Toronto Star, NYT, etc jumped in with both feet in accepting the climate change storyline?
13. If we contrast Nuclear weapons with CO2 emissions and climate change then why is there so little said about nuclear weapons when the danger from atomic missiles is more dangerous and likely?
By the way, since when does science operate by consensus? Do scientists now vote on the veracity of a scientific theory or fact? Science should be an enterprise based on objectivity and empirical facts. Consensus has nothing to do with it. If we have to appeal to ‘scientific consensus’ we should be suspicious. Is the public now so indifferent and possibly dumb that they cannot evaluate scientific facts on their own?
We are ‘sheople’ and I fear we are being led led towards the dinner table.
Keep on this guy.
Put on your investigative reporter hat;
and dig up the dirt on this rat’s nest of kickbacks, bribes, sweeteners, launderings, under the table payoffs, financial inducements, hush money, slush funds and outright kleptocracy.
Trace that money funnel upstream to its source;
it’ll probably lead to the head of the snake.
There is something immoral going on here;
when one has to be evasive to avoid the truth.
@climatefallacy
The French/Quebec Left have been doing it for years pretending that they are conservatives or may vote conservative, but will not if the cons don’t placate (butt kiss) Quebec and will not vote for them if the cons try and change bilingualism from a French/French languge preferential treatment tool.
Stanfield, Mulroney and Harper bought into it, sold out to Quebec and to the French Language Supremacists at the expense of other provinces and languages resulting in not getting elected, or losing an election that was not helped by the actual loss of true conservative votes who would not vote any party doing this, even if they were the least bigoted party in acting this way
Simple answer; anyone who is not Sean. Beyond that I seriously doubt there is an explanation!
Many believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) would see the fate of Icarus as a precursor of the fate of the human race. If carbon emissions are not reduced sufficiently to constrain AGW to a level that does not threaten dangerous climate change, our wings will indeed melt. The implication is that there is a case for government intervention in market activity to prevent this disastrous outcome.
It is true that the effects of AGW might prevent people from exercising their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; for example, their territory might be inundated. And it is also true that it is the duty of governments to protect these rights. However, this duty must not be discharged through government regulation of market processes, for several reasons. First, such a policy is based on the assumption of orthodox or neoclassical economics that AGW is a case of market failure, indeed ‘market failure on the greatest scale the world has seen’ . For, as Austrian economists and libertarian political philosophers argue, it is not markets that have failed but governments in failing to allocate property rights. Second, far from being the greatest market failure, the AGW hypothesis may rather be the greatest moral panic the world has ever seen.
There is no secure foundation in climate science for the current policy rhetoric; governments simply lack the knowledge to operate climate policy effectively. All existing climate policy instruments including taxes, subsidies, regulation and emissions trading should therefore be swept away. Both CINOs and socialists who see command economics (carbon taxing) as solutions should read this to understand how the private sector and true free market demand economics is the only way to achieve positive environmental goals
http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/article/2011/lp-3-10.pdf:
The face men pimping this mutated financial insider Marxist wealth grab are simply globalist bootlickers or useful idiots – the architects of this global shift in wealth are grey men who work for the globalist power elite in NYC, Brussels, The Hague, Bonn, Geneva, Bern, Rome and Vienna. This is the true fiscal power on the globe and they will be solidifying that power through the political influence of climate doom taxation. This commodifies the most abundant element on earth and monopolizes exchange trade in it – it is the new global currency and it is backed by the theft of profit from western commodity market supply chains and consumer base demand
Regimes for taxing “carbon” are essentially handcuffing productivity and prosperity and redirecting the wealth of the free market to corrupt insiders who want insulation from free market demand forces – it is market/productivity/supply chain/command economics writ large and it will destroy western prosperity for a wide segment of the lower stratas of society. It is the end of free market demand economies.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/cato-working-paper-33.pdf
Keith there you go talking about men blowing other men. Is that all you think about?
We are talking about kickback to Conservative politicians by shit bag marxists who abuse taxpayer dollars to make this happen. Everyone has a price.
Your price appears to be a minimum wage check from Soros and a couple of dry runs when Soros gets the itch. Keep sucking your way to a better life – you marxist turds call that socialist utopia, right???
Carbon tax is the first in a long line of, still to come, cleverly deceitful memes to control and steal from the economic engines (hard-working people & small businesses) of an advanced and peaceful society in order to serve the ego gratifications of power and entitlements. Utopian fantasies have disastrous consequences when reality and the human condition are ignored.
It is, and has been for some time, so ridiculously obvious that aversion for truth and UNcommonsense has seriously eroded and displaced critical thinking and analysis, facts, principles, values, and ethics in so many people, especially modern day leaders and politicians. The unchecked narcissistic ego of the petulant child along with the slight-of-hand Marxist indoctrination techniques has poisoned all areas of human life, all aided and abetted by the MSM, has manifested into extremely virulent delusional warping and departure from reality.
Witnessing the aggrandizement and proselytization of gross lies, deceitfulness, vulgarity, willful contempt, overt emotionalism, vengefulness and gross behaviors of politicians, leaders, people of influence, SWJ’s, special interest groups, extreme activists, and the media, et al, one can observe the devastating effects of the post-modern deconstructionism of a civil society and how this has severely impaired the social justice system, the courts, law enforcement, health care system, education, etc., etc., as well as, the general populace.
As of yet, there still remains two avenues to correcting this very serious problem in western society: Option 1) the preferential utilization of peaceful integrous voting (if available); or, Option 2) revolution/war. For Option 1 to be effective, it still requires the key element of integrous conservative leadership to vote for. As a safeguard, one must be prepared for Option 2.
Can you be ever so kind, Sean, and post a comment on your definition of what is “far right”? Please be specific. I really am curious what you think being “far right” entails.
Look at India, China, look at the debris in the oceans. Coral is dying and sealife is mutating. We are eating fish that are full of estrogen from women taking the pill (urine).
I agree with Henry Reardon. What is the point of all the possible destruction that could take place with environmental ‘solutions’, and I’m thinking wind turbines here, when much could be done in your own backyard, almost literally.
Me thinks it is a money scheme!
How’s your anal fixation today? GFY
“BC has had a carbon tax for about a decade, and the far right Gordon Campbell brought it in. The BC Liberals have been reelected at least twice since, thus it will be popular”
There is no far right in Canadian politics you bent little knob, it may seem that way to you because it is clear from your past postings that you are so far left that it is almost off the political chart.
Ezra has such thin skin. It’s always one set of rules for him, another set for everyone else. I honestly think the guy would die if he had to go a week without being worshipped by his viewers or if he had to go a week without making mountains out of molehills.
Really? Name one specific example Right, you don’t have one. Why don’t you fuck off and go blow your Hair-clog Trudeau over at Torstar / CBC????
This is not coming from secret elites. This is coming from shitbag Notley – extracting cash from a government budget is a piece of cake – either directly or through a vendor.
It was rumored that Wynne paid off Hudak to get those useless windmills into south western Ontario.
It’s called the single party system, much like the US. It’s all big goobmint, socialist thinking now – until the global financial collapse – then it will be called hell on earth.