and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
No sir, I believe in rules and laws, as you know that is kind of key in my profession, but I don't believe in Government taking legal jobs from law abiding citizens under bogus banner of "Saving our Planet." My version of capitalism is not anywhere near anarchy. You are just using that word to make me sound like an extremist.
almost like you've been throwing around the world "socialism" to make me sound like an extremist
I said that the government wouldn't fire anybody. They are only passing and enforcing laws. If those entities choose to exit the business, that is their own independent choice.
but what you proposing IS socialist in nature. take from those who can and give to those who cannot and say it is their right to have that stuff. that IS Socialism. capitalism still has rules, but it isnt any part og taking over business or taking increasingly more from the people.
just like all those people who don't pay taxes still being protected by our law enforcement agencies?
Half the people that don't pay taxes are in Obama's administration!!! haha
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
No sir, I believe in rules and laws, as you know that is kind of key in my profession, but I don't believe in Government taking legal jobs from law abiding citizens under bogus banner of "Saving our Planet." My version of capitalism is not anywhere near anarchy. You are just using that word to make me sound like an extremist.
almost like you've been throwing around the world "socialism" to make me sound like an extremist
I said that the government wouldn't fire anybody. They are only passing and enforcing laws. If those entities choose to exit the business, that is their own independent choice.
Those laws would be based on what many believe is a hoax. Also, socialism isn't used as an extremist term, if I wanted to sound extremist I would use "Communist" or "Facist." Socialism is a world wide form of government. Anarchy is a totally different thing and in no way represents my view of capitalism.
"what many believe is a hoax" -- but not the majority of qualified scientists.
But is STILL not a proven science. Every day you can find stories about how Global Warming research is flawed.
"97% of climatologists who are active in climate research agree humans play a role"
But you probably know more than them. So let's just sit around and wait for the 3% of you who are slow on the uptake to get on board.. then we'll do something
oh wait.. it turns out that might be a bad idea!
"97% of climatologists who are active in climate research agree humans play a role"
But you probably know more than them. So let's just sit around and wait for the 3% of you who are slow on the uptake to get on board.. then we'll do something
oh wait.. it turns out that might be a bad idea!
Of course they are going to say that. How the hell do you think they get their funding. Thats like going to Baptist Church and surveying the people there to see who all believes in God!
I love that.. it was cold out today!! Global warming isn't real!
Again, I'm going to weigh a restaurant manager's observations about the weather against the collective opinions of climatologists... hmmmm... That's like me saying, "well, I'm paid to be a business analyst, so based on what I saw on the internet, I think that stem cell research has no potential for future scientific value."
"97% of climatologists who are active in climate research agree humans play a role"
But you probably know more than them. So let's just sit around and wait for the 3% of you who are slow on the uptake to get on board.. then we'll do something
oh wait.. it turns out that might be a bad idea!
Of course they are going to say that. How the hell do you think they get their funding. Thats like going to Baptist Church and surveying the people there to see who all believes in God!
So what will it take for you to believe that there is Global Warming? Obviously, the scientists can't be trusted because somebody paid them to do the research. Do we need to have an entire winter where the temperatures are above 90 degrees in Calgary? THE **** SCIENTISTS HAVE DONE THEIR RESEARCH!! If you want to disagree with it, analyze their results, or pay a panel of scientists to analyze it and tell them you'll give them a bonus if they find out it's wrong.
The big money still lies in the companies that are promoting the fuels which contribute to global warming. There isn't nearly as much money in the companies that are promoting alternative fuels. If it were simply a matter of biased opinion being bought by the conglomorates, who do you think would win that money battle?
This is like saying that smoking cigarettes doesn't really cause cancer... a bunch of doctors all conspired to link the two together because they knew they could get a bunch of money. Wake up... any person who is thinking at all rationally would have to analyze the facts and conclude that it is extremely likely that we are ruining our planet.
"97% of climatologists who are active in climate research agree humans play a role"
But you probably know more than them. So let's just sit around and wait for the 3% of you who are slow on the uptake to get on board.. then we'll do something
oh wait.. it turns out that might be a bad idea!
Of course they are going to say that. How the hell do you think they get their funding. Thats like going to Baptist Church and surveying the people there to see who all believes in God!
