# Taxes: where is the money going, and is it worth it?



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/government-spending-taxes

Canadians pay more in taxes than food.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

A few facts to ponder:

1. Canada (because of our large land mass and tree cover) actually consumes more CO2 than we emit
2. Ontario emits less CO2 in a year than China does in a DAY
3. China is specifically exempt from carbon taxes-shmuck Ontario taxpayers aint
4. In a non-corrupt universe, revenue from carbon taxes would be specifically allocated to PLANTING TREES-that aint the grifter plan

That is just one of the myriad taxes-draw your own conclusions.


----------



## chantl01 (Mar 17, 2011)

The Fraser Institute study debunked - year after year:

https://www.pressprogress.ca/canadi...institute_study_that_been_debunked_many_times


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

chantl01 said:


> The Fraser Institute study debunked - year after year:
> 
> https://www.pressprogress.ca/canadi...institute_study_that_been_debunked_many_times


These are good points. Thanks.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

chantl01 said:


> The Fraser Institute study debunked - year after year:
> 
> https://www.pressprogress.ca/canadi...institute_study_that_been_debunked_many_times


This got thrown up over at the FWF as well - thanks for the pressprogress link.

Just as a note, buying a pair of 2%-indexed single-life annuities for two 65-year olds to roughly match OAS payments (no clawback, no GIS) would probably be around $250-300K. A little something for the lifetime of taxes...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Canadians pay some of the lowest tax rates, and get some of the best services, among wealthy western countries.

I'm now working in Oregon USA and I pay more total tax than I paid living in Ontario. In fact my taxes in the US are about the same as living in Manitoba.

And yet in Canada, I would get healthcare as well as a solvent pension (CPP). Worth every penny, I'm telling you -- don't complain about taxes in Canada


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Canadians pay some of the lowest tax rates, and get some of the best services, among wealthy western countries.
> 
> I'm now working in Oregon USA and I pay more total tax than I paid living in Ontario. In fact my taxes in the US are about the same as living in Manitoba.
> 
> And yet in Canada, I would get healthcare as well as a solvent pension (CPP). Worth every penny, I'm telling you -- don't complain about taxes in Canada


Do you include HST or GST/PST for Canada? Oregon has no sales tax I think, and the US doesn't have a GST/VAT equivalent, so that works out a little differently. Of course, in Oregon, you don't have to pump your own gas...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

True, there is no sales tax in Oregon. Based on last year's spending I ran an analysis and determined that my Ontario taxes were quite comparable (the sales tax narrowed the gap and they became about equal). So yeah, can't ignore sales tax, but it didn't change the result dramatically.

It's somewhat of a myth -- based on 20 years ago -- that Canadian taxes are higher than American taxes. State tax rates have gone up a lot since the financial crisis -- this is all new. And sometimes people write these articles comparing the two countries' taxes without considering all the additional taxes requires in the USA, like medicare & social security (huge amounts!). Thus the total that you pay in US taxes, all in, is very close to what you pay in Canada.

There are indeed US states with lower taxes, but those tend to be places you won't want to live. When you look at a map of state tax rates, like this one:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-individual-income-tax-rates-and-brackets-2016

You'll see an interesting pattern. All the kinds of places Canadians would want to live (California, New York, Massachusetts) have high tax rates.

My point again is that Canadian taxes are not too different than US taxes. Even my accountant didn't believe this, until she looked at the net result numbers from my two tax returns. It's a misconception that Canadian taxes are much higher.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

chantl01 said:


> The Fraser Institute study debunked - year after year:
> https://www.pressprogress.ca/canadi...institute_study_that_been_debunked_many_times


Surely you are not suggesting that the Cdn Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Broadbent Institute, and a former Walrus editor are more credible, unbiased sources? ROFL :rolleyes-new:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

All of the people who work for all these groups, right, left or center have to push something out the door to justify their employment and there is nothing easier than retreading the same basic material every so often.

How many more "reports" will we see that CPP expansion is either the end of the world, or the best thing since sliced bread ?

I view them all as the mandatory safety meetings we had at work. Every 12 months the same brochures were recycled.

If is January, it must be "keep your workplace clean" safety talk month.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

OK, so we have some pros and cons here. Taxes maybe not so bad as FI claims. But here is another current thread on MRI's/health care

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/99114-MRI-at-Buffalo

that claims health care could be better with no extra $ spent. Wait times has been an issue for a long time. Why isn't it fixed if there is a better system?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Nelley said:


> A few facts to ponder:
> 
> 1. Canada (because of our large land mass and tree cover) actually consumes more CO2 than we emit
> 2. Ontario emits less CO2 in a year than China does in a DAY
> ...


Your concerns make sense to me. Their goofy co2 plan implies that there is no horrific climate catastrophe awaiting. If there was, they would not exempt the worst offenders.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Nelley said:


> A few facts to ponder:
> 
> 1. Canada (because of our large land mass and tree cover) actually consumes more CO2 than we emit
> 2. Ontario emits less CO2 in a year than China does in a DAY
> ...





Pluto said:


> Your concerns make sense to me. Their goofy co2 plan implies that there is no horrific climate catastrophe awaiting. If there was, they would not exempt the worst offenders.


I suspect this is more silly than sensible. From some 2012 numbers, Ontario would seem to emit around 171 megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 equivalent (CO2 plus others like methane converted to CO2 greenhouse equivalent) per year. China was at around 11 Gigatonnes (Gt), or 11000 Mt annually. So China's daily average would be around 30 Mt, or 17% of Ontario's annual number, not > 100% of it.

Much more importantly, it is a little known fact that China has quite a large population! If you look at per-capita numbers, China works out at around 8.1 tonnes per capita annually, while Ontario is >50% higher at 12.6 tonnes, and Canada as a whole 150% higher at 20.6 tonnes per capita. 

I don't know about what exactly is meant by Canada "consumes more CO2 than we emit", but I wouldn't be surprised if there there is some misunderstanding along the lines of matching natural take-up against only human emissions, or whatever. In any case, Canada is half a percent of world population on the second largest sovereign land mass - that sort of low-density is not a viable guide for the world!

