20 New Science Papers find Climate is Driven by Solar Changes

[Pressure]

He literally never said what you are trying to claim, you know that right?

:BeanUMad:

The problem is those that like to ignore the sun's effects on climate change while putting these arbitrary numbers (such as we must lower the world's temperature by 1 or 2 degrees...by 2030 or some shyt) out in these BS agreements like the Paris Accord
:lobe1::lobe1:
Which puts unnecessary strain on already fragile economies. Since we can't fully determine the full effects the sun has, or that we have. Putting this kind of "bad science" (which isn't really science, its just politics masking as science) out there is just dishonest.:SnoopSideye::SnoopSideye:

These politicians want to pick and choose their research to further push along their own money grabbing agendas. :CurtisFlabbySick::CurtisFlabbySick: Which at the same time will put the strain on economies.

:Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure:

 

[Maschine_Man]

"I just want to make it clear that I am NOT a climate change denier, nor do I think that humans don't play a part in climate change. I'm just posting these for ppl to see that there is more to climate change than just humans and "pollution".


He's literally saying that people who support climate change disregard the sun's role in climate change.

Hold this neg.

"literally" huh?



I swear we should be creating a Glossary for users in HL to know exactly what the terminology they like to toss around ACTUALLY means.

 

[David_TheMan]

:BeanUMad:





:Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure:

He literally didn't say what you are trying to claim, you know that right?
Your reading comprehension is terrible, I thought maybe it was just in that literacy thread, but its seems that you simply have a hard time reading and understanding what you read. YOu instead make up what you want out of any words you see.

 

[Maschine_Man]

:BeanUMad:





:Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure::Lukesure:

And here is yet another addition to the HL Glossary.....



Cherry Picking


(also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)

Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

 

[ghostwriterx]

The problem is those that like to ignore the sun's effects on climate change while putting these arbitrary numbers (such as we must lower the world's temperature by 1 or 2 degrees...by 2030 or some shyt) out in these BS agreements like the Paris Accord

Can you give any example of these folks? If not... that's a strawman breh.

Which puts unnecessary strain on already fragile economies. Since we can't fully determine the full effects the sun has, or that we have. Putting this kind of "bad science" (which isn't really science, its just politics masking as science) out there is just dishonest.

Care to elaborate on this point? As stated it's so vague it's essentially meaningless.

 

[Pressure]

And here is yet another addition to the HL Glossary.....



Cherry Picking


(also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)

Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

That's a another strawman. I've never at any point denied the affects of the sun. I addressed it in my post.

It's a strawman because that's not what's happening. Advocates are focusing on the human element because we know we see evidence it is real and we have control over it.

 

[Maschine_Man]

Can you give any example of these folks? If not... that's a strawman breh.


Care to elaborate on this point? As stated it's so vague it's essentially meaningless.

for example...
Federal carbon tax plan shows disrespect, will hurt economy: Sask. Premier

Not to mention that I've already posted links in other threads showing that Carbon Taxes could lead to 1000's of dollars passed on to consumer every year.

Here's how much carbon pricing will likely cost households - Macleans.ca

"Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, for example, claims the average household will see costs of $1,250 per year."

I'm using Canada as an example as they have already started to institute this plan and ppl are going to start really feeling the effects of it. Plus overall the economies are similar.

 

[Maschine_Man]

That's a another strawman. I've never at any point denied the affects of the sun. I addressed it in my post.

wait...so you are saying you didn't just cherry pick part of an argument I was having with another poster to try and make a point here?

 

[Pressure]

wait...so you are saying you didn't just cherry pick part of an argument I was having with another poster to try and make a point here?

I never engaged you. I made a statement. Then your boy said it wasn't true. I quoted you because it was your words in question. You couldn't resist derailing your own thread and jumped in. The usual.

And no I didn't cherry pick any part of your post. I just said your commentary was flawed. Which it still is.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Pink_Freud your entire website is about climate denial

What the fukk is this shyt?

Principia Scientific International - Home | Principia Scientific International

 

[Maschine_Man]

I never engaged you. I made a statement. Then your boy said it wasn't true. I quoted you because it was your words in question. You couldn't resist derailing your own thread and jumped in. The usual.

And no I didn't cherry pick any part of your post. I just said your commentary was flawed. Which it still is.

you are so fukking fake and disingenuous it's amazing how anyone can take you serious.

"I never engaged you, but I'll talk ABOUT you and your argument"

 

[ghostwriterx]

for example...
Federal carbon tax plan shows disrespect, will hurt economy: Sask. Premier

Not to mention that I've already posted links in other threads showing that Carbon Taxes could lead to 1000's of dollars passed on to consumer every year.

Hmmm... sound like a lot of fear mongering, but I was specifically referring to this:

"The problem is those that like to ignore the sun's effects on climate change"

Here's how much carbon pricing will likely cost households - Macleans.ca

"Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, for example, claims the average household will see costs of $1,250 per year."

I'm using Canada as an example as they have already started to institute this plan and ppl are going to start really feeling the effects of it. Plus overall the economies are similar.

Did you even READ this article?

"Overall, the cost of a $50 per tonne carbon tax is about $600 per year for the average Canadian household. To be sure, these figures are for the average household. The specific costs vary across households, as it depends on their consumption habits and many other factors.