So what will it take for you to believe that there is Global Warming? Obviously, the scientists can't be trusted because somebody paid them to do the research. Do we need to have an entire winter where the temperatures are above 90 degrees in Calgary? THE **** SCIENTISTS HAVE DONE THEIR RESEARCH!! If you want to disagree with it, analyze their results, or pay a panel of scientists to analyze it and tell them you'll give them a bonus if they find out it's wrong.
The big money still lies in the companies that are promoting the fuels which contribute to global warming. There isn't nearly as much money in the companies that are promoting alternative fuels. If it were simply a matter of biased opinion being bought by the conglomorates, who do you think would win that money battle?
This is like saying that smoking cigarettes doesn't really cause cancer... a bunch of doctors all conspired to link the two together because they knew they could get a bunch of money. Wake up... any person who is thinking at all rationally would have to analyze the facts and conclude that it is extremely likely that we are ruining our planet.
Here is what you don't seem to get, you seem to think believing in Global Warming means believing it is cause my man. I'll admit overall the temerature has been rising across the globe. As I have stated before it has been since the ice age. The globe is slowly getting warmer, I have no problem with that at all. The last ice age wasn't the first ice age either. The planet warms and cools over time over and over and over... It always has and it always will no matter if we are here or not.
I love that.. it was cold out today!! Global warming isn't real!
Again, I'm going to weigh a restaurant manager's observations about the weather against the collective opinions of climatologists... hmmmm... That's like me saying, "well, I'm paid to be a business analyst, so based on what I saw on the internet, I think that stem cell research has no potential for future scientific value."
so you are saying that i am uninformed? are you saying that i must not know anything about anything but cooking a steak? where did you get your news? media. just like me. you know nothing about it either. this is another cheap shot at me personally to try and make me look like i am stupid and dont know what im saying. I am not an idiot. I am well read. I do follow both sides. I have looked at facts. I am making my own mind.
those articles are pointing out that yes it was cold on one day, but not just cold, but colder than decades. more than one of those articles was saying that the year was colder on average.
its warm out today and ice caps are starting to melt because its summer.... must be global warming!!!
funny how places that never got snow this year got it and many many places got snow earlier than most years, and that the average temp on a global level FELL this year but global warming is still going on. this is again connected to politics. when people say they dont believe in global warming they are "in the pocket of big oil" how about htis: if you believe in global warming you are in the pocket of "big green " they are paying scientists to claim its there so that their company will grow. you cant prove that it doesnt happen. in fact Al Gore owns companies that are "green" and he makes money off of them. how is he not in the pocket of "big green" ?
that and the other planets have heated at the same rate as us im SURE we caused THAT too right? those planets are in the pocket of big oil too!
there are THOUSANDS or climatologists that are smarter than both you AND i that say global warming is not man made. but you will not even CONSIDER ANY of that because you are a democrat socialist first.
I love that.. it was cold out today!! Global warming isn't real!
Again, I'm going to weigh a restaurant manager's observations about the weather against the collective opinions of climatologists... hmmmm... That's like me saying, "well, I'm paid to be a business analyst, so based on what I saw on the internet, I think that stem cell research has no potential for future scientific value."
so you are saying that i am uninformed? are you saying that i must not know anything about anything but cooking a steak? where did you get your news? media. just like me. you know nothing about it either. this is another cheap shot at me personally to try and make me look like i am stupid and dont know what im saying. I am not an idiot. I am well read. I do follow both sides. I have looked at facts. I am making my own mind.
those articles are pointing out that yes it was cold on one day, but not just cold, but colder than decades. more than one of those articles was saying that the year was colder on average.
its warm out today and ice caps are starting to melt because its summer.... must be global warming!!!
funny how places that never got snow this year got it and many many places got snow earlier than most years, and that the average temp on a global level FELL this year but global warming is still going on. this is again connected to politics. when people say they dont believe in global warming they are "in the pocket of big oil" how about htis: if you believe in global warming you are in the pocket of "big green " they are paying scientists to claim its there so that their company will grow. you cant prove that it doesnt happen. in fact Al Gore owns companies that are "green" and he makes money off of them. how is he not in the pocket of "big green" ?
there are THOUSANDS or climatologists that are smarter than both you AND i that say global warming is not man made. but you will not even CONSIDER ANY of that because you are a democrat socialist first.
