Al Gore is BACK in an Inconvenient Sequel
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Oh. . . SEQUEL.
I was skimming real fast and I thought it said "An Inconvenient Squirrel." Figured Al Gore was getting into pest control.
I was skimming real fast and I thought it said "An Inconvenient Squirrel." Figured Al Gore was getting into pest control.
An economist who I knew who’s deceased now, his name was Rudi Dornbusch, he once said things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen much faster than you thought they could. And I’ve seen that in the technology areas with these exponential curves. I’ve seen it in political and social revolutions. I’ll just use one quick example. If somebody had told me even five years ago that in 2017, gay marriage would be fully legal in all 50 states and accepted and honored and celebrated by two-thirds of the American people, I would’ve said well I sure hope so, but I think that’s wildly unrealistic, you’re being naïve. Change can’t happen that quickly. But it did.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/al-gore-we-are-in-the-early-stages-of-a-revolution.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/al-gore-we-are-in-the-early-stages-of-a-revolution.html
You can join them in the front lines where their life expectancy is somewhat low.
They are putting all the other weird sexual types out there these days.
Go take that hill....oooops
If there are any survivors from that, attrition is pretty high once they get back and have to deal with the VA
They are putting all the other weird sexual types out there these days.
Go take that hill....oooops
If there are any survivors from that, attrition is pretty high once they get back and have to deal with the VA
Getting rid of advocacy science would get rid of the bigger problem. Let's take a look at some of the great scientific lies of modern times.
Fat: Animal fat is bad for you and makes you fat. Well yes and no. Humans have been eating fat since the first human being tore into a gazelle. Fat is an essential part of our diet but like anything else, too much can be a bad thing. Fat-free foods are still fattening. Why? Because in order to make them taste good after removing the fat, they add sugar.
The sugar industry and their clearly honest and forthright scientists declared that fat was fattening and began the movement towards fat-free foods. But the really interesting thing is, obesity didn't really become a serious issue in the West until the sugar industry made this "important" discovery.
Then of course there was the tobacco industry and their scientists assuring as that tobacco was harmless. This was based in part on the fact that nicotine by itself does has some medicinal value. But that's like putting a leaf of lettuce in a bowl of Sweetarts and calling it a healthy salad.
We also have Monsanto and their scientists assuring us that splicing man made chemicals into our food at the gene level is safe and harmless.
And now we have the moron AGW acolytes telling us that adding more water vapour and methane to the atmosphere will reduce global warming because we're reducing CO2 output. Of those three, CO2 is the least potent GHG. All while they somehow think that their "green dream" doesn't require the express need for fossil fuels to make it work.
For a bunch of dimwits who keep insisting the science is settled, they sure know dick about science.
Fat: Animal fat is bad for you and makes you fat. Well yes and no. Humans have been eating fat since the first human being tore into a gazelle. Fat is an essential part of our diet but like anything else, too much can be a bad thing. Fat-free foods are still fattening. Why? Because in order to make them taste good after removing the fat, they add sugar.
The sugar industry and their clearly honest and forthright scientists declared that fat was fattening and began the movement towards fat-free foods. But the really interesting thing is, obesity didn't really become a serious issue in the West until the sugar industry made this "important" discovery.
Then of course there was the tobacco industry and their scientists assuring as that tobacco was harmless. This was based in part on the fact that nicotine by itself does has some medicinal value. But that's like putting a leaf of lettuce in a bowl of Sweetarts and calling it a healthy salad.
We also have Monsanto and their scientists assuring us that splicing man made chemicals into our food at the gene level is safe and harmless.
And now we have the moron AGW acolytes telling us that adding more water vapour and methane to the atmosphere will reduce global warming because we're reducing CO2 output. Of those three, CO2 is the least potent GHG. All while they somehow think that their "green dream" doesn't require the express need for fossil fuels to make it work.
For a bunch of dimwits who keep insisting the science is settled, they sure know dick about science.
Climate change before your eyes: Seas rise and trees die - Technology & Science - CBC News
Efforts are underway worldwide to determine exactly how quickly the creation of ghost forests is increasing. But scientists agree the startling sight of dead trees in once-healthy areas is an easy-to-grasp example of the consequences of climate change.
"I think ghost forests are the most obvious indicator of climate change anywhere on the Eastern coast of the U.S.," said Matthew Kirwan, a professor at Virginia Institute of Marine Science who is studying ghost forests in his state and Maryland. "It was dry, usable land 50 years ago; now it's marshes with dead stumps and dead trees."
It is happening around the world, but researchers say new ghost forests are particularly apparent in North America, with thousands of hectares of salt-killed trees stretching from Canada down the East Coast, around Florida and over to Texas.
Efforts are underway worldwide to determine exactly how quickly the creation of ghost forests is increasing. But scientists agree the startling sight of dead trees in once-healthy areas is an easy-to-grasp example of the consequences of climate change.
"I think ghost forests are the most obvious indicator of climate change anywhere on the Eastern coast of the U.S.," said Matthew Kirwan, a professor at Virginia Institute of Marine Science who is studying ghost forests in his state and Maryland. "It was dry, usable land 50 years ago; now it's marshes with dead stumps and dead trees."
