It's Climate Change I tell'ya!! IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!!


petros
+3
#241
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

That may be so, Dixie but the consequences of what is happening around the world are very really and cannot be disputed. It matters not the cause nor whether carbon taxes or carbon off-sets will make a whit of difference. What does matter is that people are being displaced by rising waters. Do you really think that areas of the Bahamas will ever be fit to live in again? And why would anyone want to take the chance being that the islands are in the natural path of hurricanes. Where are all those people going to go? Where are all the people on multiple islands around the world whose land is being slowly taken over by the rising water - where will they go?
There are examples of places in the US - the Florida Keys, and other water-fronted cities in the state that are seeing the government step-in with buy-outs as living there is no longer viable. Around the world countries are spending billions of dollars to shore up their coast lines and prevent flooding. Jakarta is moving its capitol due to the fact that the city is sinking and is prone to seasonal flooding. No plans for the millions of those with no other place to go.
This is what concerns me. Not the arguments over who is responsible nor the imposition of taxes that will do nothing to solve the problem. Which is why immigration is of great importance to me in this election. Putting a stop to illegal border crosses is number one on my list. Number two is more policies that see legal immigrants to our country being given new lives in other areas of the country than our cities - which face it are crowded to the gills right now. Canada is going to be pressed to take in more immigrants every year and making sure that they are legally entering our country and finding homes in more rural areas would, IMHO, most certainly be step in the right direction.

2.8mm sea level rise per year. No more no less but a consistent 2.8mm from a time before steam to present.

It has remained consistent with and without compounding CO2.
 
MHz
#242
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post



just before the medical attendants SEDATE him.............................................


at his mental health facility..................................

Yet here I am in full control of what I do and what I don't do. This must be the looney bin you keep saying I belong in.
 
MHz
#243
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

2.8mm sea level rise per year. No more no less but a consistent 2.8mm from a time before steam to present.

Where is the link that says that increase is global. The crust moves up and down as magma flows from the 40,000 miles of oceanic rifts until it at the place it descends to the core.


WTF is 'before steam'?
 
petros
#244
Oh good Lord not more of that bullshit.
 
MHz
#245
Where is the link that says that increase is global. The crust moves up and down as magma flows from the 40,000 miles of oceanic rifts until it at the place it descends to the core.

WTF is 'before steam'?



It is now returning to an episode of caldera uplift - up to 7 centimeters per year. That's the highest recorded uplift in Yellowstone. "It is difficult to say what it means," said Smith, whose research is funded by the National Science Foundation.Jun 1, 2017
Yellowstone Volcano Caldera Rises, Falls and Rises Again - My ...



https://www.yellowstonepark.com
› things-to-do › caldera-rises
Last edited by MHz; Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:35 PM..
 
MHz
#246
In case you don't understand what magma is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0enuqQHrjU
Giant Magma Ocean Found Deep Inside Earth's Core
 
petros
+1
#247
And what's your point?
 
petros
+1
#248
How dare you!

Climate Strike Canada
@canada_strike
#Canada’s minister of environment tweets support for Greta and the movement, but doesn’t like our reply calling out her inaction, and then blocks our account? Wow. @CatherineMcKenna you should really be blocking pipelines not tweets from kids... #ClimateStrike #cdnpoli
 
petros
+1
#249
 
Gilgamesh
+1
#250
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

2.8mm sea level rise per year. No more no less but a consistent 2.8mm from a time before steam to present.

It has remained consistent with and without compounding co2.

true
 
MHz
#251
A little NWO girl taking down the whole US, now do you see the power level the US doesn't have?
 
MHz
#252
Quote: Originally Posted by Gilgamesh View Post

true

He can't find any hard facts, you have a link or is science around here just what opinion 'feels good'?

How do you measure 2mm on a global scale for starters?
 
MHz
#253
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-lev...termediate.htm
Gavin Schmidt investigated the source of the specific claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise, and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?
A common error in climate debate is drawing conclusions from narrow pieces of data while neglecting the whole picture. A good example is the recent claim that sea level rise is slowing. The data cited is satellite altimeter measurements of global mean sea level over the past 16 years (Figure 1). The 60 day smoothed average (blue line) seems to indicate sea level peaked around the start of 2006. So one might argue that sea levels haven't risen for 3 years. Could one conclude that the long term trend in sea level rise has ended?