Kuzi, I'm not taking a cheap shot at you.. I'm saying that you (a restauranteur) and I (a business analyst) are not qualified to dispute the research of a climatologist. Producing news articles about how we had a really cold spell is no way to refute the claims about warming made by a professional researcher.
As far as your intelligence, I don't think you need to make any further points on that. You've proven by the way you write and the way that your structure an argument that you are an intellectual person.
My point about the economic incentive for climatologists is simple. If you're going to theorize that "Big Green" is behind all of this, I would argue that "Big Oil" has a metric crapton more money, and can easily afford to pay more money to the researchers to disagree. Yet 82% of them still say that Global Warming is man-made... 82%
I doubt that there are thousands of climatologists that are smarter than me, let alone thousands that are smarter than me AND disagree with me. It would depend on the standardized metric you were to use to measure intelligence, and the number of climatologists there are worldwide. It would take a lot of climatologists.
Again, because average global temperatures fell for one year, it does not mean that global warming isn't real. That's like saying that because Bank of America stock is up a couple cents today, it hasn't been falling drastically in price due to the stupidity of our executives.
It's a lot more relevant than saying they had a cold snap in Maui
But those are singular opinions... I referred to a survey of climatologists. Let's say that there are 1,000 climatologists worldwide. According to the survey, 100 of them would believe that Global Warming is a myth.... so you should have found me 100 of them that say Global Warming doesn't exist. Of course, then I could find you 900 scientists that believe Global Warming does exist. But that's the beauty of the survey... somebody already went around and asked everybody.
Science is built on statistical sampling and confidence levels. Singular analyses are fine for stating theories. Research establishes the validity of these theories. Based on their research, 90% of climatologists believe that global warming exists. 82% of climatologists believe it is man-made.
they may believe it and they state it all the time, but they never seem to (be able to) produce the data that leads them to this conclusion. and when they do, there are many times where the computer model is later proven wrong, or flawed in some way.
In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
that was still after global warming had come into the spotlight on the political scene. Im sure there are great advances since then but i still feel that science is still very young. im not saying that global warming isnt happening, im just saying that we arent 100% sure of it or that it is man made. i would like to see more improvement on the science itself before we make policy on all of it. and when we do make policy i want incentives, not control.
To talk about the potential economic influences of opinion, 47% of petroleum geologists believed that man is responsible for the climate change. 97% of the scientists actively engaged in climate research (climatologists) believe that humans are warming the planet. How close to a unanimous agreement do we need to get?
To talk about the potential economic influences of opinion, 47% of petroleum geologists believed that man is responsible for the climate change. 97% of the scientists actively engaged in climate research (climatologists) believe that humans are warming the planet. How close to a unanimous agreement do we need to get?
I have trouble believing they spoke to EVERY climatologist in the world to get those results. Plus I still can't seem to believe they are 100% truthful. If they came out and said global warming wasn't man made and there is nothing we can do about it, they would be out of a job. It's not so much greed as self preservation that drives them. Keep the issue alive and in the media 24/7 and they are always going to have a job.
guys - it's all in the report... 3,146 or so people surveyed, I believe.
Puro, do you really believe this is a giant conspiracy among 97% of climatologists to say global warming exists? I believe climatologists had jobs before Global Warming had ever been uttered as a phrase.. do they really think they're all going to lose their jobs if they conclude the planet isn't getting warmer?
Again, I ask what it will take for you to believe that Global Warming actually exists. It is obvious that the facts presented thus far are not sufficient. So now describe to me a scenario that would actually cause you to change your mind.
guys - it's all in the report... 3,146 or so people surveyed, I believe.
Puro, do you really believe this is a giant conspiracy among 97% of climatologists to say global warming exists? I believe climatologists had jobs before Global Warming had ever been uttered as a phrase.. do they really think they're all going to lose their jobs if they conclude the planet isn't getting warmer?
Again, I ask what it will take for you to believe that Global Warming actually exists. It is obvious that the facts presented thus far are not sufficient. So now describe to me a scenario that would actually cause you to change your mind.
