Remember me
▼ Content

Is Obama's 10 bucks per barrel oil tax a good idea?


Is Obama's 10 bucks per barrel oil tax a good idea?04-02-2016 23:15
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-04/obama-to-request-10-per-barrel-oil-tax-for-transportation-needs
04-02-2016 23:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-04/obama-to-request-10-per-barrel-oil-tax-for-transportation-needs


Hopefully Congress will tell him to blow it out his left nostril. Looks like they just might.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2016 23:24
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Into the Night wrote:
Hopefully Congress will tell him to blow it out his left nostril. Looks like they just might.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/04/reuters-america-us-house-republicans-vow-to-kill-obama-oil-tax-idea.html
Edited on 04-02-2016 23:28
27-08-2016 06:25
StephenS20
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Yes he's on to something, but not exactly correct. The oil companies will compensate...... by of course doing what they do best, gouging helpless consumers. The gas prices will simply skyrocket and this will accomplish nothing.
27-08-2016 16:22
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
There should be a revenue neutral carbon tax where the tax is used to directly reduce the Medicare taxes. That way the free enterprise will control the results, the middle and lower class will get a tax break which will more than pay for the additional increase in consumer prices, and the Medicare fund will get a much needed boost. Just my opinion.
27-08-2016 17:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Her in the UK, gasoline costs over twice as much as it does in the US due to taxation. The result? People drive smaller cars and tend not to drive as far. More use public transport, which has evolved to fulfil the need. It's also a useful source of income for the treasury and allows the government to reduce other taxes or increase public spending (depending on their political inclination). And, most importantly, CO2 emissions per capita are less than half those of the US.
27-08-2016 18:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
Surface Detail wrote:
Her in the UK, gasoline costs over twice as much as it does in the US due to taxation. The result? People drive smaller cars and tend not to drive as far. More use public transport, which has evolved to fulfil the need. It's also a useful source of income for the treasury and allows the government to reduce other taxes or increase public spending (depending on their political inclination). And, most importantly, CO2 emissions per capita are less than half those of the US.


And we are all poorer.

The tax hits activity. This is in line with the general move away from taxing wealth in the 1960's and to taxing income now. Suits the babay boomers and shafts the rest of us.
27-08-2016 18:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote: Her in the UK, gasoline costs over twice as much as it does in the US due to taxation.

Everyone watch how Surface Detail rationalizes this as a GOOD thing:

Surface Detail wrote: The result? People drive smaller cars and tend not to drive as far.

Big cars are AWESOME and travel is great. Is the main point that it sucks to be in the UK?


Surface Detail wrote: More use public transport, which has evolved to fulfil the need.

More are FORCED to use public transportation.

Oh, wait, you're a Marxist. You APPLAUD the government FORCING behavior onto people.

Surface Detail wrote: It's also a useful source of income for the treasury

We don't live to give our money to a queen or a government. We can individually decide best what to do with our money. We don't see any government as having ownership of our cash and if the government takes MORE of it then that's not necessarily a good thing.

Is your main point that it sucks to be in the UK?

Surface Detail wrote: and allows the government to reduce other taxes or increase public spending (depending on their political inclination).

Well, we know the "reduce other taxes" isn't going to happen. Yes, government spending will increase, government spending of the people's money as the government wants when the people would rather be spending their money as they want.

Surface Detail wrote: And, most importantly, CO2 emissions per capita are less than half those of the US.

That's about as important as whose population demonstrates a greater proficiency to speak Croatian.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-08-2016 21:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann: Given that you (still!) fail to comprehend the need to reduce CO2 emissions, you're hardly in a position to comment sensibly on policy for doing so. It would be best if you had another go at understanding the science first, then perhaps you'll be able to make a meaningful contribution to this thread.
27-08-2016 21:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Her in the UK, gasoline costs over twice as much as it does in the US due to taxation. The result? People drive smaller cars and tend not to drive as far. More use public transport, which has evolved to fulfil the need. It's also a useful source of income for the treasury and allows the government to reduce other taxes or increase public spending (depending on their political inclination). And, most importantly, CO2 emissions per capita are less than half those of the US.


And we are all poorer.