Greenhouse warming doesn't respect boundaries. The world as a whole is going to have to figure out a way to come up with an emission budget, and billions of people in developing countries are going to want a reasonable quality of life just as much as existing developed citizens will be loathe to invest in ways to more sustainably support their economies with fewer emissions. Everyone is going to have to work together to come up solutions that we all can (somewhat literally) live with.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

NorthernRaven said:


> I suspect this is more silly than sensible. From some 2012 numbers, Ontario would seem to emit around 171 megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 equivalent (CO2 plus others like methane converted to CO2 greenhouse equivalent) per year. China was at around 11 Gigatonnes (Gt), or 11000 Mt annually. So China's daily average would be around 30 Mt, or 17% of Ontario's annual number, not > 100% of it.


Figure 2 shows China at about 11,000 Mt in 2012 and Canada at about 700 Mt in 2012. So Canada emits about 6.4% of China's CO2e. 
Table 1 shows that in 2013 Ontario produced 171 Mt (24% of Canada's total). So Ontario emits about 1.5% of China's CO2e (or China emits 64.3x more).
Per capita, look at China's growth in emissions. Up about 3x from 1990-2012 (Figure 3) while Canada's emissions over the same time have dropped. Which country would seem to face the bigger challenge?

And to all of us armchair analysts, how many have more than 1 vehicle in the driveway? How fuel efficient is the one we have. How many of us take transit? Have we gotten rid of the fireplace or woodstove? Installed high efficiency water heater and furnace?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

WTF??? Yes, Canada has a small population and a large land mass-THIS IS OUR COUNTRY. So you are blaming Canadians for global overpopulation and global emissions? Secondly, the planet isn't warming-only a moron would think that Soros or Goldman Sachs are in the saving the planet business.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Pluto said:


> OK, so we have some pros and cons here. Taxes maybe not so bad as FI claims. But here is another current thread on MRI's/health care


It's a tradeoff. Here in the US, I just went to see a doctor for a simple skin rash, and the visit cost me $400. And yes I have health insurance, but it doesn't cover everything and you are often stuck paying dollars out of your pocket.

My barber told me a story about his friend who caught a staph bacterial infection. He got hospitalized for it and racked up a half-million $ hospital bill. As a result he had to sell his house, and even though he negotiated down the final bill, he still ended up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Even Americans _with health insurance_ end up paying some large expenses like this. So there's your tradeoff. In Canada, your medical service may be slower and you may not get the most cutting-edge services. However, you will never become homeless or have your finances ruined as a result of relatively routine health problems. And poor people in Canada can actually go to the doctor, something that's impossible in the USA.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Nelley said:


> the planet isn't warming


_Eppur si muove_...


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

NorthernRaven said:


> _Eppur si muove_...


Yeah, lets just go with the science this time..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves

I saved the newspaper that said the catholic church forgave Galileo, 400 years later; have it in my sock drawer.

Four.. hundred.. years.. late, yeah.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

You don't have to be Einstein or Tesla to see through this scam-we have MAYBE 50 years of reliable temperature data (and that is a stretch, globally speaking)-the planet is actually older than 50 years old some scientists believe so JUST MAYBE we don't have a material amount of data to make conclusions. But what the heck-lets just give a fortune to some Wall Street grifters and that will save us just like any other ignorant ritual.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

No we have data going back hundreds of thousands of years; co-related it adds up; again, lets go with the science.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

I guess your caveman ancestors caused the ice age or maybe they caused the ice melt-us humans have been monkeying (pun intended) with this planet's climate since we came out of the trees.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

Nelley said:


> 2. Ontario emits less CO2 in a year than China does in a DAY


Err, you do realize that China has 100 times the population of Ontario??

A more useful comparison is emissions per capita, in which case China is roughly half of Canada.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Nelley said:


> I guess your caveman ancestors caused the ice age or maybe they caused the ice melt-us humans have been monkeying (pun intended) with this planet's climate since we came out of the trees.


Ok, so from that, guessing you're a bible nut then?
Doesn't add much to your credibility when you're claiming that science is part of the great conspiracy


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

Nelley said:


> I guess your caveman ancestors caused the ice age or maybe they caused the ice melt-us humans have been monkeying (pun intended) with this planet's climate since we came out of the trees.


How is it possible that anyone still uses the "because it happened naturally in the past it is all natural now" argument? You are years behind in the topic if you are still clinging to that.

Are you next going to tell me that because forest fires occur naturally that none are ever started by human activity?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

You sound like you know even less about this subject than myself-but at least I am humble enough or realistic enough to admit it.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

chantl01 said:


> The Fraser Institute study debunked - year after year:
> 
> https://www.pressprogress.ca/canadi...institute_study_that_been_debunked_many_times


Thanks for posting this, I've done my own debunking for years, and it's getting tiring.

Other junk points to realize

1) social transfers to individuals is the largest government expenditure, so why aren't health, education, OAS, CPP, EI, welfare, and other social transfers not subtracted?
2) How is a couple paying only $10K in taxes by over $7K in "payroll" taxes, when that is flat out impossible?
3) How is a couple spending $9K on food, but only $17K in housing (i.e. mortgage or rent?)? Who spends that?
4) The average couple makes more money according to stats Can, so where are these numbers coming from in the first place?


This is just terrible arm-chair reporting at best and flat out lying at worse.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> A few facts to ponder:
> 
> 1. Canada (because of our large land mass and tree cover) actually consumes more CO2 than we emit
> 2. Ontario emits less CO2 in a year than China does in a DAY
> ...


Wynne is a jerk, but I'm not sure what here horrible policies have to do with the topic. I'd like to see both her and Dulltun up on charges for corruption, but that's another matter.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Surely you are not suggesting that the Cdn Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Broadbent Institute, and a former Walrus editor are more credible, unbiased sources? ROFL :rolleyes-new:


I don't think anyone would suggest that, but they also don't try to pull the wool over the public's eye every year about the taxes they pay.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> You don't have to be Einstein or Tesla to see through this scam-we have MAYBE 50 years of reliable temperature data (and that is a stretch, globally speaking)-the planet is actually older than 50 years old some scientists believe so JUST MAYBE we don't have a material amount of data to make conclusions. But what the heck-lets just give a fortune to some Wall Street grifters and that will save us just like any other ignorant ritual.


