A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is coming true next week

So no noticeable effects.

 

And as we have gotten rid of coal, it all now goes to China as their cheapest fuel source, and more of it is going into the atmosphere than ever.

 

When did they start?

 

Well, as you go about your life you are not going to feel the effects of the solar cycle.

But, the contribution to Earth's warming is something that is measured.

 

Yes, there is lots of bad news if you go looking for it.

The US is still the worst emitter of CO2 on a per capita basis - the only rational way of attributing contribution. Charging China with having a lot of people is ridiculous, plus we don't have control of China.

So, we attack OUR contribution and we take part in the UN IPCC which works toward commitment for improvement from each country.

 

You've seriously never heard of taxes to reduce climate change? Color me suspicious.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/16/climate/democrats-carbon-tax-climate.html

A carbon tax, in which polluting industries would pay a fee for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit, is seen by economists as the most effective way to cut the fossil fuel emissions that are heating the planet.

 

And once again, I will blast that nonsense that it is caused by people out of the water. Which I have done repeatedly.

India has almost the same population as China, it is only 59 million less and is expected to pass China in the next 10-15 years. Yet, India emits less than 1/5 the greenhouse gasses of China.

Which proves once and for all that it is not because of population. It has nothing to do with population, it never has.

You chose data that has been manipulated. And when it is shown to be manipulated it is a complete failure.

Per Capita means nothing, and if you go off of that basis you prove it has nothing to do with the greenhouse gasses itself, it is only about pushing your coprolite agenda.

 

Hell, it passes down to people also.

In California, all consumers now pay an $0.41 cents per gallon as a carbon tax. It was not all that long ago that when I visited Oregon, I would make sure to fill up my car because the gas there was so expensive (self-service is illegal so all stations have an attendant pump your gas). In the last decade, it has been cheaper to fill up in Oregon now, and I always fill up before visiting California. One of the largest oil producing states in the country, and also the most expensive in the nation because of insane taxes. 41 cents per gallon is purely based on the idea that raising prices will reduce CO2 emissions.

 

That proposal did not succeed.

There have been various ideas on how to make it important for entities to care about how much carbon they emit.

Tell me which ones actually got implemented.

 

Your India thing ignores that their economy has yet to emerge as using energy at the rate of other first world countries - or China.

They WILL grow and they WILL need massive amounts of energy. Today, they emit far less per capita than many other countries.

Your logic simply fails.

 

We are VERY lucky that team blue has had little success convincing people that a tax will save the planet.

 

Yet there are no concrete examples you can point to in 60 years of climate claims, nor any noticeable adverse effects.

 

The ol' 'it didn't happen, thus it never will' argument isn't a very good one... Its clear there's still a very powerful carbon tax agenda at work to make it happen.

A few examples from the past year:
Addressing climate change through carbon taxes | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)
Carbon Tax in the USA | Earth.Org
6 arguments for carbon taxes | MIT Sloan
Opinion | Why We Don’t Have a Carbon Tax - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
UN climate report: It’s ‘now or never’ to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees | | 1UN News

 

Right. It fails so much, you have to use manipulated data to try and prove your point. And by making a claim that is absolutely absurd.

Tell me, is India going to increase its population by less than 5%, and have its carbon output increase more than sixfold?

No? Then your claims fail. Just as your claims all rely entirely upon manipulated data.

If you have to manipulate data to that extreme, your claims fail. Your arguments fail, you fail.

And that is why the entire Church of Global Warming is a fail. They have been manipulating the data for decades. And when they can not make it match the reality, they then simply change angles. Never once having the integrity to admit their claims are all garbage. Because it is not about science, it is about religion.

You all are like the ones insisting the Earth was the center of the Universe. Which after all everybody should have accepted without question, because that was the "consensus".

 

It does happen, just not nationwide. Which is their agenda, but it has been happening locally.

California is a perfect case in point. And the bogus "carbon credit" scheme is the only thing that has kept Elron Musk and his house of cards form collapsing. The company has never shown a profit, that is their selling of carbon credits they get from making electric cars. Which he then sinks into more companies that have never shown a profit, and rarely made an actual functioning product.

But Elron Musk is laughing to the bank, thanks to Carbon Credits.

