Europe Could Place Carbon Tax On U.S. Goods

[bee]

On 11/17/2016 at 1:02 PM, rashore said:

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/europe-carbon-tax-american-goods-trump/

.

anyway - re the thread topic - now Sarkozy is out of the election and the carbon tax on US goods was his
'idea' - perhaps it will just be quietly dropped - it was probably just a campaign thing and he was trying
to make political capital out of Trump Bashing - ?

quote from the OP link -

"The world is plotting how to push back against the climate change-denying future Trump administration. Apart from continuing on with the Paris agreement, which is now legally active, Nicolas Sarkozy – the former French president – has touted a rather interesting idea.2

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/20/nicolas-sarkozy-defeated-primary-french-rightwing-presidential

quote --

 "Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s political career has been effectively ended, after he was dealt a humiliating defeat on Sunday by his former prime minister François Fillon in the first round of the race to choose the rightwing Republican party’s candidate for the presidency next spring."

.

 

[stevewinn]

Going back to the opening post Presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy proposing the idea to impose a Carbon tax on US goods. Update; Nicolas Sarkozy is out of the Presidential Race. knocked out at the primary stage.

 

[bee]

.

we posted at the same time Steve --- 

.

[bee]

29 minutes ago, Setton said:

I have yet to see an opposing scientific view.

And differing scientific opinions come down to different interpretations of the same data not ignoring parts of it.

.

well even if you believe the 97% of all published climate scientists thing -

you at least have 3% that you can have a look at -- --  if you're really bothered 

and if you can find them - 

.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, bee said:

In your post you seem to be arguing that the nuclear testing wouldn't and didn't have any effect on the
atmosphere and environment because the sun is much 'stronger'  than any man made nuclear explosion - ?

And that after a time of around 36 years any detrimental effects would have disappeared..?

Well I think this could be a bit optimistic --- considering the sheer amount of ionizing radiation and crap that
was added to the atmosphere and spread around the planet...

I didn't say that there would be no effect on the athmosphere, but I said that the effect is infinitesimal compared with the energy of the sun. I did back that up with numbers, do you say that they were wrong somehow ?

It seems that you are overestimating the long term effects of nuclear weapons. Most of the radioactivity from a nuclear bomb dissapears quite quickly, which explains why both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt in the exact same spot that the bombs fell.

2 hours ago, bee said:

"The first nuclear test was carried out by the United States in July 1945, followed by the Soviet Union in 1949, the United Kingdom in 1952, France in 1960, and China in 1964. The National Resources Defense Council estimated the total yield of all nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1980 at 510 megatons (Mt). Atmospheric tests alone accounted for 428 mt, equivalent to over 29,000 Hiroshima size bombs."

Again you don't seem to understand the numbers involved here. 428 mt is equivelant to the energy we recieve from the sun in about 6 seconds. 

2 hours ago, bee said:

.and unknown long term effects was crazy and dangerous - has it all contributed to global warming or global cooling?

you are implying no..?

I am saying that if they have contributed to warming, it would be almost impossible to measure.

2 hours ago, bee said:

re the warming / cooling of the climate - when the cold war was at it's height and everyone was scared of nuclear war
kicking off - one of the things talked about was the nuclear winter that would follow nuclear 'exchange'
where all the radiated crap trapped in the atmosphere would block normal sunlight for a long period of time -

There is a big difference between test done over decades, many of them underground, and detonation of 10's of thousands of bombs at the same time. In addition in a war many of the weapons would be groundbursts, which are the worst in term of adding material to the athmosphere. Most of the athmospheric test were airbursts, which makes much less radioactive material.

2 hours ago, bee said:

I'm saying I expect it has somehow -?

What are you basing that on, other that your feelings ?

2 hours ago, bee said:

I hope you are satisfied with my slightly delayed reply ..... 

I am satisfied that you responded, but I am not very satisfied that you completely disreard the actual facts that I provided you. 

Manmade climate change is not caused by nuclear weapons, it is cause by all of the gasses we continue to put into the athmosphere. 

Do you honestly think that this have no effect on our enviroment:

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[bee]

57 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

 

I am satisfied that you responded, but I am not very satisfied that you completely disreard the actual facts that I provided you. 

 

.

