Posted on 01/20/2019 5:35:01 PM PST by Kaslin
Well, there's a troika of populists...
The only two things that the insane commie libs know how to do is lie, lie, lie...and lie some more. And, oh yeah, steal and spend other peoples’ money.
Remember: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Lies and no credibility...not even with themselves.
Carbon tax....just another leftist way to steal money from the tax payer.
L8r
I believe this as much as I believe everything else from the globalist thugs.
Oh, the breathing tax. How cute.
NASA studies found that carbon dioxide was not a greenhouse gas, it has no effect on solar warming. But I am sure these wise [asses] will ignore reality for the big scam.
Of course it is
It is a ruse to get the camels nose inside the tent just like the income tax was to be a tax only on the rich. They said only the top 10% would be taxed. It didnt take long for that to change.
Sure, anytime some politician tells you that a new tax is revenue neutral, grab your wallet and hold on!
--------------------------------------------
No smoking hot spot David Evans - THE AUSTRALIAN July 18, 20081. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
It is foolish to argue that more CO2 would benefit the earth when the entire concept of CO2 affecting the global climate is a hoax.
Sort of like free health care, re: Obamacare. No thanks!
The consequences are entirely foreseeable, but when they occur everybody will say they were unforeseen.
Anybody who argues for a carbon tax either knows the consequences and is lying or is stupid in the extreme.
everything to do with gloBULL warming is a costly hoax.
Any Republican “conservative” who would support this is 100% useless.
Basically, anythIng claiming to be revenue neutral, isnt.
Also, common sense laws. There is an exceedingly small supply of that in Congress and squeezing it out of all legislators yearly since 1900 would produce only one actual common sense law every 20,465 years.
That's definitely untrue. We had the least CO2 in the atmosphere in the past million years out of the four billion years of data. The fact of CO2 starvation has placed the earth in a permanent ice age with brief interglacials like the one we are currently in. Without the extra CO2 generated by mankind we would be at risk of an ice age that would kill a large portion of the biosphere and billions of people.
The CO2 starvation also created the C4 plants like corn that are efficient enough to pull nearly all of the available CO2 from the atmosphere in the middle of the cornfield (well-watered in full sun). Greenhouse growers must use CO2 creating system in their greenhouses or their produce will die. They typically bump up CO2 to 1000 ppm. Not only does CO2 make it warmer but it makes plants grow better.
The plants would benefit but the ice age is not a result of CO2 levels. That is entirely due to continental shifting, changing sea currents and the rise of the Himalayas.
It is well documented that CO2 levels follow temperature not the other way around.
But there is another factor at play which is geographical, other than the mountains. The position of Anarctica, cut off from the other continents, allows it to be a freezer. The southern hemisphere has not warmed as much as the NH. The southern ocean near Antarctica has not warmed at all. Obviousky any warming of Antarctica is a good thing just like the warming of the Arctic. That's because of this simple reason: if the Antarctic sea ice sheild expands far enough north, it will trigger a full glacial period by reflecting the sun.
Our biggest threat is cooling not warming. Now you are correct that CO2 declines with cooling and increases with warming,. But higher CO2 also causes some warming. Not a lot, because if it caused a lot we would have had runaway warming some time in the past billions of years. But the reason we know there's a little warming from CO2 is that with low levels, mainly due to the weathering, we are in a permanent ice age.
Another simple way of looking at CO2 is that about one degree of warming (or cooling) causes about 5 or 10 ppm of increase (or decrease) in CO2. We have had 130 ppm rise of CO2 caused in the recent past by fossil fuel burning, etc. not by warming. Now the pertinent question is how much warming has that increase in CO2 caused. The answer: not much.
And not enough to make one iota of difference in plant growth. If it were greenhouses wouldn't pump it up to 1,000 ppm.
We have had 130 ppm rise of CO2 caused in the recent past by fossil fuel burning, etc. not by warming.
That's just a guess not a fact.
Quite the contrary. The reason growers use 1000 ppm in greenhouses is because most plants grow better at those higher concentrations. There are many science papers with statements like "Plants enriched with CO2 showed a significant increase in fresh and dry weight and yield of tomatoes." I just looked one of hundreds. I have read several in the past.
That's just a guess not a fact.
Of course. Science is only theories and sometimes there are decent measurements from well-understood instruments. Although even the understanding of the instrument relies on theory. We have no instrument measurements for CO2 from 1000's of years ago. Ice cores show a relatively stable level around 280. Those trapped bubbles are subject to diffusion however.
More recently we have instruments that show an increase in CO2 worldwide of about 2.5 ppm per year. Those measurements were replicated worldwide with a wide variety of measurement methods starting in the 1950's. It is about as well established as a scientific theory can be. Not just a "guess" although like I said, not a "fact" in the scientific sense. Then we have to ask where the 2.5 ppm per year increase comes from. Was there .25C of warming in the ocean per year in the past centuries to cause the rise now? No. The rise is simply due to fossil.
As I have always said, so what. There is a manmade rise in CO2 but we know from those same ice cores that the strongest correlation is from natural warming to natural CO2 rise, not from CO2 to warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.