But this need not be the case. Following the recommendations of University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach, the Alberta government opted to provide subsidies (output-based aid or OBA) to large GHG emitters in proportion to the production. These subsidies buffer the effect of carbon pricing on a firm’s average cost, and therefore mean electricity prices are not going to rise much (if at all) for Albertans. "

"Carbon taxes don’t just increase costs, they also allow governments—if they so choose—to increase household disposable incomes by providing direct transfers or by cutting other taxes."

"Some provinces will generate so much revenue that there are many recycling options available. In Saskatchewan, for example, the government will bring in nearly $2.5 billion—more than enough to provide rebates to large emitters and low-income households, and still have enough left over to cut personal and corporate income taxes by 40 per cent!"

"Opposing carbon pricing because one disagrees with how the money is used misses the critical fact that regulations and other command-and-control approaches have far higher economic costs than carbon pricing, and no revenue is available to offset those costs. If we’re interested in addressing our greenhouse gas emissions in the least-cost way, then carbon pricing is the way to go."

 

[Pressure]

you are so fukking fake and disingenuous it's amazing how anyone can take you serious.

"I never engaged you, but I'll talk ABOUT you and your argument"

Since you've engaged me. Are you going to show where people are solar denialists on climate change backing up your initial claim?

Are you going to show where Supporters of the paris accords are "just politicians making up numbers?"

 

[Maschine_Man]

Hmmm... sound like a lot of fear mongering, but I was specifically referring to this:

"The problem is those that like to ignore the sun's effects on climate change"



Did you even READ this article?

"Overall, the cost of a $50 per tonne carbon tax is about $600 per year for the average Canadian household. To be sure, these figures are for the average household. The specific costs vary across households, as it depends on their consumption habits and many other factors.

But this need not be the case. Following the recommendations of University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach, the Alberta government opted to provide subsidies (output-based aid or OBA) to large GHG emitters in proportion to the production. These subsidies buffer the effect of carbon pricing on a firm’s average cost, and therefore mean electricity prices are not going to rise much (if at all) for Albertans. "

"Carbon taxes don’t just increase costs, they also allow governments—if they so choose—to increase household disposable incomes by providing direct transfers or by cutting other taxes."

"Some provinces will generate so much revenue that there are many recycling options available. In Saskatchewan, for example, the government will bring in nearly $2.5 billion—more than enough to provide rebates to large emitters and low-income households, and still have enough left over to cut personal and corporate income taxes by 40 per cent!"

"Opposing carbon pricing because one disagrees with how the money is used misses the critical fact that regulations and other command-and-control approaches have far higher economic costs than carbon pricing, and no revenue is available to offset those costs. If we’re interested in addressing our greenhouse gas emissions in the least-cost way, then carbon pricing is the way to go."

Did you read it all??


To add up these costs isn’t trivial. On the low end, one can point to Alberta government estimates and project indirect costs of around $100 to $200 per year for a typical household. For a higher estimate, consider two data points. First, the OECD reports that 415 megatonnes of emissions are produced in Canada and purchases by households and business in Canada (that is, not exported). Second, Statistics Canada reports about 410 million tonnes of GHGs are produced in Canada and consumed by households as final consumption or by business as a capital investment. Quite consistent. So, with these two sources in mind, if 70 per cent of emissions are priced (which is roughly the case), then total costs per household is just below $1,100 per year. With direct costs averaging close to $600, from before, that suggests indirect costs are about $500 per year.

More precise estimates would require careful data work and modelling that is sure to come. But we can be fairly confident that indirect costs for the average household are smaller than direct costs. And for further context, $1,100 per year is less than 1.5 per cent of average household spending.

 

[ghostwriterx]

Did you read it all??


To add up these costs isn’t trivial. On the low end, one can point to Alberta government estimates and project indirect costs of around $100 to $200 per year for a typical household. For a higher estimate, consider two data points. First, the OECD reports that 415 megatonnes of emissions are produced in Canada and purchases by households and business in Canada (that is, not exported). Second, Statistics Canada reports about 410 million tonnes of GHGs are produced in Canada and consumed by households as final consumption or by business as a capital investment. Quite consistent. So, with these two sources in mind, if 70 per cent of emissions are priced (which is roughly the case), then total costs per household is just below $1,100 per year. With direct costs averaging close to $600, from before, that suggests indirect costs are about $500 per year.

More precise estimates would require careful data work and modelling that is sure to come. But we can be fairly confident that indirect costs for the average household are smaller than direct costs. And for further context, $1,100 per year is less than 1.5 per cent of average household spending.

$1,100 a year? And largely offset by rebates/tax cuts?

"In any case, it seems clear Premier Wall’s estimate of the cost is very close to the mark while the CTF number is at least twice what the average household will experience. Neither estimate, though, accounts for the options governments have to mitigate these costs."

"Different governments will choose different ways of using revenue from carbon taxes. The B.C. government is committed to ensuring the tax is revenue neutral. By lowering other taxes, the province ensures pricing carbon is not the tax-grab that many suppose it is. In the neighbouring province of Alberta, we see other choices. There, the government will return most of the carbon revenue as subsidies to large industrial emitters and rebates to low-income households, but will spend the rest "