I think the facts you provided come under the description of ...false equivalence... so can't really be used to
base your argument on - 

Because the energy from the sun is natural and spread out but the energy from a nuclear detonation
is unnatural and concentrated - 

It would be like if you put your hand in natural sunlight and then used a magnifying glass to concentrate it -

you would soon feel the difference - the effects are not the same -

I will probably come back to your post but I'm tired of talking about it for today - so that's all for now -

.

 

 

[Setton]

5 hours ago, bee said:

.

well even if you believe the 97% of all published climate scientists thing -

you at least have 3% that you can have a look at -- --  if you're really bothered 

and if you can find them - 

.

Burden of proof and all that. You're making the claim here, you haven't found one single scientific study to support you.

[Torchwood]

8 hours ago, bee said:

.

I can see you've been ''''triggered'''' as they say --

Yes there is a data war - otherwise how could there be broadly two camps regarding global warming - ?

I'm taking an overview of the subject but scientists and others who have done in depth studies have data -

There's even a mini data war regarding the much banded about 97% figure of published climate scientists that are
part of the scientific consensus agreeing that global warming is an ongoing and increasing 'fact' and that
man made emissions is a dominant factor -

The 97% seems to have become 'gospel' for promoters of global warming -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1e68ec217187

quote --

"Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need."

 

I picked this bit to quote because it brings us back to the thread topic and because President Elect Trump isn't faithful
to the global warming gospel of the Obama Administration - Europe is suggesting punishing the US by levying a carbon
tax on US goods ---- that'll show him eh..? 

.

  

OK, so I assert that you have no data, and instead of coming back with some actual data you dive off on a tangent about what some politician said in pursuit of a political agenda...

...because you have no data to support your claims. 

 

[bee]

15 hours ago, Setton said:

Burden of proof and all that. You're making the claim here, you haven't found one single scientific study to support you.

.

There are obviously scientific studies going on all the time and this is why different scientists take different
positions on the subject - you say the above as if I 'found' the definitive scientific study you would change
your stance on Man Made Global Warming, carbon tax, related legislation etc  - well as you know it doesn't work
like that and there is data and interpretation of data going on all the time by many interested scientists and others -
 

take this guy - described as an MIT Atmospheric Physicist and one of the worlds leading climatologists -
he has studied the subject  and in the short video below gives an overview - 
 

video description -

 Published on Apr 18, 2016

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change. Donate today to PragerU:http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h

 

  

[bee]

14 hours ago, Torchwood said:

OK, so I assert that you have no data, and instead of coming back with some actual data you dive off on a tangent about what some politician said in pursuit of a political agenda...

...because you have no data to support your claims. 

 

.

Huh...

there's been bits and bobs of data  in the posts and links I've used in the thread -

But if you need more direction here you go -

In the following video these are the time markers --

6:00 ~ graph
7:00~ graph
7:12 ~graph
7:35~graph
10:24~statement about data
11:29~ statement about data
12:16~graph
12:55~map
15:24~statement about data
16:04~statement about data
16:37~statement about data
17:05~statement about data
17:40~graph
19:36~Greenland data
20:00~Greenland data
21:43~graph
21:57~graph
22:50~polar bear data
25:00~statement about data
25:36~statement about data
27:50~statement about data (Japan)
30:12~maps and data
31:15~ice core data

video description -

Published on Dec 17, 2015

Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong".
This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates.

 

 

[bee]

20 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

 

Manmade climate change is not caused by nuclear weapons, it is cause by all of the gasses we continue to put into the athmosphere. 

Do you honestly think that this have no effect on our enviroment:

 

.

Varying degrees of Man made pollution is a reality but there is no definitive consensus about whether
that pollution creates long term climate change - no matter how much the IPCC likes to make out there is -
(International Panel on Climate Change)

.  

   

[Wickian]

22 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I didn't say that there would be no effect on the athmosphere, but I said that the effect is infinitesimal compared with the energy of the sun. I did back that up with numbers, do you say that they were wrong somehow ?

It seems that you are overestimating the long term effects of nuclear weapons. Most of the radioactivity from a nuclear bomb dissapears quite quickly, which explains why both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt in the exact same spot that the bombs fell.

Again you don't seem to understand the numbers involved here. 428 mt is equivelant to the energy we recieve from the sun in about 6 seconds. 

I am saying that if they have contributed to warming, it would be almost impossible to measure.