Sorry, but science overwhelmingly accepts AGW, and we have a lot of data on it. I'm not sure how much of the dire predictions are going to come true, but there is little to argue that the temperatures are rising and that we have a significant hand it it.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Sorry, but science actually isn't a popularity contest or a political correctness contest-a long list of reputable scientists say you are wrong-and when big money is pushing to silence dissent on any subject they aren't doing it for altruism.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> It's a tradeoff. Here in the US, I just went to see a doctor for a simple skin rash, and the visit cost me $400. And yes I have health insurance, but it doesn't cover everything and you are often stuck paying dollars out of your pocket.
> 
> My barber told me a story about his friend who caught a staph bacterial infection. He got hospitalized for it and racked up a half-million $ hospital bill. As a result he had to sell his house, and even though he negotiated down the final bill, he still ended up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> 
> Even Americans _with health insurance_ end up paying some large expenses like this. So there's your tradeoff. In Canada, your medical service may be slower and you may not get the most cutting-edge services. However, you will never become homeless or have your finances ruined as a result of relatively routine health problems. And poor people in Canada can actually go to the doctor, something that's impossible in the USA.


I should have specified that it was the Netherlands and some other European countries that had lower wait times, universal health care, and similar cost to Canada that I was referring to in the other thread (not USA). How come Canada can't do it like (reportedly) the Netherlands does it?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

mrPPincer said:


> Yeah, lets just go with the science this time..
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves
> 
> I saved the newspaper that said the catholic church forgave Galileo, 400 years later; have it in my sock drawer.
> ...


I think that the new church could be the co2 = global warming ideology where dissenters get persecuted. Climate science has not matured to the point where it is "settled". There is still lots of research to do on sun cycles and other possible factors. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

In the meantime China and other countries continue to build coal fired plants and apparently that's ok because their per capita output is lower than other countries. I don't get it. It implies that there is no climate catastrophe awaiting us.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Pluto: You are supposed to question anything-just pay your carbon tax like the sheep.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Pluto said:


> I think that the new church could be the co2 = global warming ideology where dissenters get persecuted. Climate science has not matured to the point where it is "settled". There is still lots of research to do on sun cycles and other possible factors.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
> 
> In the meantime China and other countries continue to build coal fired plants and apparently that's ok because their per capita output is lower than other countries. I don't get it. It implies that there is no climate catastrophe awaiting us.


Nobody is persecuted for being ignorant of the state of the science on climate change. They may be ridiculed but to claim persecution is to engage in hyperbole. 

No science has every matured to the point where it is "settled". Climate science has matured to the point where climate scientists have been able to determine that the planet is warming. The scientists modelled data from the sun and other systems and found that they are insufficient to explain the warming. They demonstrated that human activity is upsetting the delicate balance.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Calling these GW grifters "scientists" is an insult to real scientists. When you continually falsify data to reach the conclusion you are paid to arrive at you are not a scientist.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Nelley said:


> Calling these GW grifters "scientists" is an insult to real scientists. When you continually falsify data to reach the conclusion you are paid to arrive at you are not a scientist.


So the entire scientific community is a bunch of grifters :stupid:, aside from a couple oil-lobby plonks with paid-for letters behind their name; you do realise that the so-called list of scientists that are global climate change deniers was BS, right?

Most of the real names on that list that were outraged to find out they were included, that's very old news, like several years old, possibly approaching a decade now, yet apparently it's still convincing to global climate change conspiracy theorists like yourself.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

IMHO once someone resorts to using "conspiracy theory" as an argument they are admitting defeat.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Um.. you just finished calling the science community a bunch of grifters.. I don't know how that can be anything other than "conspiracy theory", sorry. But I accept that you are bowing out. Later


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Canadians pay some of the lowest tax rates, and get some of the best services, among wealthy western countries.
> 
> I'm now working in Oregon USA and I pay more total tax than I paid living in Ontario. In fact my taxes in the US are about the same as living in Manitoba.
> 
> And yet in Canada, I would get healthcare as well as a solvent pension (CPP). Worth every penny, I'm telling you -- don't complain about taxes in Canada


I doubt it, the tax brackets line up that Oregon (state+Federal) is substantially less than Manitoba (provincial + Federal)

CPP is paid from CCP contributions, not income tax. 

Where does our money go? If you're asking, you likely don't want to know.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Sorry, but science actually isn't a popularity contest or a political correctness contest-a long list of reputable scientists say you are wrong-and when big money is pushing to silence dissent on any subject they aren't doing it for altruism.


Correct, and over 95% of climate researchers say AGW is real vs. a group of mostly engineers who don't believe it. OTOH the big money is AKA Big Oil, and Exxon's own memos from the 80's indicate it knew about what affect CO2 would do to global temperatures, but have adopted Tobacco's campaign of obfuscating and outright lying.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Calling these GW grifters "scientists" is an insult to real scientists. When you continually falsify data to reach the conclusion you are paid to arrive at you are not a scientist.


I hear this type of phrase a lot, only it's with creationists.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Thats a new one-how do you link Grifters to creation?


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Thats a new one-how do you link Grifters to creation?


I'm linking you're statement with creationists. You're parroting the exact same nonsense phrase. Do you even know what branch climate researchers come from?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Maybe Branch Davidian-makes about as much sense as what you are typing.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Maybe Branch Davidian-makes about as much sense as what you are typing.


Not sure where you're getting lost, but let me try to make it even clearer. 

You - I believe in science - climate change isn't real science.
Creationist - I believe in science - evolution isn't real science. 

Make sense? Climate science, BTW is a cross-discipline, which is dominated by physics, with chemistry also representing a significant part, but also involving geology, and ecology.

To be even clearer on my stance - climate change is scientifically valid. AWG is scientifically valid. However, I find the models are overstated, and need to be updated to reflect current data. I also am not sure in how dire things are going to be, but I sure don't want to find out that it's as bad as they say.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Newsflash: Science isn't a popularity contest or a political correctness contest-neither is reality. I guess your theory is that evil Donald Trump is funding all the climate skeptic scientists (every one of which is far more informed and credible than yourself).