The tax hits activity. This is in line with the general move away from taxing wealth in the 1960's and to taxing income now. Suits the babay boomers and shafts the rest of us.

It's a tax on consumption rather than a tax on income. It should therefore reduce consumption while encouraging economic activity. Mind you, I think Obama's idea of increasing oil taxes at source is probably a better approach.
27-08-2016 21:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann: Given that you (still!) fail to comprehend the need to reduce CO2 emissions, you're hardly in a position to comment sensibly on policy for doing so. It would be best if you had another go at understanding the science first, then perhaps you'll be able to make a meaningful contribution to this thread.


Funny how it all comes down the Church of Global Warming, isn't it?


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2016 21:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann: Given that you (still!) fail to comprehend the need to reduce CO2 emissions, you're hardly in a position to comment sensibly on policy for doing so. It would be best if you had another go at understanding the science first, then perhaps you'll be able to make a meaningful contribution to this thread.


Funny how it all comes down the Church of Global Warming, isn't it?

Not really, considering that the thread concerns the benefits or otherwise of a policy for addressing global warming. Please do try to keep up. Also, try to learn the difference between science and religion. I know you struggle with numbers and abstract concepts, but science really isn't the same as religion/magic.
27-08-2016 22:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann: Given that you (still!) fail to comprehend the need to reduce CO2 emissions,

There is no need to reduce CO2 emissions. We've been over this. You have a WACKY religious dogma that runs counter to science leading you to make false assertions that embarrassingly reveal your scientific illiteracy.

Surface Detail wrote:you're hardly in a position to comment sensibly on policy for doing so.

Exactly. I adhere to science. As such I cannot recommend ANY policy that is based on your WACKY religion.

Have you given any more thought to how you plan to account for the additional energy REQUIRED for "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature?

Surface Detail wrote:It would be best if you had another go at understanding the science first,

Awesome! I have reviewed the science yet again and I am still an expert. I'm just waiting for you to show me where I am mistaken and how you actually account for the additional energy REQUIRED for "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature.

Your religion is rapidly on the decline. Give it up.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-08-2016 23:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann: If you want to discuss further the mechanics of the universally accepted greenhouse effect, than start another thread to do so. Stop trying to derail this one.
28-08-2016 23:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann: If you want to discuss further the mechanics of the universally accepted greenhouse effect, than start another thread to do so. Stop trying to derail this one.

Surface Detail, if you want to PRETEND your WACKY religion is actual science then start another thread and post your fantasy "greenhouse effect" equation for discussion.

Otherwise, your WACKY religious dogma will continue to be treated appropriately in THIS thread.

...and you can blome E.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-08-2016 06:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann: Given that you (still!) fail to comprehend the need to reduce CO2 emissions, you're hardly in a position to comment sensibly on policy for doing so. It would be best if you had another go at understanding the science first, then perhaps you'll be able to make a meaningful contribution to this thread.


Funny how it all comes down the Church of Global Warming, isn't it?

Not really, considering that the thread concerns the benefits or otherwise of a policy for addressing global warming. Please do try to keep up. Also, try to learn the difference between science and religion. I know you struggle with numbers and abstract concepts, but science really isn't the same as religion/magic.


Artificially high cost of fuel is a benefit???

The rest is spoken like true Religious nut.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2016 11:25
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Her in the UK, gasoline costs over twice as much as it does in the US due to taxation. The result? People drive smaller cars and tend not to drive as far. More use public transport, which has evolved to fulfil the need. It's also a useful source of income for the treasury and allows the government to reduce other taxes or increase public spending (depending on their political inclination). And, most importantly, CO2 emissions per capita are less than half those of the US.


And we are all poorer.

The tax hits activity. This is in line with the general move away from taxing wealth in the 1960's and to taxing income now. Suits the babay boomers and shafts the rest of us.

It's a tax on consumption rather than a tax on income. It should therefore reduce consumption while encouraging economic activity. Mind you, I think Obama's idea of increasing oil taxes at source is probably a better approach.


Making it harder to produce wealth by making travel and other things harder will not encorage anything.