It is happening around the world, but researchers say new ghost forests are particularly apparent in North America, with thousands of hectares of salt-killed trees stretching from Canada down the East Coast, around Florida and over to Texas.
Dontcha just love the headlines on Flossy's article, errr, I mean irrefutable proof?
In fact, I seem to recall that Mr Gore predicted that the sea levels would rise by +20 m in 2013 as well.... Just another sad disappointment for the ecotard crowd I guess
In fact, I seem to recall that Mr Gore predicted that the sea levels would rise by +20 m in 2013 as well.... Just another sad disappointment for the ecotard crowd I guess
Sixty three years ago I was in New Brunswick and for some reason that I don't remember one day when a fisherman told me that it was the highest tide of the month, I chipped a mark with hammer and chisel at sea level on a rock outcropping near the shore with my initials and the initials of the girl I was going out with at the time just above it.
15 years ago, in 2002, 48 years later, I happened to be vising relatives about the same time of the year at the highest tide of the month and I went to check that rock ......
The initials and the mark were a little eroded but still visible at water level...The reason my wife and I went to check is because my wife and that girl have the same first name.. :lol:
Some day I will find the picture among the thousands I took with that old digital "Mavica".....And I'll Post it.
I won't try too hard because the Al Gore and Suzuki lemmings wouldn't change their minds anyway.....
You are sooo lucky... I might add, you must have balls the size of church bells.
Try posting something a little more contemporary, like from this year.
How B.C.’s formerly ‘revenue neutral’ carbon tax turned into another government cash grab
In a major announcement last year, the Trudeau government imposed a policy that will require all provinces to put a price on carbon emissions by 2018. As governments in Canada and elsewhere pursue carbon pricing, British Columbia’s carbon tax has received global praise as the gold standard.
Both the United Nations and the World Bank have declared B.C.’s “revenue neutral” carbon tax the model to follow. The OECD called it a “text book” example of how to implement carbon pricing. Commentators in Canada and the U.S have similarly hyped B.C.’s carbon tax, arguing it’s proof that governments can get carbon policy right.
One of the underlying reasons for all this praise is the alleged revenue neutrality of B.C.’s carbon tax. Revenue neutrality simply means any new revenue from the carbon tax is offset with new tax cuts to ensure there’s no net tax increase from the policy.
But there’s a fundamental problem with the B.C. model and proponents would do well to temper their enthusiasm: B.C.’s carbon tax is not actually revenue neutral.
Back in 2008/09, when the province first introduced the carbon tax, the B.C. government promised revenue neutrality. And initially it was. To offset the new revenue, the government introduced new cuts to personal and business tax rates and a new tax credit for low-income earners. The value of these new tax reductions was enough to offset all the new revenue generated from the carbon tax.
However, just five years later, as the carbon-tax revenue increased, the government no longer provided new tax cuts that sufficiently offset the carbon tax’s revenue. In other words, B.C.’s carbon tax ceased being revenue neutral in 2013/14.
This is certainly contrary to what the B.C. government reports in its official documents, which claim that the total value of tax cuts more than offsets carbon tax revenue. By 2013/14, the government was no longer solely relying on new tax reductions to offset carbon-tax revenue and instead began using pre-existing tax credits to give the appearance of revenue neutrality.
Carbon taxes will add up to an $865-million tax increase on British Columbians
In fact, a number of the tax credits the government now counts as offsets were first introduced in the 1990s — well before their inclusion in the government’s revenue-neutral calculation.
Once the pre-existing tax reductions are properly removed from the government’s revenue-neutral calculation, B.C. taxpayers endured a net tax increase of $226 million in 2013/14 and $151 million in 2014/15. Those numbers are based on historical data.
According to data from the government’s own projections, the carbon tax will result in a cumulative $865 million tax increase on British Columbians between 2013/14 and 2018/19. So much for revenue neutrality.
But the problems don’t end there.
Like all taxes, a carbon tax imposes economic costs beyond the amount of money the tax raises, as people change their behaviour in ways that reduce economic output. Part of the rationale for a revenue-neutral carbon tax is to mitigate this effect by concurrently cutting other taxes that also distort economic activity such as personal and corporate tax rates.
In recent years, however, a much smaller share of B.C.’s carbon tax is being offset by cuts to broad-based tax rates that actually improve incentives and foster economic activity. Specifically, before 2013/14, cuts to B.C.’s general corporate income tax rate and two lowest personal income tax rates totalled, on average, more than 60 per cent of the revenue generated by the carbon tax. From 2013/14 onwards, these tax cuts account for less than 45 per cent of the revenue generated by the carbon tax.
While an increasing share of carbon-tax revenue is being offset with targeted tax credits for specific individuals and businesses, these types of tax measures do virtually nothing to mitigate the economic costs of the carbon tax.
B.C.’s carbon tax is evidence that once political realities set in, the textbook theory of a revenue-neutral carbon tax unravels. B.C.’s carbon tax is not the “gold standard” it’s often made out to be.
Link: How B.C.
You're talking about revenue neutrality.
I'm talking about carbon emissions reductions.
Just to confirm for you (in case you weren't aware).. Revenue Neutrality is not carbon emissions reductions.
I'm talking about carbon emissions reductions.
Just to confirm for you (in case you weren't aware).. Revenue Neutrality is not carbon emissions reductions.