Figure 1: Satellite altimeter measurements of the change global mean sea level with inverse barometer effect ( University of Colorado ).
To answer this question, all one has to do is view the entire 16 year dataset. A noisy signal is imposed over the long term trend of sea level rise. These fluctuations mean there will be short periods where sea level shows no trend. For example, 1993 to 1996 or 1998 to 2000. In other words, there have been several short periods of several years over the last 16 years of steady sea level rise where sea level appears not to rise.
This is inevitably the case when you have a noisy signal imposed over a long term trend. We see exactly the same phenomenon occur in the temperature record (which is why we also see the same erroneous conclusions). The lesson from this is to treat with skepticism anyone who concludes long term trends from several years of a noisy signal (after all, skepticism should cut both ways).
In addition to this, Figure 1 is a particularly noisy signal because it displays unfiltered data. Sea level is subject to the "Inverse Barometer" Effect. This is where sea level is depressed in areas of high atmospheric pressure, and raised in areas of low pressure. When barometric pressure effects are filtered out, the result is a less noisy signal and a clearer picture of what's happening with sea level.

Figure 2: Satellite altimeter measurements of the change global mean sea level with inverse barometer effect filtered out ( University of Colorado ).
A broader view of sea level rise

Global mean sea level (eg - the global average height of the ocean) has typically been calculated from tidal gauges. Tide gauges measure the height of the sea surface relative to coastal benchmarks. The problem with this is the height of the land is not always constant. Tectonic movements can alter it, as well as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. This is where land which was formerly pressed down by massive ice sheets, rebounds now that the ice sheets are gone.
To construct a global historical record of sea levels, tide gauge records are taken from locations away from plate boundaries and subject to little isostatic rebound. This has been done in A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (Church 2006) which reconstructs global sea level rise from tide gauges across the globe. An updated version of the sea level plot is displayed in Figure 3:




https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/...ust-got-hosed/


The fantasy of accelerating sea level rise just got hosed

Anthony Watts / February 4, 2018
We’ve been told over an over again that global warming would melt the icecaps, and melt Greenland, and that would result in catastrophic sea level rise flooding cities. We’ve also been told that “sea level rise is “accelerating” but in an investigation done here on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach, Putting the Brakes on Acceleration, he noted in 2011 that there seems to be no evidence of it at all, and notes that sea level was rising faster in the first half of the record.

Figure 1. Satellite-measured sea level rise. Errors shown are 95% confidence intervals. Data Source.
The smaller trend of the recent half of the record is statistically different from the larger trend of the first half. Will this reduction continue into the future? Who knows? I’m just talking about the past, and pointing out that we sure haven’t seen any sign of the threatened acceleration in the satellite record. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Pierre Gosselin, of “No Tricks Zone” has this excellent summary of what’s been going on since then. Excerpts below.
Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here.
The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming.
In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).

Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.
Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.

In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
The Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.
In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/


By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had essentially ceased, while ongoing adjustments of Earth's lithosphere due to removal of the ice sheets gradually decreased over time. Thus, sea level continued to drop in formerly glaciated regions and rise in areas peripheral to the former ice sheets. At many low-latitude ocean islands and coastal sites distant from the effects of glaciation, sea level stood several meters higher than present during the mid-Holocene and has been falling ever since. This phenomenon is due to lithospheric responses to changes in ice and water loading. Water is "siphoned" away from the central equatorial ocean basins into depressed areas peripheral to long-gone ice sheets. Loading by meltwater that has been added to the oceans also depresses far-field continental shelves, tilting the shoreline upward and thus lowering local sea level. Over the past few thousand years, the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year.

Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.
Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century. However, any significant meltdown would take many centuries. Furthermore, even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses.


Is there anything about the loco collective that isn't bogus??
 
petros
+1
#254
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

How do you measure 2mm on a global scale for starters?

With a ruler.
 
MHz
#255
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

With a ruler.

Yeah okay Dex.
 
NZDoug
#256
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-lev...termediate.htm
Gavin Schmidt investigated the source of the specific claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise, and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?
A common error in climate debate is drawing conclusions from narrow pieces of data while neglecting the whole picture. A good example is the recent claim that sea level rise is slowing. The data cited is satellite altimeter measurements of global mean sea level over the past 16 years (Figure 1). The 60 day smoothed average (blue line) seems to indicate sea level peaked around the start of 2006. So one might argue that sea levels haven't risen for 3 years. Could one conclude that the long term trend in sea level rise has ended?

Figure 1: Satellite altimeter measurements of the change global mean sea level with inverse barometer effect ( University of Colorado ).
To answer this question, all one has to do is view the entire 16 year dataset. A noisy signal is imposed over the long term trend of sea level rise. These fluctuations mean there will be short periods where sea level shows no trend. For example, 1993 to 1996 or 1998 to 2000. In other words, there have been several short periods of several years over the last 16 years of steady sea level rise where sea level appears not to rise.
This is inevitably the case when you have a noisy signal imposed over a long term trend. We see exactly the same phenomenon occur in the temperature record (which is why we also see the same erroneous conclusions). The lesson from this is to treat with skepticism anyone who concludes long term trends from several years of a noisy signal (after all, skepticism should cut both ways).
In addition to this, Figure 1 is a particularly noisy signal because it displays unfiltered data. Sea level is subject to the "Inverse Barometer" Effect. This is where sea level is depressed in areas of high atmospheric pressure, and raised in areas of low pressure. When barometric pressure effects are filtered out, the result is a less noisy signal and a clearer picture of what's happening with sea level.