There is a big difference between test done over decades, many of them underground, and detonation of 10's of thousands of bombs at the same time. In addition in a war many of the weapons would be groundbursts, which are the worst in term of adding material to the athmosphere. Most of the athmospheric test were airbursts, which makes much less radioactive material.

What are you basing that on, other that your feelings ?

I am satisfied that you responded, but I am not very satisfied that you completely disreard the actual facts that I provided you. 

Manmade climate change is not caused by nuclear weapons, it is cause by all of the gasses we continue to put into the athmosphere. 

Do you honestly think that this have no effect on our enviroment:

 

Pollution is a very, very big problem that humanity is causing and we need to do something about, but I'm not convinced CO2(a trace gas making up less than a half of a half of a half of a half of one percent of the atmosphere) is the biggest contributor to GW.  It's convenient how easy it is to tax and/or sell permits for though. 

Mainstream and federally funded research bias aside, there's still plenty of conflicts in the data on both sides of the AGW debate to leave me undecided but skeptical.

That's not to say I'm not all for research into alternative forms of fuel or energy though.  Regardless of the validity of AGW we will eventually run out of fossil fuels so it's better to find economically and socially viable alternatives sooner than later.  I wouldn't mind smog-free cities 60 years from now(if I live to be a ripe old age) by having the internal combustion engine retired and slowly phased out.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, bee said:

.

Varying degrees of Man made pollution is a reality but there is no definitive consensus about whether
that pollution creates long term climate change - no matter how much the IPCC likes to make out there is -
(International Panel on Climate Change)

.  

   

No consensus ?

How about this list of scientific organisations that support man made climate change: 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

How about the fact that 195 countries signed the Paris agreement to limit greenhouse gas emmissions. Why would they do that if they didn't believe it was real ?

Or what about even the major oil companies now accepting that man made climate change is a real thing:

 http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

http://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html

Saying that there isn't a scientific consensus on the matter simply isn't true. No amount of Youtube videos are going to change that.

 

I have a feeling that the real reason why you don't believe in man made climate change is that being a climate sceptic involves a big conspiracy, and unfortunately we have seen time and time again that given the option you will allways go for the solution that requires a big conspiracy. Its rather sad, but I don't expect that I can change that, so I will leave with this advice from a very wise man: Not everything is a conspiracy.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

25 minutes ago, Wickian said:

Pollution is a very, very big problem that humanity is causing and we need to do something about, but I'm not convinced CO2(a trace gas making up less than a half of a half of a half of a half of one percent of the atmosphere) is the biggest contributor to GW.  It's convenient how easy it is to tax and/or sell permits for though. 

Mainstream and federally funded research bias aside, there's still plenty of conflicts in the data on both sides of the AGW debate to leave me undecided but skeptical.

That's not to say I'm not all for research into alternative forms of fuel or energy though.  Regardless of the validity of AGW we will eventually run out of fossil fuels so it's better to find economically and socially viable alternatives sooner than later.  I wouldn't mind smog-free cities 60 years from now(if I live to be a ripe old age) by having the internal combustion engine retired and slowly phased out.

I know I have posted this before, but I think it is appropriate here aswell:

[bee]

4 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

 

I have a feeling that the real reason why you don't believe in man made climate change is that being a climate sceptic involves a big conspiracy, and unfortunately we have seen time and time again that given the option you will allways go for the solution that requires a big conspiracy. Its rather sad, but I don't expect that I can change that, so I will leave with this advice from a very wise man: Not everything is a conspiracy.

.

no need to resort to a personal attack now is there (or perhaps you think there is?)

I said 'definitive consensus' - if you think there is and want to ignore the fact that that there
are many scientists etc who do not agree with your view point and if you want to ignore the probability  
that there may be a purely political component to all this - carry on - no one's stopping you

.

[bee]

52 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I know I have posted this before, but I think it is appropriate here aswell:

.

I like the cartoon - and I think it's safe to say that every reasonable person thinks it's a good idea 
to try and tackle problems of man made pollution in all it's forms, when and where possible 
--- but ---- attempting to guilt trip the world with (disingenuous?) doom laden scare tactics using 
 Man Made Global Warming claims as a stick, has turned the whole thing into something else -  
and that's where the problem lies - IMO - 

.

 

[Torchwood]

 

11 hours ago, bee said:

Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong".
This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates.