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Al Gore and his pseudoscientific fiction movies are, to a large extent, responsible for the lack of trust in science.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Newsflash: Science isn't a popularity contest or a political correctness contest-neither is reality. I guess your theory is that evil Donald Trump is funding all the climate skeptic scientists (every one of which is far more informed and credible than yourself).


Newsflash, I know! I have an advanced degree in it, so I sorta...kinda..you know...actually did this for a living.
And no, it's the Koch brothers funding this.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

mordko said:


> Al Gore and his pseudoscientific fiction movies are, to a large extent, responsible for the lack of trust in science.


I have little time for Gore because I he's a hypocrite. This is a person who makes money off brokering carbon credits, which is often just investing in a company that is working on green energy. I say "working on" because they don't even have to produce a product.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Market: OK-you have an "advanced degree in this"-so you are the HONEST climate scientist-every other scientist that disagrees with your genius is a liar or ignorant or working for Dr. Evil. Somehow you haven't convinced anyone.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Market: OK-you have an "advanced degree in this"-so you are the HONEST climate scientist-every other scientist that disagrees with your genius is a liar or ignorant or working for Dr. Evil. Somehow you haven't convinced anyone.


Wow, you really are a piece of work. Do you often just go around arguing about subjects that you are obviously not knowledge about? You should look up the Dunning-Krugger effect.

I just mentioned that there is over 95% agreement on this, what scientists are you even talking about? Do you know that not even those who don't believe AWG don't dispute that increasing CO2 has a warming effect? The argument is over magnitude, and the positive and negative feedback. There is also an issue with the models and the outcomes, but there is no disputing the earth has warmed with the increase of CO2.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> NorthernRaven said:
> 
> 
> > Do you include HST or GST/PST for Canada? Oregon has no sales tax I think, and the US doesn't have a GST/VAT equivalent, so that works out a little differently. Of course, in Oregon, you don't have to pump your own gas...
> ...


The Feds don't which helps across the board but unless one plans to live in the five US states that don't have it (Oregon being one of them), most states do have sales taxes. 

The next level is whether county and/or city impose sales taxes as well. As an example, Alabama state sales tax is 4% but it can be as high as 13.5% where the county/city sales tax is added to the total.

Telecommunications have a special tax that is described as "similar to a sales tax".

Alaska has zero state taxes where living in a particular location means pay a 7% sales tax.


What's the saying? 

.... location, location, location ... :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Market: Your insults do not compensate for your ignorance-you continually refer to popularity of opinion, political correctness of opinion. That is not science.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Market: Your insults do not compensate for your ignorance-you continually refer to popularity of opinion, political correctness of opinion. That is not science.


Sorry Nelley, but what Market Lost is talking about IS science. It's like flat earth - round earth argument. Popularity of opinion among scientists happens to have a pretty good correlation with scientific facts. 

There really isn't anyone with any knowledge of fairly basic physics who would deny correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and warming effects. The argument is about the rate at which this will happen and about other factors.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Sorry Mordko, but your flat earth analogy is just plain lazy and stupid. Try to look at this whole AWG argument with a clear head-take out all the B/S you have swallowed so far-a reasoning adult would conclude it is a farce from top to bottom-why don't you justify again why a scientist faced with the dire problem you state would think it is logical to let the biggest producer (China) ramp up output? What a joke.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

I am a physicist and consider myself a "reasoning adult". I have not "swallowed" anything. China, etc... - that's politics and a separate issue. 

CO2/warming effect is a scientific fact, in as much as there are simple reproducible experiments that demonstrate this. Denying this correlation is exactly like claiming that the earth is flat. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and ignorance.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

mordko said:


> I am a physicist and consider myself a "reasoning adult". I have not "swallowed" anything. China, etc... - that's politics and a separate issue.
> 
> CO2/warming effect is a scientific fact, in as much as there are simple reproducible experiments that demonstrate this. Denying this correlation is exactly like claiming that the earth is flat. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and ignorance.


I'm not aware of anyone who denies co2 is a greenhouse gas. But climate is clearly a more complex issue with many variables that have not been accounted for. 
While the contemporary dialogue focuses on industrial sources of greenhouse gases, and recent warming, it declines to explain or even attempt to explain the warming that took place since the end of the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. That's how illusionists work: they distract the attention of the audience in order to successfully perform their trick. They constantly draw attention to 1850 onward and industrial sources of co2 as if previously, the climate never changed. So what ended previous ice ages? People burning whale oil? Clearly there are other factors at work besides co2 and these other factors are powerful and have not been accounted for. 


I was recently referred to a video of a Berkley climate scientist who admitted that there had been a flattening of the global temperature since about 1997, but that empirical observation, that anomaly, did not shake his faith in his theories of co2 produced climate change, and it didn't precipitate any question that maybe there were other factors as well. Incidentally, he freely admitted that there is no consensus - some scientists, he said, underrate the problem whole others overstate it. 

In the meantime we are subjected to carbon taxes, and sheep farmers in some locals are subjected to fart taxes. Good grief.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Yes, it is a very complex issue and I have doubts that carbon taxes are going to be all that helpful in preventing warming.

It's just that Nelley appears to deny there is connection between CO2 releases and global warming.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Mordko: Finally you write something reasonable-what is the point of arguing simply to argue?


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Pluto said:


> ...But climate is clearly a more complex issue with many variables that have not been accounted for...While the contemporary dialogue focuses on industrial sources of greenhouse gases, and recent warming, it declines to explain or even attempt to explain the warming that took place since the end of the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. That's how illusionists work: they distract the attention of the audience in order to successfully perform their trick. They constantly draw attention to 1850 onward and industrial sources of co2 as if previously, the climate never changed. So what ended previous ice ages? People burning whale oil? Clearly there are other factors at work besides co2 and these other factors are powerful and have not been accounted for.


Actually, there _was_ an increase in CO2 around that time of the last ice melt - say from 180ppm to 260ppm (we've spiked it to 400 already), although there may be long term solar variance or other things involved in various climate changes in the planet's history. Here's a graph of CO2 over the last few hundred thousand years. It isn't like climate scientists just blindly miss obvious things, or are sitting around trying to fool people into some ridiculously unbaked idea.