Figure 2: Satellite altimeter measurements of the change global mean sea level with inverse barometer effect filtered out ( University of Colorado ).
A broader view of sea level rise
Global mean sea level (eg - the global average height of the ocean) has typically been calculated from tidal gauges. Tide gauges measure the height of the sea surface relative to coastal benchmarks. The problem with this is the height of the land is not always constant. Tectonic movements can alter it, as well as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. This is where land which was formerly pressed down by massive ice sheets, rebounds now that the ice sheets are gone.
To construct a global historical record of sea levels, tide gauge records are taken from locations away from plate boundaries and subject to little isostatic rebound. This has been done in A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (Church 2006) which reconstructs global sea level rise from tide gauges across the globe. An updated version of the sea level plot is displayed in Figure 3:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/...ust-got-hosed/
The fantasy of accelerating sea level rise just got hosed
Anthony Watts / February 4, 2018
We’ve been told over an over again that global warming would melt the icecaps, and melt Greenland, and that would result in catastrophic sea level rise flooding cities. We’ve also been told that “sea level rise is “accelerating” but in an investigation done here on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach, Putting the Brakes on Acceleration, he noted in 2011 that there seems to be no evidence of it at all, and notes that sea level was rising faster in the first half of the record.

Figure 1. Satellite-measured sea level rise. Errors shown are 95% confidence intervals. Data Source.
The smaller trend of the recent half of the record is statistically different from the larger trend of the first half. Will this reduction continue into the future? Who knows? I’m just talking about the past, and pointing out that we sure haven’t seen any sign of the threatened acceleration in the satellite record. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Pierre Gosselin, of “No Tricks Zone” has this excellent summary of what’s been going on since then. Excerpts below.
Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here.
The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming.
In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).

Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.
Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.

In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
The Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.
In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had essentially ceased, while ongoing adjustments of Earth's lithosphere due to removal of the ice sheets gradually decreased over time. Thus, sea level continued to drop in formerly glaciated regions and rise in areas peripheral to the former ice sheets. At many low-latitude ocean islands and coastal sites distant from the effects of glaciation, sea level stood several meters higher than present during the mid-Holocene and has been falling ever since. This phenomenon is due to lithospheric responses to changes in ice and water loading. Water is "siphoned" away from the central equatorial ocean basins into depressed areas peripheral to long-gone ice sheets. Loading by meltwater that has been added to the oceans also depresses far-field continental shelves, tilting the shoreline upward and thus lowering local sea level. Over the past few thousand years, the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year.
Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.
Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century. However, any significant meltdown would take many centuries. Furthermore, even with possible future accelerated discharge from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, it highly unlikely that annual rates of sea level rise would exceed those of the major post-glacial meltwater pulses.
Is there anything about the loco collective that isn't bogus??

What matters is that the weather is getting more violent causing coastal destruction worldwide.
I don't want to spend $100thou for a bunch of rocks to stop my front section washing away.
 
petros
+1
#257
Is weather really getting more intense? Can you back that up with something beyond "scientists say...:
 
Curious Cdn
#258
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Is weather really getting more intense? Can you back that up with something beyond "scientists say...:

Going down to freezing tomorrow in your part of the World?
It's 22 and sunny here going up to 26 tomorrow.
 
petros
#259
No idea, is it? Why would you try to compare weather when you are 1000km south on the other end of the continent?

Stupid or weird?
 
Curious Cdn
#260
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

No idea, is it? Why would you try to compare weather when you are 1000km south on the other end of the continent?
Stupid or weird?

You're getting 30 cms of snow IN SEPTEMBER and we're sweating in high humidity.

That's sure normal ...

somewhere ....

Australia?

No, not even there.

By the way, we're much closer to the middle of the continent. We're a long way from the edge.
 
petros
+1
#261
I'm getting 30m of snow? Why is it so sunny?

What's the forecast for Casper Wyoming?
 
Curious Cdn
#262
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

I'm getting 30m of snow? Why is it so sunny?
What's the forecast for Casper Wyoming?

Oh, well! They're only a couple of hundred kilometers north of us.

Should be much cozier there, according to your meteorological expertise.

By the way, 30m of snow is Lower Slobbovian. Missing your old Babushka again, eh?
 
petros
+1
#263
I miss a scarf?