I'm not saying all 97% of them are not being truethful. If just 47% of them are not being totally honest, then it is a 50/50 split on who believes in it and who doesn't. But if only 32% of them that believe it is man made aren't being totally forthcoming then that is a 50/50 split of them that believe it... Those aren't great odds.
Also they have figures and numbers from studies that aren't even proven science that they use to support their claims. There is no absolute proof that it is true. It's all theory and speculation. I do have a hard time believing in that.
my bigger point is that climate change is being used as a new mode of control via taxation. it is another thing to tax. on top of : Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property y Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax upon Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Income Tax
now a carbon tax? dont we have enough taxes?
instead of controlling carbon with taxes, why cant we give incentives (or positive reinforcement ) to those who do things cleaner or better. eventually people will see the good out of it AND its profitable to them personally. this gives people a choice to not change if they dont want to. what is wrong with the idea for a fuel switch over i brought up on page 18? ill tell you what the problem is: it doesnt fit the liberal idea of taxes being the ONLY way to fix things.
to me it doesnt matter if global warming is happening or if it is man made, the real problem is the taxation and greater control the government wants over individuals in the name of it.
guys - it's all in the report... 3,146 or so people surveyed, I believe.
Puro, do you really believe this is a giant conspiracy among 97% of climatologists to say global warming exists? I believe climatologists had jobs before Global Warming had ever been uttered as a phrase.. do they really think they're all going to lose their jobs if they conclude the planet isn't getting warmer?
Again, I ask what it will take for you to believe that Global Warming actually exists. It is obvious that the facts presented thus far are not sufficient. So now describe to me a scenario that would actually cause you to change your mind.
I'm not saying all 97% of them are not being truethful. If just 47% of them are not being totally honest, then it is a 50/50 split on who believes in it and who doesn't. But if only 32% of them that believe it is man made aren't being totally forthcoming then that is a 50/50 split of them that believe it... Those aren't great odds.
Also they have figures and numbers from studies that aren't even proven science that they use to support their claims. There is no absolute proof that it is true. It's all theory and speculation. I do have a hard time believing in that.
You still haven't told me what it would take to make you believe Global Warming is real.
If 100% of climatologists state that Global Warming is real and man-made, only 50% of them would have to be untruthful for it to be a 50/50 split.
Where in the world is your logic, man? Do I need to get 200% of climatologists to agree that Global Warming is real for you to believe it is real?
Hey, Kuzi, I can totally get on board with a flat tax without loopholes, and a whole pile of tax incentives for productive/constructive behavior... Either method gets you to the same place. If you start with a low base tax, and then institute additional taxes based on bad behavior, you will factor out to the same amount as a large base tax, with incentives based on good behavior.
guys - it's all in the report... 3,146 or so people surveyed, I believe.
Puro, do you really believe this is a giant conspiracy among 97% of climatologists to say global warming exists? I believe climatologists had jobs before Global Warming had ever been uttered as a phrase.. do they really think they're all going to lose their jobs if they conclude the planet isn't getting warmer?
Again, I ask what it will take for you to believe that Global Warming actually exists. It is obvious that the facts presented thus far are not sufficient. So now describe to me a scenario that would actually cause you to change your mind.
I'm not saying all 97% of them are not being truethful. If just 47% of them are not being totally honest, then it is a 50/50 split on who believes in it and who doesn't. But if only 32% of them that believe it is man made aren't being totally forthcoming then that is a 50/50 split of them that believe it... Those aren't great odds.
Also they have figures and numbers from studies that aren't even proven science that they use to support their claims. There is no absolute proof that it is true. It's all theory and speculation. I do have a hard time believing in that.
You still haven't told me what it would take to make you believe Global Warming is real.
If 100% of climatologists state that Global Warming is real and man-made, only 50% of them would have to be untruthful for it to be a 50/50 split.
Where in the world is your logic, man? Do I need to get 200% of climatologists to agree that Global Warming is real for you to believe it is real?
Being a Liberal I'm sure you could somehow come up with 200% of something! haha kidding! No, as I said at the end of my statement, there is no absolute proof, just fact and figures that are fairly easy to show are flawed. Just because a bunch of people believe in something doesn't make it true. Centuries ago everyone just KNEW the world was flat... "Experts" of the time would have sworn to it...
