Without the consult of labour unions?

With all due respect to unions, it is non sensical that they would have anything to do with the climate change agenda.

You all swallowed the Big Lie

and now you have indigestion. Maybe if you would bother to examine the total lack of evidence for the CO2 hypothesis of climate change, you would have firmer grounds for opposing this tax scam.

There has been no warming for 8 years in spite of increasing atmospheric CO2. The lack of sunspots points to a cooling period coming up. We have had record cold over this last year in various places from Tajikistan to Tasmania.

My question to all of you is, how cold does it have to get before you get you are being scammed?
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
"My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been developed to a complex web of "likelihoods", all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels."

Mopled...

Don't you think a bigger lie might just be market economics and our consummer lifestyle? If we're tearing up the earth for wealth now and damn the real costs, are we not headed for disaster of global proportions? So I ask you one last time... Why pick this C02 bone when there are so many more pressing issues?

realisticman

I thought according to you and Neil Reynolds "global warming" was the fault of the NDP just like all deficits and uppity workers?

Frank

I think, since it's been so cold everywhere, it's now called Climate Change. One size fits all. Doesn't matter if it's too hot or too cold.

Perhaps Avi Lewis is working on a new book to be titled 'Shock Environmentalism'.

cold?

What are you talking about?

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/288933

realisticman

If you don't believe in such a thing as Climate Change you will be surprised to learn the guy you voted for premier does and so does the CCPA and even the Sightline Institute in Seattle.

I assume that you're now a believer and will be having lunch with the WWF in the near future to talk about contributing to that organization?

Carbon Tax?

I really can't understand why no one seems to see this....It's a gas tax. What would happen if the government tried to raise the gas tax? Shrieks, and Wails, and it would make them very unpopular. But if you wrap it in a green ribbon even David Suzuki will buy it. There's a name for this. It's called greenwashing and this is a most egregious example. It's also a very cynical political ploy and all the media seems to have bought into it.

It's a gas tax!

Harry B

Think it through, Club.

Club wrote:

"Don't you think a bigger lie might just be market economics and our consummer lifestyle? If we're tearing up the earth for wealth now and damn the real costs, are we not headed for disaster of global proportions? So I ask you one last time... Why pick this C02 bone when there are so many more pressing issues?"

But that reason, Club, has been Mopled's justification for maintaining that the effort spent trying to correct CO2-driven GW is misdirected.

Far more would be gained if the same effort/money was spent on alternative energy sources. (and NOT biofuels)

cold

That Star piece is 2 months old.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3395415.ece

Also, GWest ignore Phillips

CBC Feb.18.08

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

and

Some 17 provinces and municipalities, including Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Guizhou, Shannxi, Jiangsu and Guangxi have been affected -- an area with a population of 60 million. At least 240,000 people have had to leave their homes, with some 149,000 homes collapsed and 602,000 homes damaged, the Amity Foundation, a long-time CWS partner, has reported.

Mid-East too

As the country contends with a cold wave that has left at least two people dead from hypothermia, Israel Electric reported this week that demand for electricity hit an all-time winter high of 9,900 megawatts late Sunday evening.

Even Oz.

Last month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we’ve horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we’re still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.

Farms.com

February 19, 2008, Columbia, Missouri

Our outlook for March 2008 temperatures can only be described as bone chilling with only California, Arizona and southwest Texas enjoying seasonal temperatures.

Frank

Sure I'm a believer, global warming is over. It's back to global cooling again. Better go and cut up some more wood. Warming's had its 15 minutes.

R/Man

How soon you forget. One of the main characteristics of global warming is widely variable temperature conditions.

Keep fiddling grasshopper!

Trolls Need Global Cooling

www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=a94b56a5-5df2-4982-ba0b-7724efb3

Like many of you, I have heard it said that in the 1970s, scientists were saying the world was heading into a new ice age. This has always bothered me because in my 20 years as an active climate researcher, I have never come across a peer-reviewed scientific study that has actually made this claim. Fortunately, today we have the searchable database ISI Web of Science, containing information from more than 6,000 scientific journals, so getting to the bottom of this is an easy task.