 

I had a greenie friend try to explain carbon credits to my husband and I over a decade ago. The more he talked, the more confusing it got. It was one of the strangest conversations I ever had. Something like:

"So if I give more money to the government, they will let me use more electricity, and this will save the planet?"

- Yes

"how"

- Well, somebody else won't use electricity because you bought up the credit

"So they can't buy more?"

- Yes, they can

"So how is the planet saved?

- Let me start over.


It's like Excel warning you that you've created a circular reference.

 

As far as I know, neither Obama nor Gore supported a tax on carbon emissions.

Which of those have EVER reached congress?

Or, are you complaining that there are people who note that climate change is real, and we need to take action???

 

Yes. They are likely to increase in the same manner that China did as China so rapidly increased their GDP through manufacturing.

Using an average co2 output of an Indian citizen today as some sort of standard measure to apply to the world or to future trends is just plain SILLY.

If you are going to make charges against me, at least have the courtesy to identify what the HECK you are talking about.

 

I'm noting that the support for taxing carbon is coming from a lot of influential directions, and vocally opposing it is one important way to preventing it from happening.

 

Of course.

But, this is coming from places like oil interests that love the fact that they can dump crap into our air and water.

All industry loves that. Until there was regulation, they dumped their garbage into the local river. It so much cheaper that having garbage handled in a responsible manner.

>>>One of the big challenges with capitalism is that of working out ways to account for externalities (like pollution).

That ALWAYS raises the cost of doing business, so businesses spend a lot of money protecting their right to pollute the world.

 

No, they are not. Because India has an economy for International commerce based more on services than on manufactured goods.

Holy hell, you really do just make things up as you go along, and do not bother to do a single bit of research before you spout off your nonsense.

Industry is only 29% of the Indian economy. However, Services is a staggering 54% of their economy.

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/country/india-gdp-sectorwise.php

See the above? That is known as a "reference". In other words, unlike you I actually take the time to look up the actual facts before I make a claim. I do not just make it up out of thin air and expect people to believe it. And I think that is your entire problem, you do the exact same thing as the people you believe in do, make it up and hope nobody calls you on your coprolite.

No, the Industrial sector of India will not grow very much. Because they are the second largest nation of English Speakers in the world, they have created and grown a huge industry of providing support to the English speaking nations in the world. A hell of a lot of their economy is based on companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and thousands of others. Providing technical support to countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and others. It is also huge in the Computer Programming industry. When I worked in San Francisco with a Dot Com Telecom company, our overnight tech support and programming was in India.

Wow, you completely and utterly failed here, big time. In fact, China on average has an industrial growth of over 11% per year, and has had so for the last 30 years. In India, that sector has a growth of around 5%, and is primarily in the small family owned segment of the industry. Not massive factories with thousands of employees churning out televisions and furniture, but small facilities with a dozen employees or less churning out things like pottery and utensils.

This is why you so repeatedly fail. You do no research, you simply make crap up as you go along. And you really should stop doing that, it is annoying.

The simple fact is, India does not need to use manufacturing to increase their GDP. They are using the fact that they have the second largest pool of English speakers on the planet to do it. Not in factories, but in offices throughout the country. Holy hell, have you never had to call any kind of support on the phone in the last 20 years? Most of them are in India now, and have been for over a decade.

 

Economists don't agree that they can continue to grow their GDP at the nearly 9% rate that has been seen while continuing to fail to address the serious problems they face.

In fact, the benefits of their economic growth are pretty much sucked up by the wealthy while their surprisingly well educated are not finding employment.

I've interviewed technical candidates ready to graduate from Indian universities. They are highly desirable for jobs throughout our technology sectors, out competing many who are graduating here, but limited by our immigration system. Again, the problem is that India's advancements in technical industries is just not enough to provide the jobs that well educated graduates demand. So, their standard of living gets split between the wealthy elite and the poor, including those with solid technical credentials.

Your suggestion that India is a standard model of pollution per capita that can be applied the world over fails for several reasons stemming from conditions there.

 

Once again, as always with absolutely no reference. Nothing but your claims with nothing to back them up.

Sorry, with your record of simply making things up, I don't buy your claims at all without verification.

 

Sounds serious.

 

The claim the US is the greatest offender per capita is false anyway. There are several countries that emit far more per capita than the US.

But yes, the “climate” only cares about total carbon. It can’t discern if the carbon came from a high or low per capita country. Good point.