Hey, Kuzi, I can totally get on board with a flat tax without loopholes, and a whole pile of tax incentives for productive/constructive behavior... Either method gets you to the same place. If you start with a low base tax, and then institute additional taxes based on bad behavior, you will factor out to the same amount as a large base tax, with incentives based on good behavior.
how about eliminating income tax and corporate taxes and making it a national sales tax.(about 20% ish, excluding food and medicine, those would have no tax) the more you spend the more taxes you pay. thats 100% fair. If i buy a 200ft boat ill pay the tax on it. if i dont buy it... then i dont pay the tax. what you need to live (food and medical) wouldnt be taxed so if thats all you could afford then you will not pay taxes. would that just cause less spending? i dont think it would because the corporations are not passing on taxes to their customers. it should balance out.
AND many people would feel better because they would get all of their paycheck.
guys - it's all in the report... 3,146 or so people surveyed, I believe.
Puro, do you really believe this is a giant conspiracy among 97% of climatologists to say global warming exists? I believe climatologists had jobs before Global Warming had ever been uttered as a phrase.. do they really think they're all going to lose their jobs if they conclude the planet isn't getting warmer?
Again, I ask what it will take for you to believe that Global Warming actually exists. It is obvious that the facts presented thus far are not sufficient. So now describe to me a scenario that would actually cause you to change your mind.
I'm not saying all 97% of them are not being truethful. If just 47% of them are not being totally honest, then it is a 50/50 split on who believes in it and who doesn't. But if only 32% of them that believe it is man made aren't being totally forthcoming then that is a 50/50 split of them that believe it... Those aren't great odds.
Also they have figures and numbers from studies that aren't even proven science that they use to support their claims. There is no absolute proof that it is true. It's all theory and speculation. I do have a hard time believing in that.
You still haven't told me what it would take to make you believe Global Warming is real.
If 100% of climatologists state that Global Warming is real and man-made, only 50% of them would have to be untruthful for it to be a 50/50 split.
Where in the world is your logic, man? Do I need to get 200% of climatologists to agree that Global Warming is real for you to believe it is real?
Being a Liberal I'm sure you could somehow come up with 200% of something! haha kidding! No, as I said at the end of my statement, there is no absolute proof, just fact and figures that are fairly easy to show are flawed. Just because a bunch of people believe in something doesn't make it true. Centuries ago everyone just KNEW the world was flat... "Experts" of the time would have sworn to it...
20 years ago, everybody "knew" that the world wasn't getting any warmer.
What, in your opinion, would be absolute proof? You have already stated over and over again that the opinions of scientists can be bought. So let's assume that at least one climatologist is being fed millions every month by Big Oil to disagree with the scientific findings. As long as he makes lots of speeches and press releases, are you still going to disagree as well?
Hey, Kuzi, I can totally get on board with a flat tax without loopholes, and a whole pile of tax incentives for productive/constructive behavior... Either method gets you to the same place. If you start with a low base tax, and then institute additional taxes based on bad behavior, you will factor out to the same amount as a large base tax, with incentives based on good behavior.
how about eliminating income tax and corporate taxes and making it a national sales tax.(about 20% ish, excluding food and medicine, those would have no tax) the more you spend the more taxes you pay. thats 100% fair. If i buy a 200ft boat ill pay the tax on it. if i dont buy it... then i dont pay the tax. what you need to live (food and medical) wouldnt be taxed so if thats all you could afford then you will not pay taxes. would that just cause less spending? i dont think it would because the corporations are not passing on taxes to their customers. it should balance out.
AND many people would feel better because they would get all of their paycheck.
tax incentives would be a lower rate come "tax time" or lower taxes on items that will head in a more productive direction. there would have to be an upper limit to the tax and everyone pays the limit... unless you produce a product that has an incentive on it... those would be few and far between.
guys - it's all in the report... 3,146 or so people surveyed, I believe.
Puro, do you really believe this is a giant conspiracy among 97% of climatologists to say global warming exists? I believe climatologists had jobs before Global Warming had ever been uttered as a phrase.. do they really think they're all going to lose their jobs if they conclude the planet isn't getting warmer?
Again, I ask what it will take for you to believe that Global Warming actually exists. It is obvious that the facts presented thus far are not sufficient. So now describe to me a scenario that would actually cause you to change your mind.