You are very disconnected from actual thinking.
30-08-2016 21:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Her in the UK, gasoline costs over twice as much as it does in the US due to taxation. The result? People drive smaller cars and tend not to drive as far. More use public transport, which has evolved to fulfil the need. It's also a useful source of income for the treasury and allows the government to reduce other taxes or increase public spending (depending on their political inclination). And, most importantly, CO2 emissions per capita are less than half those of the US.


And we are all poorer.

The tax hits activity. This is in line with the general move away from taxing wealth in the 1960's and to taxing income now. Suits the babay boomers and shafts the rest of us.

It's a tax on consumption rather than a tax on income. It should therefore reduce consumption while encouraging economic activity. Mind you, I think Obama's idea of increasing oil taxes at source is probably a better approach.


Making it harder to produce wealth by making travel and other things harder will not encorage anything.

You are very disconnected from actual thinking.

If we make the reasonable assumption that IBdaMan's WACKY anthropogenic climate change denial is barking mad and the consensus of the world's scientific community is correct, what would you suggest would be a better policy for reducing carbon emissions than carbon taxation (allowing income tax reduction)?

Edit: It would seem that it is you, not I, who is disconnected from actual economic thinking:

The Tax Favored By Most Economists

"Looking for a public policy that would improve the operation of the economy, lower our dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution, slow global warming, allow cuts in government spending, and decrease the long-term deficit? Then a carbon tax is what you want. As one of the few taxes favored by economists, carbon taxes could help the nation address several issues simultaneously."
Edited on 30-08-2016 21:45
31-08-2016 05:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Her in the UK, gasoline costs over twice as much as it does in the US due to taxation. The result? People drive smaller cars and tend not to drive as far. More use public transport, which has evolved to fulfil the need. It's also a useful source of income for the treasury and allows the government to reduce other taxes or increase public spending (depending on their political inclination). And, most importantly, CO2 emissions per capita are less than half those of the US.


And we are all poorer.

The tax hits activity. This is in line with the general move away from taxing wealth in the 1960's and to taxing income now. Suits the babay boomers and shafts the rest of us.

It's a tax on consumption rather than a tax on income. It should therefore reduce consumption while encouraging economic activity. Mind you, I think Obama's idea of increasing oil taxes at source is probably a better approach.


Making it harder to produce wealth by making travel and other things harder will not encorage anything.

You are very disconnected from actual thinking.

If we make the reasonable assumption that IBdaMan's WACKY anthropogenic climate change denial is barking mad and the consensus of the world's scientific community is correct, what would you suggest would be a better policy for reducing carbon emissions than carbon taxation (allowing income tax reduction)?

Edit: It would seem that it is you, not I, who is disconnected from actual economic thinking:

The Tax Favored By Most Economists

"Looking for a public policy that would improve the operation of the economy, lower our dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution, slow global warming, allow cuts in government spending, and decrease the long-term deficit? Then a carbon tax is what you want. As one of the few taxes favored by economists, carbon taxes could help the nation address several issues simultaneously."

If we make the assumption that climate, which has no quantity, can change, then you can start a discussion on this fallacy to justify The Church of Global Warming, Its Marxist ideals, and the continued theft of wealth by the Democrats.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2016 13:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:If we make the reasonable assumption that IBdaMan's WACKY anthropogenic climate change denial is barking mad

Translation: "If we consider it reasonable to deny the science that destroys our WACKY religion..."

Surface Detail wrote:and the consensus of the world's scientific community is correct,

Translation: "...and that science is determined by democratic vote and subjective opinion, and that we speak for countless unnamed others who are not present to be cross-examined..."

Surface Detail wrote: what would you suggest would be a better policy for reducing carbon emissions than carbon taxation (allowing income tax reduction)?

Translation: " ...we can completely DODGE the question of why we should reduce carbon emissions in the first place, and therefore continue our MARXIST attack on the petroleum industry because WE ARE LOSERS."

Surface Detail wrote:
Edit: It would seem that it is you, not I, who is disconnected from actual economic thinking:

Translation: <pouting> "We suck."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2016 14:35
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
I still love how an analysis of peer-reviewed, scientific papers is "subjective" and "democratic".
31-08-2016 15:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote: I still love how an analysis of peer-reviewed, scientific papers is "subjective" and "democratic".

It sounds like you are finally beginning to understand.