Trapped heat from increased greenhouse gasses is fairly basic physics and chemistry. What actually happens to the complex climate systems with feedback and other factors is where the modelling comes in, but I'm not aware of any ideas as to something that might magically keep the trapped heat from doing bad or worse things to the climate. At some point, what the models tell us is likely to happen is enough to make gambling on it somehow all being wrong would be a horrendously irresponsible gamble with the only planet we have!


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Market: Your insults do not compensate for your ignorance-you continually refer to popularity of opinion, political correctness of opinion. That is not science.


My ignorance? My insults? Do you read what you write, or do you just type at the keys in a random fashion?

I've asked at least twice now for you to name any scientist that backs you up, but you just repeat the same ridiculous assertion that there are these poor scientists that are being persecuted. You obviously have zero background in science, and are simply talking out your hat. You have nothing to offer, but your own ignorance, and incredulity, which means absolute bupkis.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Northern: Read that last sentence you wrote-clearly explain how that statement fits into giving the biggest emitter-China-a free ride to keep pumping it out-this MSM B/S is childish.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Pluto said:


> I'm not aware of anyone who denies co2 is a greenhouse gas. But climate is clearly a more complex issue with many variables that have not been accounted for.
> While the contemporary dialogue focuses on industrial sources of greenhouse gases, and recent warming, it declines to explain or even attempt to explain the warming that took place since the end of the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. That's how illusionists work: they distract the attention of the audience in order to successfully perform their trick. They constantly draw attention to 1850 onward and industrial sources of co2 as if previously, the climate never changed. So what ended previous ice ages? People burning whale oil? Clearly there are other factors at work besides co2 and these other factors are powerful and have not been accounted for.


No one disputes that there isn't a one to one relationship between CO2 and an increase in global temperatures. I've stated the models aren't good, and rely on a lot of positive feedback, which hasn't been shown to be an accurate predictor.



> I was recently referred to a video of a Berkley climate scientist who admitted that there had been a flattening of the global temperature since about 1997, but that empirical observation, that anomaly, did not shake his faith in his theories of co2 produced climate change, and it didn't precipitate any question that maybe there were other factors as well. Incidentally, he freely admitted that there is no consensus - some scientists, he said, underrate the problem whole others overstate it.


You're referring to Richard Muller, and you are likely referring to his video he made a few years back prior to his meta-analysis of the data. You should be aware that he came to the conclusion that humans were responsible for almost 100% of global warming. You can see an interview with him here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html





> In the meantime we are subjected to carbon taxes, and sheep farmers in some locals are subjected to fart taxes. Good grief.


The argument of a carbon tax is different than a connection between CO2 and global warming. I don't believe in a carbon tax either because taxing it doesn't address any issues other than to give money to countries who have little ability to generate carbon. This is counter productive in two ways. First, it just means big corporations can keep on with the status quo by paying what amounts to a fine. Second, it discourages developing countries to develop because the government can just milk the carbon taxes without doing anything to help their citizens.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Northern: Read that last sentence you wrote-clearly explain how that statement fits into giving the biggest emitter-China-a free ride to keep pumping it out-this MSM B/S is childish.


So now this is the heart of the issue, isn't it? Which "news" source do you prefer? Faux News? Breitbart? Perhaps News Max?


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Market: Is English your first language?


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

mordko said:


> I am a physicist and consider myself a "reasoning adult". I have not "swallowed" anything. China, etc... - that's politics and a separate issue.
> 
> CO2/warming effect is a scientific fact, in as much as there are simple reproducible experiments that demonstrate this. Denying this correlation is exactly like claiming that the earth is flat. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and ignorance.


I believe the first rule of science is "never argue with a physicist."


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Market: Is English your first language?


Yes, is it yours? I have my doubts.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Mordko: Finally you write something reasonable-what is the point of arguing simply to argue?


1. Energy policies of the Liberal government in Ontario are criminally negligent. The Oakville plant fiasco is but a tiny speckle in the universe of multi-billion waste and the destruction of provincial industry. They are using "climate change" to give away taxpayers money for nothing. 

2. Global warming is a scientific fact. 

1 and 2 do not contradict each other. Denial of 2 is a problem, it's part of a pattern which has been emerging whereas a bunch of ignoramuses enrich each others folklore through the web and create alternative reality.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

NorthernRaven said:


> Actually, there _was_ an increase in CO2 around that time of the last ice melt - say from 180ppm to 260ppm (we've spiked it to 400 already), although there may be long term solar variance or other things involved in various climate changes in the planet's history. Here's a graph of CO2 over the last few hundred thousand years. It isn't like climate scientists just blindly miss obvious things, or are sitting around trying to fool people into some ridiculously unbaked idea.
> 
> Trapped heat from increased greenhouse gasses is fairly basic physics and chemistry. What actually happens to the complex climate systems with feedback and other factors is where the modelling comes in, but I'm not aware of any ideas as to something that might magically keep the trapped heat from doing bad or worse things to the climate. At some point, what the models tell us is likely to happen is enough to make gambling on it somehow all being wrong would be a horrendously irresponsible gamble with the only planet we have!


1. but gambling with the future is what many do by vigorously opposing nuclear power, and turning a blind eye to China building coal fired plants at the rate of one a week. Don't you get that? If the consequences of co2 are so horrendous, why not shift to emissions free power? If nuclear power is worse than catastrophic global warming, I'm not worried. 

2. Isn't it possible that the warming effects of co2 plateaus? If not, why not? Apparently there has been a flattening in the global temps. Some scientists see that as evidence of a plateau. Others do not. Your cited graph, cleverly a linear graph as opposed to a log graph, making the rise look much more dramatic, doesn't seem to explain why there has been a two decade long flattening of the temps. Some years ago the UN, to its credit, acknowledged that the flattening was due to unknown natural factors. To my knowledge none of the believers are the least bit interested in what those unknown natural factors are. Instead they spend a great deal of energy explaining them away. The upshot is, their own data show a rise in co2 over the last 20 years, but the temp data is basically flat. this is what Kuhn would call an anomaly, an empirical observation that contradicts the theory yet gets rejected in favor of the theory.