It turns our that there is not a single peer-reviewed original scientific study that argued this to be the case. The only paper that came close was one written by NASA scientists Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen Schneider in 1971.

Be Cool Man

Who's writing the headlines for these envirocatastrophics? If coolings in the mix the moniker's half baked (with apologies).

I'd fire the copywriters.

No blood money

The wife and I have talked and agreed that our respective $100 will go to the More Than A Roof Society to assist in housing the unhouseable. After all, they got just about SFA in this budget.

Carole ought to be ashamed for shilling for this ignorant thug. Tieleman hit it right on yesterday - Campbell's just a weathervane and the wind is blowing in a different direction today.

Oh, by the way R/man

2008 is less than two months old....Remember.

The Star article was a summary of data for 2007 - look for the 2008 results at the END of the year.

GWest

One article, written before winter started is virtually irrelevant compared to five written this month. Two million new square kilometers of Arctic ice is not diddly and Spring is nearly here.

A New Ice Age

According to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming. Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents. In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

What I want to know is

will the tax come off when it becomes apparent that the warming period is over?

Somehow I doubt it. We will be very lucky if the planned escalation to 7 cents a litre is halted.

The Great Green, Global Warming, Con-Trick

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister.
http://www.globalwarming.nottinghamshiretimes.co.uk/

realisticman

So the point is you disagree with your own premier and the people you yourself listed as being onside with him.

ME2

Far more would be gained if the same effort/money was spent on alternative energy sources. (and NOT biofuels)

But I've told mopled I agree with him on the silly carbon-tax on gas thing, as said above, its just a gas tax, nothing else.

Its the rest of mopled's arguments that I disagree with (Scientists are wrong, its all a big conspiracy, yada yada yada)

density matters, as much as area

R'man said:

The density of the ice will be the big factor once La Nina has completed her cycle. As it is probably thinner, the warmer oceans will melt this off in rapid fashion and then we will see how much ice is left in the longer run. Climate can always vary - year to year; it is the general warming trend over decades that is the problem with climate change.
SIG

Frank

I've never believed it. Do you believe everything Carole James says?

realisticman

If she ever says anything at all I'm 50% sure I'll disagree with her. I like a lot of NDPers and a lot of their policies, and I'll vote for Carole regardless but I certainly don't agree with everything they have to say.

It's not enough.

I think myself and others believe this measure is not enough. My friend "Zim" sent me an excellent rant on the topic this morning. You can check it out here if you want:

[url=http://friuch.com/wordpress/?p=53]

Also, Mark Jaccard, a big proponent of a carbon tax in BC over the past two decades received an Outstanding Alumni Award for Academic Excellence from SFU at the same time this carbon tax was announced. Quite a night for Mark!

I didn't say "scientists are wrong"

I said the 51 people, and not all of them scientists, who wrote the IPCC Policy Statement before the science review were wrong. There are now close to 22,000 scientists who think that too.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Sharing:
when there are volcanic vents along where the tectonic plates meet on the floors of both the Atlantic and Pacific, and a volcano under Greenland's ice sheet and a submerged volcano near the only part of Antarctica where it is warming, normally a person would look to that as a source for the warming ...not a beneficial trace gas.

As for there being a conspiracy. that is trickier, since Christine Stewart was very open about the ultimate reason for the scam....aside from the money to be made trading carbon credits,and siphoning off tax dollars that is. I remind you of Maurice Strong's statement:"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring about?"

An interesting video which goes a good way to explain how the climate plot was hatched.

"George Hunt, a business consultant, was present at the 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress as a member of the staff. He initially wanted to buy a ticket, but this proved to be much too expensive ($650).

"At the conference he noticed it had very little to do with the conventional environment movement and was surprised to see people like Maurice Strong, Edmund de Rothschild (Pilgrims Society), David Rockefeller (Pilgrims Society), and James A. Baker (Pilgrims Society; Cap & Gown; trustee American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; Atlantic Council of the United States; National Security Planning Group; Bohemian Grove; CFR; Carlyle; advisor George W. Bush in his 2000 election)."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/250907_b_Hunt.htm

Weather changes from year to year. Climate changes are cyclical. So, I ask, how many years of cooling do we have to experience before you concede the warming has stopped?
There has been no warming recorded by the satellite data for 8-10 years. Take a look at the graph here.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/07/more-satellite-musings/#more-306

Anybody want to answer as to when you will cry uncle?