The mere mention of "peer reviewed" means "it has the (subjective) blessing/approval of someone *I* claim OWNS science."

Your arguments aren't ever based on science.

Your arguments are always based on the personalities involved, on the subjective "consensus" of unnamed people's opinions, on pointing to some person/institution's approval, etc...

When the topic turns to actual science, you EVADE and your assertions fall apart.

Let's tackle some science right now. Let's start easy to see if you even know anything.

Do you understand that additional energy is required for temperature to increase? (barring a compression of volume or a chemical reaction)


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2016 15:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Leafsdude wrote:
I still love how an analysis of peer-reviewed, scientific papers is "subjective" and "democratic".

Yes, IBdaMann does have the most peculiar impression of the way that science operates and consensus arises. It's rather funny that he accuses others of religious thinking while, at the same time, he and ITN flatly refuse to even countenance the idea that changing CO2 concentrations can affect climate (and, indeed, become abusive towards those who do). Very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black!
31-08-2016 15:56
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
The mere mention of "peer reviewed" means "it has the (subjective) blessing/approval of someone *I* claim OWNS science."


Mmm, no. Peer-reviewed means it has been objectively analyzed for basic errors by experts within the field. That's all

But keep pretending it's something else.

Do you understand that additional energy is required for temperature to increase? (barring a compression of volume or a chemical reaction)


No, because it's not.

All that is required is an increase in energy. That can be caused by both addition and subtraction. That is, both more energy in and less energy out can cause temperature to rise.

What we are seeing today is less energy escaping after entering our atmosphere due to more CO2 in the atmosphere creating an environment where temperature is increasing.
Edited on 31-08-2016 16:01
31-08-2016 16:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote: Mmm, no. Peer-reviewed means it has been objectively analyzed for basic errors by experts within the field.

There you go. It's all in determining who is an expert and who is a charlatan.

When you say a document is "peer reviewed" you mean that it has some warmizombie's approval and that, therefore ...wait for it ...makes it SCIENCE ...because you desperately want your team, your WACKY religious congregation, to OWN science.

So whenever you use the phrase "peer reviewed" the assumption is that you are referring to a document full of shit but that you consider to be holy/sacred shit that you want treated with greater reverence by others. As such, it is summarily dismissed.

Ergo, when you use the words "peer reviewed" you aren't establishing credibility for anything, you are eliminating all hope of any credibility.

Oh, and you only deceive yourself by thinking that you have the power to bestow credibility onto something by simply adding the word "scientific" as a modifier. You don't even know what it takes to make something scientific.

Leafsdude wrote: All that is required is an increase in energy.

Are you actually arguing that the amount of energy can be increased without energy being added?

All I asked was whether or not you understand that temperature cannot increase without more/additional/increased energy. Is the answer that you do not understand this to be the case?

Leafsdude wrote: What we are seeing today is less energy escaping after entering our atmosphere due to more CO2 in the atmosphere creating an environment where temperature is increasing.

Who, specifically, are you claiming is today seeing less energy "escaping" our atmosphere?

Do you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2016 17:08
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
There you go. It's all in determining who is an expert and who is a charlatan.

When you say a document is "peer reviewed" you mean that it has some warmizombie's approval and that, therefore ...wait for it ...makes it SCIENCE ...because you desperately want your team, your WACKY religious congregation, to OWN science.


Nope. When I and scientific journals say a document is peer-reviewed, it simply means it's been reviewed by someone with qualifications in said field (such as a PhD, for example). Whether they accept climate change or not is not required.

It's also not approval. A "document" cannot be rejected unless the reasons for rejection are quantified. Peer-reviewers cannot just point at a paper and say "I don't like that one" and it then doesn't get published. It simply doesn't work that way.

Ergo, when you use the words "peer reviewed" you aren't establishing credibility for anything, you are eliminating all hope of any credibility.


Only if you reject basic scientific procedure, which you clearly do.

Oh, and you only deceive yourself by thinking that you have the power to bestow credibility onto something by simply adding the word "scientific" as a modifier. You don't even know what it takes to make something scientific.


What does it take, then?



Are you actually arguing that the amount of energy can be increased without energy being added?


In an open system? Absolutely.