3. Why didn't the graph go back further? Is there an inconvenient truth further back in time?


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Pluto said:


> 1. but gambling with the future is what many do by vigorously opposing nuclear power, and turning a blind eye to China building coal fired plants at the rate of one a week. Don't you get that? If the consequences of co2 are so horrendous, why not shift to emissions free power? If nuclear power is worse than catastrophic global warming, I'm not worried.
> 
> 2. Isn't it possible that the warming effects of co2 plateaus? If not, why not? Apparently there has been a flattening in the global temps. Some scientists see that as evidence of a plateau. Others do not. Your cited graph, cleverly a linear graph as opposed to a log graph, making the rise look much more dramatic, doesn't seem to explain why there has been a two decade long flattening of the temps. Some years ago the UN, to its credit, acknowledged that the flattening was due to unknown natural factors. To my knowledge none of the believers are the least bit interested in what those unknown natural factors are. Instead they spend a great deal of energy explaining them away. The upshot is, their own data show a rise in co2 over the last 20 years, but the temp data is basically flat. this is what Kuhn would call an anomaly, an empirical observation that contradicts the theory yet gets rejected in favor of the theory.
> 
> 3. Why didn't the graph go back further? Is there an inconvenient truth further back in time?


If 450K years is not sufficient, then what time frame do you believe would help convince you? I'm curious as to why you're willing to consider less than 20 years of flattening as being significant, yet a time frame of 225K times that - i.e several orders of magnitude larger - is not? In addition, it's not just as simple as saying that we've seen little increase over a 16 year period because the reality is that flattening doesn't equate to cooling. In fact every month this year has been hotter than any other month on record ,, and March was the single hottest month ever - http://www.livescience.com/55469-2016-could-be-hottest-year-on-record.html 

This is on top of the fact that last year was already a record year for temperature, and 15 of the hottest 16 years have occurred since 2000. This is totally consistent with the theory that the globe is warming, even if their isn't any large spike. You also have to remember that a model isn't meant to explain every single data point, this would be impossible. In addition, just because something is unexpected in the models doesn't mean it isn't consistent with the theory. A local blue-shifted galaxy doesn't disprove the theory that the universe is expanding. 

If we had 16 years of consistent cooling temperatures, then I would definitely side with you, and say that the evidence for AWG is weak, and likely not tenable. This is the way science works. In fact, I was skeptical for a number of years, but the more I looked into it, the more the evidence convinced me that AWG is a valid theory. In science you have to be agnostic, and go with what the data indicates. The more data we have, the more theory appears to be correct. Note, it isn't just surface temperatures, it's the temperature of the oceans, the melting of the glaciers around the globe, the decrease in arctic sea ice, as well as evidence from paleoclimatology all contributes to the evidence.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

Market Lost said:


> If 450K years is not sufficient, then what time frame do you believe would help convince you? I'm curious as to why you're willing to consider less than 20 years of flattening as being significant, yet a time frame of 225K times that - i.e several orders of magnitude larger - is not? In addition, it's not just as simple as saying that we've seen little increase over a 16 year period because the reality is that flattening doesn't equate to cooling. In fact every month this year has been hotter than any other month on record ,, and March was the single hottest month ever - http://www.livescience.com/55469-2016-could-be-hottest-year-on-record.html
> 
> This is on top of the fact that last year was already a record year for temperature, and 15 of the hottest 16 years have occurred since 2000. This is totally consistent with the theory that the globe is warming, even if their isn't any large spike. You also have to remember that a model isn't meant to explain every single data point, this would be impossible. In addition, just because something is unexpected in the models doesn't mean it isn't consistent with the theory. A local blue-shifted galaxy doesn't disprove the theory that the universe is expanding.
> 
> If we had 16 years of consistent cooling temperatures, then I would definitely side with you, and say that the evidence for AWG is weak, and likely not tenable. This is the way science works. In fact, I was skeptical for a number of years, but the more I looked into it, the more the evidence convinced me that AWG is a valid theory. In science you have to be agnostic, and go with what the data indicates. The more data we have, the more theory appears to be correct. Note, it isn't just surface temperatures, it's the temperature of the oceans, the melting of the glaciers around the globe, the decrease in arctic sea ice, as well as evidence from paleoclimatology all contributes to the evidence.


Your last sentence proves nothing, you are just saying the temperatures are going up, not that its caused by humans. 

Think about it, its much easier to disprove something then to prove it. If temperatures having been flat-lining for the last 20 years, then the theory that temperatures will undoubtedly go up because we are putting more C02 in the air must be false. You dont need 450k years of data for that. 

Also, if you've looked into the data, you would have found out that the largest greenhouse gas is water vapour. 90% of all GHG's is water vapour. The other 10% is made up of methane, CFC's, and C02. C02 makes up about 1-2% of the pie. Man made C02 makes up 50% of that number. And 50% of that is reabsorbed by plant life. Now the number is starting to get pretty small.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Market Lost said:


> No one disputes that there isn't a one to one relationship between CO2 and an increase in global temperatures. I've stated the models aren't good, and rely on a lot of positive feedback, which hasn't been shown to be an accurate predictor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was referring to Stephen Schneider 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWgLJrkK8NY

to the best of my recollection I have never heard of Muller. And since you told me that he believes almost 100% of warming is caused by humans, I'm not going to waste my time with him. It is plain as day climate has warmed and cooled long before humans were ever on the planet so his conclusion is very dubious and not worth the effort to learn about. It sounds like he is the kind of misguided person who prompts governments to tax carbon.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Market Lost said:


> In fact, I was skeptical for a number of years, but the more I looked into it, the more the evidence convinced me that AWG is a valid theory. In science you have to be agnostic, and go with what the data indicates.


I don't assume that "data" just exists free of human choices. Jones and Mann refused to release their raw data. Hmmmmm. Every time I encounter the word "data" I want to know the methods and the assumptions of the methods. there is no such thing as data free of assumptions that one must follow. there is always a margin of error in any measurement and I am not convinced that global temperatures are know with the degree of accuracy that is claimed. I'm not convinced that climate science is a mature as it is portrayed. for some reason they are obsessed with co2 to the exclusion of other possible factors and it isn't clear to me why that would be. 
It could be they are only focused on factors that are derived from human activity and they tend to ignore possible factors that have nothing to do with human activity because they have made a commitment to a preconceived conclusion. 