Hmm...thought I aught to check this guys credentials, see how much he knows on the subject. He's a physicist, and whilst they are no slouches in the brain department, they have this tendency to, er how can I put this, wade in to the Biology and Chemistry labs of the world and announce they've solved everything...the biologists and chemists then have to explain why everything they do is a little bit more complicated than Physics. I Linked a podcast a page or two earlier- one of the hosts is a Physicist , and they regularly have scientists from other disciplines on who have to explain to him why he's oversimplifying the problems they face, and how he's not used to the level of complexity they deal with.  There was even an episode that dealt with the phenomena in part. But I digress, I went looking for more info on Ivar, to see what he knows, and he said:

Quote

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming.  Like most physicists I don't think much about it.  But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it.  And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google "

Oh, good grief.  

 

 

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, Torchwood said:

 

Hmm...thought I aught to check this guys credentials, see how much he knows on the subject. He's a physicist, and whilst they are no slouches in the brain department, they have this tendency to, er how can I put this, wade in to the Biology and Chemistry labs of the world and announce they've solved everything...the biologists and chemists then have to explain why everything they do is a little bit more complicated than Physics. I Linked a podcast a page or two earlier- one of the hosts is a Physicist , and they regularly have scientists from other disciplines on who have to explain to him why he's oversimplifying the problems they face, and how he's not used to the level of complexity they deal with.  There was even an episode that dealt with the phenomena in part. But I digress, I went looking for more info on Ivar, to see what he knows, and he said:

Oh, good grief.  

 

 

Can't argue with credentials like that!

Clear for all to see, there are two, equal sides to this 'debate'.

[ellapenella]

On 11/21/2016 at 4:55 AM, bee said:

.

anyway - re the thread topic - now Sarkozy is out of the election and the carbon tax on US goods was his
'idea' - perhaps it will just be quietly dropped - it was probably just a campaign thing and he was trying
to make political capital out of Trump Bashing - ?

quote from the OP link -

"The world is plotting how to push back against the climate change-denying future Trump administration. Apart from continuing on with the Paris agreement, which is now legally active, Nicolas Sarkozy – the former French president – has touted a rather interesting idea.2

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/20/nicolas-sarkozy-defeated-primary-french-rightwing-presidential

quote --

 "Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s political career has been effectively ended, after he was dealt a humiliating defeat on Sunday by his former prime minister François Fillon in the first round of the race to choose the rightwing Republican party’s candidate for the presidency next spring."

.

 

Bee..did you see Wikileaks reg- the global warming/climate change ?

[bee]

1 minute ago, Torchwood said:

 

 

Oh, good grief.  

 

 

.

he's a bit of a character isn't he -

but it looks like he learnt a lot more and the video I posted was from a 2012 presentation - published in Dec 2015 -

look - we can go on like this forever - but at the end of the day it's like I said --- data wars ---- claims and counter claims -
I've enjoyed doing the bit of research that I have in the last few days and I may do more but as I knew would happen
debates about this subject never really get anywhere -- and can get very time consuming - 

.  

 

[ellapenella]

 

edited

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Ellapennella

[bee]

5 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

Bee..did you see Wikileaks reg- the global warming/climate change ?

.

no I didn't --- I will see if I can find it tomorrow -

edit --- oh thanks just seen you posted the link 
I'll have a look cheers - 

.

Edited November 22, 2016 by bee

[ellapenella]

2 minutes ago, bee said:

.

no I didn't --- I will see if I can find it tomorrow -

edit --- oh thanks just seen you posted the link 
I'll have a look cheers - 

.

I am just reading the link for the first time now, I was told something about this yesterday.  I will also go to the files of Wikileaks to try and verify it.. there's also a video .that speaks about it. and well, with things happening (earthquake wise) is how it came yesterday . it got people thinking.

 

[ellapenella]

edited

Edited November 22, 2016 by Ellapennella

[bee]

2 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

I am just reading the link for the first time now, I was told something about this yesterday.  I will also go to the files of Wikileaks to try and verify it.. there's also a video .that speaks about it. and well, with things happening (earthquake wise) is how it came yesterday . it got people thinking.

 

.

I've just had a quick wizz through --- and it's interesting but I don't think it will take this particular thread further --

The reason I even got involved in this thread was because it was an anti Trump one and as you know I'm
supportive of him - on the radio earlier they were talking about what he would do regarding the Paris Agreement
and he's certainly got them guessing - 

.