What does that me to us sober people?
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#264
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

I miss a scarf?
What does that me to us sober people?

No, no!

Old Babushka!

Don't you remember her pulling the plow?

Standing there naked watching the barn burn?
 
petros
+1
#265
A babushka is a scarf ya stupid drunk.
 
MHz
#266
Quote: Originally Posted by NZDoug View Post

What matters is that the weather is getting more violent causing coastal destruction worldwide.
I don't want to spend $100thou for a bunch of rocks to stop my front section washing away.

A windy day will be the way rising water happens. All in all the agenda is to take all the money from the people over bogus events. Two World Wars put all nations into perpetual debt. Look up the actual cost and tell me how much each war netted the ones who caused it. (not as easy as it sounds)
 
MHz
#267
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Going down to freezing tomorrow in your part of the World?
It's 22 and sunny here going up to 26 tomorrow.

The recovery doesn't look all that speedy as the highs are single digits.
 
Cliffy
-1
#268
 
petros
+2
#269
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Why Cliffy? Why do they insist on a Carbon Tax?

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
ExxonMobil, the largest investor-owned oil company in the world, announced last week that it will spend $1 million over two years to lobby for a US carbon tax. ... The proposal Exxon wants to enact is one that would shield the company from lawsuits while also preventing further climate change regulations.Oct 18, 2018
https://www.vox.com › climate-...
Exxon's carbon tax proposal: there's a big catch - Vox
Feedback
About Featured Snippets
PEOPLE ALSO ASK
What will the carbon tax be used for?
What is the carbon tax in Canada?
Which provinces have carbon tax?
How much is the carbon tax on natural gas in Alberta?
Feedback
www.cbc.ca
Web results
Shell urges Canada's oil lobby group to support carbon tax
big oil asks for carbon tax from www.cbc.ca
Apr. 2, 2019 · A new report by Royal Dutch Shell is urging Canada's largest oil and gas lobby group to start supporting ...
https://www.cbc.ca
Big oil wants a carbon tax in Alberta | CBC News - CBC.ca
Nov. 5, 2018 · Suncor's CEO explains how and why Alberta needs a carbon tax.
www.theglobeandmail.com
Why are Canada's oil patch CEOs changing their minds on carbon pricing?
big oil asks for carbon tax from www.theglobeandmail.com
Dec. 4, 2018 · CEOs from several major oil sands producers crowded the podium in Edmonton ... The smart money's in embracing it—just ask an oil sands executive.
grist.org
What's next for Big Oil? A carbon tax for them and a whole lotta concessions ...
big oil asks for carbon tax from grist.org
May 22, 2019 · Here's why oil companies keep donating to a carbon tax initiative. ( Spoiler alert: it has a little something to do with those ...
business.financialpost.com
Oil companies that backed Notley's carbon taxes are learning a hard lesson ...
big oil asks for carbon tax from business.financialpost.com
Nov. 30, 2018 · While upstream producers such as Cenovus have been taking it on the chin, large integrated oil companies ...
www.vox.com
Exxon's carbon tax proposal: there's a big catch
big oil asks for carbon tax from www.vox.com
Oct. 18, 2018 · ExxonMobil, the largest investor-owned oil company in the world, announced last week that it will spend $1 million over two years to lobby for a US carbon tax. ... The proposal Exxon wants to enact is one that would shield the company from lawsuits while also preventing further climate change regulations.
insideclimatenews.org
Carbon Tax Plans: How They Compare and Why Oil Giants Support One of Them
big oil asks for carbon tax from insideclimatenews.org
Mar. 7, 2019 · There are significant differences between the carbon tax proposal backed by Big Oil and the approaches ...
https://ipolitics.ca › 2019/04/03 › th...
The Drilldown: Shell pushes largest Canadian oil association on carbon ...
Apr. 3, 2019 · While Shell said it agrees with CAPP on low-carbon ... association to update its view on carbon tax policies. CAPP, Canada's largest oil and gas lobbying group, ...
thehill.com
Oil companies join blitz for carbon tax
big oil asks for carbon tax from thehill.com
May 22, 2019 · Oil companies join blitz for carbon tax ... For those businesses, a carbon tax allowing the continued use ... One major fossil fuel group though absent from ...
oilprice.com
Carbon Pricing Won't Kill Big Oil | OilPrice.com
big oil asks for carbon tax from oilprice.com
Oct. 15, 2018 · Big oil has agreed to carbon taxes, but its support might come too late as the measure might not be good
 
NZDoug
#270
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Is weather really getting more intense? Can you back that up with something beyond "scientists say...:

My insurance invoice due to owning coastal property reflects what the insurance companies say, and this is harsh reality.