I'm not saying all 97% of them are not being truethful. If just 47% of them are not being totally honest, then it is a 50/50 split on who believes in it and who doesn't. But if only 32% of them that believe it is man made aren't being totally forthcoming then that is a 50/50 split of them that believe it... Those aren't great odds.
Also they have figures and numbers from studies that aren't even proven science that they use to support their claims. There is no absolute proof that it is true. It's all theory and speculation. I do have a hard time believing in that.
You still haven't told me what it would take to make you believe Global Warming is real.
If 100% of climatologists state that Global Warming is real and man-made, only 50% of them would have to be untruthful for it to be a 50/50 split.
Where in the world is your logic, man? Do I need to get 200% of climatologists to agree that Global Warming is real for you to believe it is real?
Being a Liberal I'm sure you could somehow come up with 200% of something! haha kidding! No, as I said at the end of my statement, there is no absolute proof, just fact and figures that are fairly easy to show are flawed. Just because a bunch of people believe in something doesn't make it true. Centuries ago everyone just KNEW the world was flat... "Experts" of the time would have sworn to it...
20 years ago, everybody "knew" that the world wasn't getting any warmer.
What, in your opinion, would be absolute proof? You have already stated over and over again that the opinions of scientists can be bought. So let's assume that at least one climatologist is being fed millions every month by Big Oil to disagree with the scientific findings. As long as he makes lots of speeches and press releases, are you still going to disagree as well?
Yes, I will disagree in the fact that his results are tainted and have no bearing what-so-ever... Corruption is wrong on either side.
Hey, Kuzi, I can totally get on board with a flat tax without loopholes, and a whole pile of tax incentives for productive/constructive behavior... Either method gets you to the same place. If you start with a low base tax, and then institute additional taxes based on bad behavior, you will factor out to the same amount as a large base tax, with incentives based on good behavior.
how about eliminating income tax and corporate taxes and making it a national sales tax.(about 20% ish, excluding food and medicine, those would have no tax) the more you spend the more taxes you pay. thats 100% fair. If i buy a 200ft boat ill pay the tax on it. if i dont buy it... then i dont pay the tax. what you need to live (food and medical) wouldnt be taxed so if thats all you could afford then you will not pay taxes. would that just cause less spending? i dont think it would because the corporations are not passing on taxes to their customers. it should balance out.
AND many people would feel better because they would get all of their paycheck.
As long as you were able to rigidly enforce a sales tax on internet purchases, and you applied the sales tax to everything that anybody brought into the country. Otherwise, you'd see a lot of people living on the borders of Canada and Mexico, buying stuff at the really low tax rate, and bringing it across as their belongings.
So I guess you would need to inventory everything that they took across the border, and then inventory everything that they brought back. You would need to establish a tax value for these things. You would have to apply your tax to everything they brought back that they didn't take with them in the first place. Of course, the opportunity for fraud still seems pretty significant.
Hmm.. so then people would start shipping the stuff they bought, rather than bringing it themselves. So you would require people to declare the tax value of the things they were shipping across the border that aren't what they had brought across.. Yeah, no potential for fraud there.
So, on second thought, that idea totally sucks. It would ruin our economy in favor of Canada, Mexico, and any other country that chose to ship crap to the U.S.
Yes, I will disagree in the fact that his results are tainted and have no bearing what-so-ever... Corruption is wrong on either side.
But you don't KNOW that he's corrupt.. All you see is that it's not entirely 100% unanimous. He doesn't publish his results and say, "by the way, I am being fed millions by Big Oil to say this even though it's not true"... How do you know that 3% of climatologists aren't being fed money by Big Oil? You're instead deciding to believe no less than 47% of climatologists are corrupt, rather than 3%. That makes no sense!
Yes, I will disagree in the fact that his results are tainted and have no bearing what-so-ever... Corruption is wrong on either side.
But you don't KNOW that he's corrupt.. All you see is that it's not entirely 100% unanimous. He doesn't publish his results and say, "by the way, I am being fed millions by Big Oil to say this even though it's not true"... How do you know that 3% of climatologists aren't being fed money by Big Oil? You're instead deciding to believe no less than 47% of climatologists are corrupt, rather than 3%. That makes no sense!