Again, in an open system such as a planet's atmosphere, not all energy entering the system remains or is absorbed by that system. Some energy escapes. Ergo, if you stop some of that energy from escaping, you're adding energy to that system.

All I asked was whether or not you understand that temperature cannot increase without more/additional/increased energy. Is the answer that you do not understand this to be the case?


You said additional. That implies that only by adding more energy to the system can it warm up. This is not the case.

Your modification here to include energy increase makes it accurate.

Who, specifically, are you claiming is today seeing less energy "escaping" our atmosphere?


Umm...who?

Do you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship?


I do. Considering you've only started referencing Stefan-Boltzmann after I pointed it out, I doubt you do. I bet you're just using it as a catchphrase that you pull out whenever you feel like you need some nonsense to distract, just as ITN uses "argument of the stone".
31-08-2016 18:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Leafsdude wrote:

Who, specifically, are you claiming is today seeing less energy "escaping" our atmosphere?


Umm...who?

That IS what he asked for. Are you attempting another argument of the Stone?
Leafsdude wrote:

Do you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship?


I do. Considering you've only started referencing Stefan-Boltzmann after I pointed it out, I doubt you do. I bet you're just using it as a catchphrase that you pull out whenever you feel like you need some nonsense to distract, just as ITN uses "argument of the stone".


Since you are calling the Stefan-Boltzmann equation a catchphrase, it is obvious you have no understanding of it at all.

This one is NOT argument of the Stone, it's just plain illiteracy being covered up for by using a straw man.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2016 18:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:If we make the reasonable assumption that IBdaMan's WACKY anthropogenic climate change denial is barking mad

Translation: "If we consider it reasonable to deny the science that destroys our WACKY religion..."

Surface Detail wrote:and the consensus of the world's scientific community is correct,

Translation: "...and that science is determined by democratic vote and subjective opinion, and that we speak for countless unnamed others who are not present to be cross-examined..."

Surface Detail wrote: what would you suggest would be a better policy for reducing carbon emissions than carbon taxation (allowing income tax reduction)?

Translation: " ...we can completely DODGE the question of why we should reduce carbon emissions in the first place, and therefore continue our MARXIST attack on the petroleum industry because WE ARE LOSERS."

Surface Detail wrote:
Edit: It would seem that it is you, not I, who is disconnected from actual economic thinking:

Translation: <pouting> "We suck."


.

Translation: Any policies for dealing with AGW would likely involve collective efforts that run counter to my right-wing ideology. Therefore AGW cannot and must not be real, dammit!
31-08-2016 20:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:Translation: Any policies for dealing with AGW would likely involve collective efforts that run counter to my right-wing ideology. Therefore AGW cannot and must not be real, dammit!

Very close.

Any policies for dealing with AGW would run counter to my conservative principles of separation of church and state.

The "AGW is not real" part is just my atheism rearing its ugly head.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 02:34
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
That IS what he asked for.


I'm well aware what he was asking for. I'm wondering why.

Since you are calling the Stefan-Boltzmann equation a catchphrase, it is obvious you have no understanding of it at all.


How does calling it a "catchphrase" say anything about my understanding?

This one is NOT argument of the Stone, it's just plain illiteracy being covered up for by using a straw man.


Considering I'm not creating an argument that you did not make and then attacking it, I'm pretty sure I'm not using a strawman.

But it's cute watching you try to bring up fallacies when you clearly don't know what they actually entail.
03-09-2016 03:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Leafsdude wrote:
That IS what he asked for.


I'm well aware what he was asking for. I'm wondering why.
Considering he explained it, this seems like a strange position to take.
Leafsdude wrote:
Since you are calling the Stefan-Boltzmann equation a catchphrase, it is obvious you have no understanding of it at all.


How does calling it a "catchphrase" say anything about my understanding?
Easy. It means you don't understand the use or application of the equation. You just use it as a catchphrase to sound 'scientific'.
Leafsdude wrote:
This one is NOT argument of the Stone, it's just plain illiteracy being covered up for by using a straw man.


Considering I'm not creating an argument that you did not make and then attacking it, I'm pretty sure I'm not using a strawman.