Again my skepticism is fueled in part by their rejection of emission free nuclear power, and their willingness to allow more and more coal fired plants. If AWG was as bad as they claim, they would surely gamble on nuclear power, at least in the interim. Reportedly the sun is ending one of its major cycles and entering an alleged cooler phase. It will take years to see how that pans out. In the meantime those who are worried about co2 don't seem to be concerned in the least about coal fired plants. Very strange.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Market Lost said:


> If 450K years is not sufficient, then what time frame do you believe would help convince you? I'm curious as to why you're willing to consider less than 20 years of flattening as being significant, yet a time frame of 225K times that - i.e several orders of magnitude larger - is not? In addition, it's not just as simple as saying that we've seen little increase over a 16 year period because the reality is that flattening doesn't equate to cooling. In fact every month this year has been hotter than any other month on record ,, and March was the single hottest month ever - http://www.livescience.com/55469-2016-could-be-hottest-year-on-record.html
> 
> This is on top of the fact that last year was already a record year for temperature, and 15 of the hottest 16 years have occurred since 2000. This is totally consistent with the theory that the globe is warming, even if their isn't any large spike. You also have to remember that a model isn't meant to explain every single data point, this would be impossible. In addition, just because something is unexpected in the models doesn't mean it isn't consistent with the theory. A local blue-shifted galaxy doesn't disprove the theory that the universe is expanding.
> 
> If we had 16 years of consistent cooling temperatures, then I would definitely side with you, and say that the evidence for AWG is weak, and likely not tenable. This is the way science works. In fact, I was skeptical for a number of years, but the more I looked into it, the more the evidence convinced me that AWG is a valid theory. In science you have to be agnostic, and go with what the data indicates. The more data we have, the more theory appears to be correct. Note, it isn't just surface temperatures, it's the temperature of the oceans, the melting of the glaciers around the globe, the decrease in arctic sea ice, as well as evidence from paleoclimatology all contributes to the evidence.


The thing I don't get is the timescale thing and the CO2 lag.
Here we're talking about 10, 20, 50 year timeframes as though they're significant.

However looking at ice core data, the temperature change happens BEFORE the CO2 change.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

The logic is really questionable, they admit that the first few hundred years of climate change might be due to something other than CO2, but suddenly after 800 years, they're "SURE" that CO2 takes over.

This linke "explains" the lag.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores

If they don't know what the initiating factor is, how do they know it stops and suddenly CO2 takes over and becomes the determining factor.
Sorry that explanation comes short. 
It's clear that the first 1/6 of Global warming is not CO2, but since the rate of increase is pretty much linear over those periods, what evidence is there that this unknown factor stops and CO2 takes over, but warming continues at pretty much the same rate?

That's a bit hard to swallow.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Karlhungus said:


> Your last sentence proves nothing, you are just saying the temperatures are going up, not that its caused by humans.


Think about it, its much easier to disprove something then to prove it. If temperatures having been flat-lining for the last 20 years, then the theory that temperatures will undoubtedly go up because we are putting more C02 in the air must be false. You dont need 450k years of data for that. 
[/quote]

I could argue that the fact that just because everyone we know has died, doesn't mean that I will, it just proves other will. However, I think that's rather silly.

Quick lesson in science, you don't prove anything, you provide evidence for it, we aren't talking math or philosophy, after all. Furthermore, you never set up an experiment that involves statistical analysis at proving your hypothesis. You actually assume your hypothesis is wrong - known as the "null hypothesis" - then you set out to see if you can reject it. 

Please re-read my last post because it address the difference between the "hiatus" as it is known, and an actual halt to global warming. In fact you can easily check to see that there has actually been absolutely no halt in the actual warming process - it has merely slowed. This is available here

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/




> Also, if you've looked into the data, you would have found out that the largest greenhouse gas is water vapour. 90% of all GHG's is water vapour. The other 10% is made up of methane, CFC's, and C02. C02 makes up about 1-2% of the pie. Man made C02 makes up 50% of that number. And 50% of that is reabsorbed by plant life. Now the number is starting to get pretty small.


I'm well aware of that. Your statement indicates that you didn't see that I use the term "positive feedback", as an increase in water vapour is obviously the largest part of the positive feedback loop. If you want, I can become more specific and talk about "forcings," but this isn't a science forum, and I imagine that most people would have their eyes glaze over.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Pluto said:


> I was referring to Stephen Schneider
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWgLJrkK8NY
> 
> to the best of my recollection I have never heard of Muller. And since you told me that he believes almost 100% of warming is caused by humans, I'm not going to waste my time with him. It is plain as day climate has warmed and cooled long before humans were ever on the planet so his conclusion is very dubious and not worth the effort to learn about. It sounds like he is the kind of misguided person who prompts governments to tax carbon.


So you just discount someone who has done the research because it doesn't confirm you opinion? Does this mean your mind is made up, and no facts will change them?

I think you really should look into his work, he was actually being hailed as a hero by your camp.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Pluto said:


> I don't assume that "data" just exists free of human choices. Jones and Mann refused to release their raw data. Hmmmmm. Every time I encounter the word "data" I want to know the methods and the assumptions of the methods. there is no such thing as data free of assumptions that one must follow. there is always a margin of error in any measurement and I am not convinced that global temperatures are know with the degree of accuracy that is claimed. I'm not convinced that climate science is a mature as it is portrayed. for some reason they are obsessed with co2 to the exclusion of other possible factors and it isn't clear to me why that would be.
> It could be they are only focused on factors that are derived from human activity and they tend to ignore possible factors that have nothing to do with human activity because they have made a commitment to a preconceived conclusion.
> 
> Again my skepticism is fueled in part by their rejection of emission free nuclear power, and their willingness to allow more and more coal fired plants. If AWG was as bad as they claim, they would surely gamble on nuclear power, at least in the interim. Reportedly the sun is ending one of its major cycles and entering an alleged cooler phase. It will take years to see how that pans out. In the meantime those who are worried about co2 don't seem to be concerned in the least about coal fired plants. Very strange.


So you are persuaded by the "Climategate" story, I see. I read the whole thing, and there was even independent reviews done in the UK, and the US. The results were pretty conclusive. The UK independent review was clear that there was no impropriety. While the Office of Inspector General of the National Academy of Science exonerated Mann. Perhaps, you are reading sites such as Climate Depot, where this is never mentioned?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

> Think about it, its much easier to disprove something then to prove it.