Uncle

If it means you'll stop... uncle uncle uncle UNCLE

Yes you did

I said the 51 people, and not all of them scientists, who wrote the IPCC Policy Statement before the science review were wrong. There are now close to 22,000 scientists who think that too.

You did say the scientists were wrong last week.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/02/13/ThroneSpeech08/

You're saying the scientists are wrong. Pray, tell me about your degree and peer-reviewed research.

Worse, you "back up" your 22,000-scientist theory with Fred Seitz's bullshit organization. Tell me, why didn't Seitz put on this "petition project" that he was the past president of the George Marshall Institute? Why don't you tell us how the NAS gave Seitz the boot after he aped their format for his bogus science? Why don't you point out how some of the 17,000 scientists who signed the Oregon petition that led to this affair either had no Phd, no knowledge of climate issues, or retracted their support once they found out details of what they had signed? Not to mention the duplicates and obviously bogus names.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/frederick-seitz.html

You're a crank, mopled, you DID say scientists are wrong, and nobody's listening to you any more.

Why don't you try some other skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg, or Chris West at Oxford, or Timo Hameranta? At least a discussion is possible there.

Zalm. read what I said this time

and stop trying to stretch it out to include all scientists. The cranks are the ones who keep saying there is a "climate crisis" and who are pushing a well organized scam.

The names and credentials on the petition have all been verified.
"In a listing of this size, some apparently duplicate names and some names identical to real or fictional people who are not scientists or signatories occur by chance. This listing has been very carefully verified. It contains one and only one entry for each scientist and contains no entries for individuals who are not trained in science or who did not sign the petition."
The attack on Seitz,who only wrote an introduction to the petition, just fits in with the smearing of every scientist who said that the AGW/CC hypothesis was luney tunes. They have been proven right. The CO2 level has gone up over the last 10 years....and temperatures haven't. Get it? What part of that don't you understand? And that is only one piece of evidence in the case against CO2 being a climate changer.

Lomborg is not a skeptic in spite of the title of his first book.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1119d47c-479f-487a-8c48-872b88ee89d3

"Notwithstanding Lomborg's major concession that "global warming is real and man-made" and is "beyond debate," environmentalists will not be happy. Lomborg questions "whether hysteria and headlong spending on extravagant CO2-cutting programs at an unprecedented price is the only possible response." Any competent economist can tell you that deep CO2 reductions fail every cost-benefit test; this is true even of economists, such as Yale's William Nordhaus, who accept the catastrophic-global-warming scenario."

So, I ask again, how much longer than 8-10 years with no warming, and how much colder does it have to get,... in spite of rising CO2 levels, before you all concede both the paradigm and the consensus is false?

mopled

They must believe it because it attacks capitalism. I call it Disaster Environmentalism.

Its more about the green in your pockets

and its not only going to affect the poor its going to make you poor as prices go UP UP UP and those that pollute will continue to do so because they can afford to. We already pay more than the rest of Canada for our energy and with oil prices at an all time high without hope for lower prices in the near future its gotta be hurting consumers big time. So why the carbon tax when its like the straw that broke the camels back or in this case the bank because this is going to make BC a very very expensive place to live for most average income earners if not impossible. If the tax is about the environment then it needs to be spent directly on that which will make this province a greener place to live and incentives for those who move toward keeping the air clean then at least something good would be coming of this but dosen't appear to be about keeping the earth safe but rather its more about the green in your pockets several billion I believe.

Buss passes for all!

The carbon tax will do absolutely nothing to help the environment or curb the usage of fossil fuels, and anyone who isn't a mindless sheep knows it.

Rather than a 100 dollar bribe (I mean cheque- part of which will go back to the government in tax anyway), why not give everyone a one month bus pass? Then again, I suppose this would only drive people back to their cars when they discovered what a crappy transit system we have.