Yes it does make sense because never once have I said that I am certain there is no link between man and Global Warming, there is no proof of it though. I believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Prove to me without a doubt that we are causing Global Warming. I believe as Kuzi and I have both stated that there should be no legislation punishing people for global warming when there is no definate proof that we are causing it.
Yes, I will disagree in the fact that his results are tainted and have no bearing what-so-ever... Corruption is wrong on either side.
But you don't KNOW that he's corrupt.. All you see is that it's not entirely 100% unanimous. He doesn't publish his results and say, "by the way, I am being fed millions by Big Oil to say this even though it's not true"... How do you know that 3% of climatologists aren't being fed money by Big Oil? You're instead deciding to believe no less than 47% of climatologists are corrupt, rather than 3%. That makes no sense!
Yes it does make sense because never once have I said that I am certain there is no link between man and Global Warming, there is no proof of it though. I believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Prove to me without a doubt that we are causing Global Warming. I believe as Kuzi and I have both stated that there should be no legislation punishing people for global warming when there is no definate proof that we are causing it.
Then, for the last time... What would you consider PROOF?
Comments
"97% of climatologists who are active in climate research agree humans play a role"
But you probably know more than them. So let's just sit around and wait for the 3% of you who are slow on the uptake to get on board.. then we'll do something oh wait.. it turns out that might be a bad idea!
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/brutal.cold.day.2.908889.html
http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&date=2009-01-09_21:55
http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/beijing_winter.php
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081014/NEWS/810140335/-1/frontpage?Title=Frost__one_more_thing__for_grape_growers
http://www.weather.gov/view/prodsByState.php?state=ak&prodtype=public
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20080921084615870C810928
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/506834.html?nav=10
http://www.adn.com/life/story/473786.html
i can do pages of these things...
Again, I'm going to weigh a restaurant manager's observations about the weather against the collective opinions of climatologists... hmmmm... That's like me saying, "well, I'm paid to be a business analyst, so based on what I saw on the internet, I think that stem cell research has no potential for future scientific value."
The big money still lies in the companies that are promoting the fuels which contribute to global warming. There isn't nearly as much money in the companies that are promoting alternative fuels. If it were simply a matter of biased opinion being bought by the conglomorates, who do you think would win that money battle?
This is like saying that smoking cigarettes doesn't really cause cancer... a bunch of doctors all conspired to link the two together because they knew they could get a bunch of money. Wake up... any person who is thinking at all rationally would have to analyze the facts and conclude that it is extremely likely that we are ruining our planet.
those articles are pointing out that yes it was cold on one day, but not just cold, but colder than decades. more than one of those articles was saying that the year was colder on average.
its warm out today and ice caps are starting to melt because its summer.... must be global warming!!!
funny how places that never got snow this year got it and many many places got snow earlier than most years, and that the average temp on a global level FELL this year but global warming is still going on. this is again connected to politics. when people say they dont believe in global warming they are "in the pocket of big oil" how about htis: if you believe in global warming you are in the pocket of "big green "
they are paying scientists to claim its there so that their company will grow. you cant prove that it doesnt happen. in fact Al Gore owns companies that are "green" and he makes money off of them. how is he not in the pocket of "big green" ?
that and the other planets have heated at the same rate as us im SURE we caused THAT too right? those planets are in the pocket of big oil too!
there are THOUSANDS or climatologists that are smarter than both you AND i that say global warming is not man made. but you will not even CONSIDER ANY of that because you are a democrat socialist first.
As far as your intelligence, I don't think you need to make any further points on that. You've proven by the way you write and the way that your structure an argument that you are an intellectual person.
My point about the economic incentive for climatologists is simple. If you're going to theorize that "Big Green" is behind all of this, I would argue that "Big Oil" has a metric crapton more money, and can easily afford to pay more money to the researchers to disagree. Yet 82% of them still say that Global Warming is man-made... 82%
I doubt that there are thousands of climatologists that are smarter than me, let alone thousands that are smarter than me AND disagree with me. It would depend on the standardized metric you were to use to measure intelligence, and the number of climatologists there are worldwide. It would take a lot of climatologists.
Again, because average global temperatures fell for one year, it does not mean that global warming isn't real. That's like saying that because Bank of America stock is up a couple cents today, it hasn't been falling drastically in price due to the stupidity of our executives.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm
http://www.politickernj.com/bguhl/22291/doherty-new-scientific-data-justifies-repealing-global-warming-response-act --from that
There are many credible members of the scientific community who have questioned the theory of global warming, and now we have some scientists actually suggesting the earths temperatures may be entering a period of dramatic cooling, said Doherty, R-Warren and Hunterdon. With this growing level of scientific uncertainty, it makes no sense to enact a new set of economically damaging regulations prompted by the global warming hysteria of recent years.
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 ...Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV the sun.
Russian scientist urges 'stock up on fur coats' to face upcoming GLOBAL COOLING...
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
... but im the idiot because i work at applebees. those guys arent idiots. wanna rip them up based on their jobs too?
But those are singular opinions... I referred to a survey of climatologists. Let's say that there are 1,000 climatologists worldwide. According to the survey, 100 of them would believe that Global Warming is a myth.... so you should have found me 100 of them that say Global Warming doesn't exist. Of course, then I could find you 900 scientists that believe Global Warming does exist. But that's the beauty of the survey... somebody already went around and asked everybody.
Science is built on statistical sampling and confidence levels. Singular analyses are fine for stating theories. Research establishes the validity of these theories. Based on their research, 90% of climatologists believe that global warming exists. 82% of climatologists believe it is man-made.
In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
that was still after global warming had come into the spotlight on the political scene. Im sure there are great advances since then but i still feel that science is still very young. im not saying that global warming isnt happening, im just saying that we arent 100% sure of it or that it is man made. i would like to see more improvement on the science itself before we make policy on all of it. and when we do make policy i want incentives, not control.
To talk about the potential economic influences of opinion, 47% of petroleum geologists believed that man is responsible for the climate change. 97% of the scientists actively engaged in climate research (climatologists) believe that humans are warming the planet. How close to a unanimous agreement do we need to get?
Puro, do you really believe this is a giant conspiracy among 97% of climatologists to say global warming exists? I believe climatologists had jobs before Global Warming had ever been uttered as a phrase.. do they really think they're all going to lose their jobs if they conclude the planet isn't getting warmer?
Again, I ask what it will take for you to believe that Global Warming actually exists. It is obvious that the facts presented thus far are not sufficient. So now describe to me a scenario that would actually cause you to change your mind.
Also they have figures and numbers from studies that aren't even proven science that they use to support their claims. There is no absolute proof that it is true. It's all theory and speculation. I do have a hard time believing in that.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property y Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax upon Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Income Tax
now a carbon tax? dont we have enough taxes?
instead of controlling carbon with taxes, why cant we give incentives (or positive reinforcement ) to those who do things cleaner or better. eventually people will see the good out of it AND its profitable to them personally. this gives people a choice to not change if they dont want to. what is wrong with the idea for a fuel switch over i brought up on page 18? ill tell you what the problem is: it doesnt fit the liberal idea of taxes being the ONLY way to fix things.
to me it doesnt matter if global warming is happening or if it is man made, the real problem is the taxation and greater control the government wants over individuals in the name of it.
If 100% of climatologists state that Global Warming is real and man-made, only 50% of them would have to be untruthful for it to be a 50/50 split.
Where in the world is your logic, man? Do I need to get 200% of climatologists to agree that Global Warming is real for you to believe it is real?
AND many people would feel better because they would get all of their paycheck.
What, in your opinion, would be absolute proof? You have already stated over and over again that the opinions of scientists can be bought. So let's assume that at least one climatologist is being fed millions every month by Big Oil to disagree with the scientific findings. As long as he makes lots of speeches and press releases, are you still going to disagree as well?
So I guess you would need to inventory everything that they took across the border, and then inventory everything that they brought back. You would need to establish a tax value for these things. You would have to apply your tax to everything they brought back that they didn't take with them in the first place. Of course, the opportunity for fraud still seems pretty significant.
Hmm.. so then people would start shipping the stuff they bought, rather than bringing it themselves. So you would require people to declare the tax value of the things they were shipping across the border that aren't what they had brought across.. Yeah, no potential for fraud there.
So, on second thought, that idea totally sucks. It would ruin our economy in favor of Canada, Mexico, and any other country that chose to ship crap to the U.S.