quote Originally posted by fierobear: It doesn't matter. CO2 isn't driving temperature like they claimed. 10 years of flat temperatures, and the recent paper with ACTUAL DATA showing that neither CO2 nor the alleged forcings from feedbacks are showing up in the climate system.

There's still the potential of increasing acidification of the oceans attributed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2. I think that oceanographers are finding evidence of it. So the findings by Spencer--even if they become widely accepted--will not eliminate the need for continuing research into the abatement of CO2 emissions. Carbon taxes? Maybe we have to go there, even if the reason isn't specifically "global warming".

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: There's still the potential of increasing acidification of the oceans attributed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2. I think that oceanographers are finding evidence of it. So the findings by Spencer--even if they become widely accepted--will not eliminate the need for continuing research into the abatement of CO2 emissions. Carbon taxes? Maybe we have to go there, even if the reason isn't specifically "global warming".

I could NEVER support this. Do you know how devestated our country would be right now if international Cap & Trade had been passed? The goal is to pass money to the IMF, punish successful countries, and give free money to emerging markets... all under the guise of trying to save the environment.

The no modern western country like Canada, or the US should EVER be subject to the fines or forced inclusion into a global entity.

Like I've said before... I'm all for a one-world government, so long as it's under the US flag. The UN, as good as it's intentions are, is so vastly corrupt... it's not even funny. There is corruption in the UN all the way from the peace-keepers on the ground, to the person at the top. (it's not still Kofi Annon?)

Who said anything about the UN?

What if the US implemented some national taxes on carbon emissions--and deleted some other forms of taxation?

I am not saying that it should be done now or even by any particular date--I am just saying that I am not against it as a matter of policy or economic principle. Carbon taxes.. Maybe nitrogen taxes, since that is also said to be causing environmental problems.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Who said anything about the UN? What if the US implemented some national taxes on carbon emissions--and deleted some other forms of taxation? I am not saying that it should be done now or even by any particular date--I am just saying that I am not against it as a matter of policy or economic principle. Carbon taxes.. Maybe nitrogen taxes, since that is also said to be causing environmental problems.

Deleted a form of taxation, not likley.
As a matter of economic principle I will always be against a carbon tax.
As a matter of enviromental principle fines for polluting are and should be ok, not taxing, defining what pollutes and how much is ok and for what reasons seems to be a topic of disagreement.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: In other words, year in and year out, human activities emit 100 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than volcanoes.

And it is still less than 1 / 100th of the CO2 content of Mars which has a mean tempurature of -80 degrees. The fact is that CO2 is one of the worst tri-atomic structures on Earth for heat retention. And considering we have just 330 parts per million in our atmosphere, it is ridiculous to conclude that it has anything to do with global temperatures over the most obvious causes; solar output, global proximity to the sun, techtonic activity, and water vapor content (H2O...another tri-atomic structure with 3 times the heat retention capacity as CO2 and in FAR greater supply in our atmosphere). Deforestation is a great cause of global tempurature increases than man made CO2. Not because of their ability to remove it from the atmosphere but because of their ability to regulate atmospheric H2O

Finally, somebody who knows their science. Thanks,

Arn

AAAAAAAHHHH!!!!! DMHO!!!!!

quote Originally posted by Toddster: And it is still less than 1 / 100th of the CO2 content of Mars which has a mean tempurature of -80 degrees. The fact is that CO2 is one of the worst tri-atomic structures on Earth for heat retention. And considering we have just 330 parts per million in our atmosphere, it is ridiculous to conclude that it has anything to do with global temperatures over the most obvious causes; solar output, global proximity to the sun, techtonic activity, and water vapor content (H2O...another tri-atomic structure with 3 times the heat retention capacity as CO2 and in FAR greater supply in our atmosphere). Deforestation is a great cause of global tempurature increases than man made CO2. Not because of their ability to remove it from the atmosphere but because of their ability to regulate atmospheric H2O

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Finally, somebody who knows their science. Thanks, Arn

Knows some of their science..

Mars? Mars has so little atmosphere (compared to Earth) that I don't see the relevance of that at all.. Mars is almost in a vacuum, compared to Earth.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: The flip side of carbon taxes or carbon trading schemes.. logging companies would be reimbursed for not harvesting the wood and letting the trees continue to soak up carbon dioxide.

With taxpayer money

quote Originally posted by 2.5: With taxpayer money

Exactly. Carbon taxes and tax credits to penalize or reward individual taxpayers on whether the choices that they are making (in terms of their spending) are increasing or decreasing the national level of carbon dioxide emissions.

I don't consider myself a "warmist". I don't think that I am that "dogmatic" about it. But when you think about all the OTHER kinds of taxes that are levied on a national scale--I think there is a case to be made for setting up a system of carbon taxes and tax credits and at the same time, getting rid of some other already existing taxes and tax credits that are probably not at all helpful towards the preservation of the natural environment.

Most of all, though, I am in favor of continuing research on the effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emissions.

It may be that something else is also driving up the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (something besides human activities), and yet, it may also be true that the carbon emissions from human activities are also significant, dangerous and need to be curtailed.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-08-2011).]