It's the other way around. Proving a negative is much harder, sometimes impossible. Non-existence of god is an obvious example. If god was around, it would have been dead easy to prove it. Proving he does not exist is next to impossible. It's a moving target. 

Another example is health. If you have cancer or cold or flu - proving it is dead easy. Now... Try proving that there is nothing wrong with you... Next impossible. Requires an infinite number of tests and even then you are screwed - what if there is an unknown disease which you have?


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

mordko said:


> It's the other way around. Proving a negative is much harder, sometimes impossible. Non-existence of god is an obvious example. If god was around, it would have been dead easy to prove it. Proving he does not exist is next to impossible. It's a moving target.
> 
> Another example is health. If you have cancer or cold or flu - proving it is dead easy. Now... Try proving that there is nothing wrong with you... Next impossible. Requires an infinite number of tests and even then you are screwed - what if there is an unknown disease which you have?


I knew I should have used Bertrand Russell's Teapot here.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> The thing I don't get is the timescale thing and the CO2 lag.
> Here we're talking about 10, 20, 50 year timeframes as though they're significant.
> 
> However looking at ice core data, the temperature change happens BEFORE the CO2 change.
> ...


Do you know who Steven Goddard is? He is the person that publishes Real Climate, despite the fact he has no background that approaches climate research. Even Dr. Judith Curry, who is sympathetic to skeptics - has called him out on his "bogus" claims. In rebuttal to this link, may I offer this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Market: Even you have to admit that every single estimate/prediction by your group has been wrong so far, all too biased toward a warming conclusion. I distinctly remember the promise of monster superstorms hitting Florida every season like a swarm of hornets (what is it now-over 10 years without one major hurricane?).


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

With all due respect to the posters here who are providing some well-considered points, I wonder if this debate is not going so far afield that it is better to agree to disagree.

I would suggest that those interested can examine the following sites, both pro and con. Note, this doesn't mean that I endorse the idea that there are two equally valid sides, just that I want people to see how both sides argue their sides.

For the AWG side NASA and a group of climate researchers

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

And a more moderate view from Dr. Curry. 
https://judithcurry.com/

For the nature side

One of the better skeptic blogs by Dr. Roy Spencer, a climate researcher
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Real Climate, a website as mentioned in my previous post
http://www.realclimate.org/

A website I hesitate to post, but if you want to see a polemic in action this is the infamous blog by Marco Morano 
http://www.climatedepot.com/


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Market: Even you have to admit that every single estimate/prediction by your group has been wrong so far, all too biased toward a warming conclusion. I distinctly remember the promise of monster superstorms hitting Florida every season like a swarm of hornets (what is it now-over 10 years without one major hurricane?).


Nelly, as I stated the models are incorrect, and although my background is in mathematical modeling, I have no clue why they are so reluctant to update them. They are certainly incorrect in the magnitude, and I am one of those people that do a face-palm every time I hear the dire predictions without any scientific basis to base it on. I just had to roll my eyes when I heard a senior researcher of CRU state that snow would be a rare thing heading into the new millennium, but then the UK was hit with a decade of extreme cold and snow. I also think that James Hansen has made too many outlandish claims, and sometimes seems to be more interested in attention than getting the facts across. I still remember his claim that part of Manhattan would be under water by now - :stupid:

It's not contradictory to accept AGW, and want to stop it before it goes too far, but not accept the apocalyptic predictions that don't seem to be made based on science. 

Fun fact - Hansen had an office in the building made famous because it housed the diner in Jerry Seinfeld.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Market Lost said:


> I knew I should have used Bertrand Russell's Teapot here.


Exactly )


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Global warming is a scientific fact, as is the link to greenhouse gases. Do we know when? Do we know the magnitude? ****, no! Climate change models are as complex as it gets and even then you put in ****, guess what comes out at the other end. We are into new territory, new effects come into play with every degree rise and its impossible to validate your model other than for past phenomena. 

The threat is real, but politicians have messed the whole thing so much... Al Gore and the whole lot of them should be ashamed, except they have no shame. This is why people don't trust scientists and politicians. This is why fucktards like Trump make it all the way to the top.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Trump is on the rise because even the sheep are finally waking up to all the B/S, including the climate change B/S. Everything is political correctness-logic is a hate crime. You think global warming is a real problem but you don't want the monster of CO2 (China) curtailed because that isn't politically correct? Then you are a big part of the problem you are whining about.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Nelley said:


> Trump is on the rise because even the sheep are finally waking up to all the B/S, including the climate change B/S. Everything is political correctness-logic is a hate crime. You think global warming is a real problem but you don't want the monster of CO2 (China) curtailed because that isn't politically correct? Then you are a big part of the problem you are whining about.


Who is "you" in the "..you don't want the monster of CO2 (China) curtailed.."?


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

Market Lost said:


> With all due respect to the posters here who are providing some well-considered points, I wonder if this debate is not going so far afield that it is better to agree to disagree.
> 
> I would suggest that those interested can examine the following sites, both pro and con. Note, this doesn't mean that I endorse the idea that there are two equally valid sides, just that I want people to see how both sides argue their sides.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the resources. When this whole climate change thing started I believed it, now i am skeptical. Willing to educate myself however.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Market Lost said:


> Who is "you" in the "..you don't want the monster of CO2 (China) curtailed.."?


You know China? Yeah... Well. It's all my fault.


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

Karlhungus said:


> Thank you for the resources. When this whole climate change thing started I believed it, now i am skeptical. Willing to educate myself however.


I appreciate that you're looking to improve your knowledge. One thing to bear in mind is that their are multiple questions being raised at the same time, and they all get muddled together. Try to separate the questions of science - e.g. "what is the role of human activity on the climate?" with those of politics - e.g. "do we need a carbon tax?"


----------



## Market Lost (Jul 27, 2016)

mordko said:


> You know China? Yeah... Well. It's all my fault.


That's a relief. I was just noticing that I had an entry in my Outlook Calendar that states "Call Xi Jinping regarding reduction of CO2 omissions," and I was worried that it may have slipped my mind.


----------