If you want to withdraw your entire argument, that's fine with me.
Leafsdude wrote:
But it's cute watching you try to bring up fallacies when you clearly don't know what they actually entail.

Says the guy that's illiterate in logic.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2016 04:28
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Considering he explained it, this seems like a strange position to take.


Where did he explain why he's asking me "who"?

Easy. It means you don't understand the use or application of the equation. You just use it as a catchphrase to sound 'scientific'.


Um...

What?

If you want to withdraw your entire argument, that's fine with me.


I'm sure it would be, because then you could get away with not having to refute it, something you clearly fear attempting to do.

I'm not going to, though, so good luck actually responding to it instead of pretending it's somehow a fallacy.

Says the guy that's illiterate in logic.


Considering I can actually point out logical fallacies accurately based on their accepted definitions while you randomly spew them as though you copied and pasted them from a list without any attempt to understand how to apply them, that's a very ironic statement.

Just another example of how you project your own failings onto others as a red herring.
Edited on 03-09-2016 04:58
07-02-2017 20:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
StephenS20 wrote:
Yes he's on to something, but not exactly correct. The oil companies will compensate...... by of course doing what they do best, gouging helpless consumers. The gas prices will simply skyrocket and this will accomplish nothing.


Since you obviously do not have the slightest clue about the world around you let me inform you of something:

The government PRESENTLY takes 60 cents per gallon of gasoline off of the taxpayer. The oil company profits are 6 cents per gallon.

One barrel of oil is 42 gallons and from that you can extract 19 gallons of gasoline from the cleanest crude and less from tar sands etc.

That means that a $10/barrel tax would be an additional 53 cents of taxes on every gallon of gasoline. Let's say a half a dollar because the remaining crude can have other oil byproducts removed

Do you expect the oil companies to take a 44 cent LOSS so that some jackass such as yourself can pretend that you're so special that they should GIVE you gasoline?

Are you so F'ing ignorant that you don't know that oil companies aren't owned by "billionaires" anymore and haven't been for the last 100 years? They are publically held companies and the vast majority of their stocks are held by retirement funds.

So with your staggering stupidity you want to steal the retirement from your own parents because, like man, you're so special you shouldn't have to pay your own way.

What I would dearly love to know is how you can even remember to breath with an intellect like yours.
07-02-2017 22:40
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
Her in the UK, gasoline costs over twice as much as it does in the US due to taxation. The result? People drive smaller cars and tend not to drive as far. More use public transport, which has evolved to fulfil the need. It's also a useful source of income for the treasury and allows the government to reduce other taxes or increase public spending (depending on their political inclination). And, most importantly, CO2 emissions per capita are less than half those of the US.


Jeez, so now it turns out that you don't even live in the USA but you want to dictate to us.

Americans have a large country. Not that postage stamp that you live in. And we even had to save your butts in two world wars that created FAR more CO2 than was created by the USA since 1980. And that's because creatures like you couldn't protect yourselves from an idea. If it wasn't for Winston Churchill you'd still be under the German ball and chain. Why don't you go liberal again you moron - try and ignore Brexit.
07-02-2017 23:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
And we even had to save your butts in two world wars ...

Did you really? You must be older than I thought you were. Good tactics though - wait till you can see who's winning or are attacked yourself before risking your own necks. As Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
08-02-2017 02:03
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
And we even had to save your butts in two world wars ...

Did you really? You must be older than I thought you were. Good tactics though - wait till you can see who's winning or are attacked yourself before risking your own necks. As Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."


There is more land area in Texas and California than there is in the British Isles. There are more miles of roads in California that there is in the British Isles. Under the liberals GB almost gave away your country.

So don't you use your liberal mouth to talk about Churchill who was more about Great Britain than you will ever be. Go talk to your pals about how stupid the labor class is for committing Brexit.




Join the debate Is Obama's 10 bucks per barrel oil tax a good idea?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Something To Make itn feel Good2226-07-2018 18:15
VERY Good video1111-05-2018 01:28
I miss my good friend Spot613-03-2018 22:25
Reaction: World Bank Steals Show at One Planet Summit by Phasing Out Upstream Oil and Gas Finance213-12-2017 03:44
How tax policies can save the planet!1921-12-2016 10:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact