Grade 10 science

[macdon02]

Idk if they still teach this or not but does anyone remember the teacher taking CO2 and extinguishing the candle in the paint can? Why did this happen? Because CO2 is heavier then oxygen. So Suzuki and Gore want us to believe CO2 is causing the earth to warm by trapping heat. Well shit for brains I guess the periodic table is irrelevant and unsettled science. Next problem with this money grab theory, what is the surface of the earth covered with? Plant life that converts the evil gas back to oxygen. So the earth is basically able to scrub excess CO2 as higher levels promote plant growth. How has society allowed this line of bs to go on this long? It's all about the money and nothing to do with science.

[GDR]

Idk if they still teach this or not but does anyone remember the teacher taking CO2 and extinguishing the candle in the paint can? Why did this happen? Because CO2 is heavier then oxygen. So Suzuki and Gore want us to believe CO2 is causing the earth to warm by trapping heat. Well shit for brains I guess the periodic table is irrelevant and unsettled science. Next problem with this money grab theory, what is the surface of the earth covered with? Plant life that converts the evil gas back to oxygen. So the earth is basically able to scrub excess CO2 as higher levels promote plant growth. How has society allowed this line of bs to go on this long? It's all about the money and nothing to do with science.

Your logic makes sense but isn't reality. Gases don't separate like oil and water, the wind and heat currents keep it mixed up otherwise we'd all be dead from an oxygen shortage. Contained it will sink but free it diffuses. Would agree though wouldn't think it would concentrate up high?

[sumdumguy]

Seems logical to me it would have to be lighter to float up, but it's not about logic, it's about global distrution of wealth. Wealth is extorted from us by our government and they give it away. Simple!

[hobbyfrmr]

Seems logical to me it would have to be lighter to float up, but it's not about logic, it's about global distrution of wealth. Wealth is extorted from us by our government and they give it away. Simple!

And there is the answer. Redistribution of wealth. Selfie is already spending the anticipated redistribution.

[chuckChuck]

Why are you guys so obessesd with the redistribution of wealth?

All of you and your children have received goods and services from the redistribution of wealth. All of your off farm investments are a transfer of wealth in some form.

We have a progressive income tax system in Canada. The more you make the higher rate of tax you pay. Taxes are used to fund almost everything you depend on including health care, education, roads, police, emergency services, infrastructure.....

Taxes are also used to provide subsidies and safety nets to agriculture. Old age security, Guaranteed Income Supplement are programs to make sure that seniors dont live in poverty. All this and more are a tranfer of wealth and redistribution from tax payers.

Under Harper and the Conservatives most of the programs were similar.

So the question of whether transfers of wealth are a good thing really depends on which programs and services you support and which you don't.

A carbon tax will be a small part of the overall taxation system revenues. Provinces can decide how they use the carbon tax and exempt agriculture if they choose.

The price of energy has been much higher than it is now. This was also a transfer of wealth from Consumers to oil producers.

Canada currently has one of the strongest economies in the G7.

[farmaholic]

Chuck X 2 =

"Progressive tax system"? Regressive tax system! Takes away the incentive to get ahead! If I have to "share" a higher percentage of my greater wealth with slackers or generational welfare families, where is my incentive to take greater risks an work harder to make more money only to give away more because the government thinks I don't need as much of it in increasing increments?

I've said more than once....I would farm less land than to give forty plus percent of my net income away above certain income thresholds. I don't take this kind of risk and work this hard for people who aren't doing the same as me!

What a ****ed up system!

[blackpowder]

Tax revenue is not an artesian well.

People will always want more. Impossible to turn off demand now.

IF ONLY the funds went to health care and education!!!!!

Far too high % of "jobs" redistribute instead of create.

Now class, pay attention to the difference between "redistribute" & "create".
I have an old set of World book Encyclopedias from '71 that can help you.



I Feel like Croc Dundee when he turned the tv on for second time in 20 years.
"Yup still the same".

[farmaholic]

Yes BP, And that is why the redistributors and creators don't see eye to eye on this issue. Now what does this have to do with grade 10 Science.....maybe grade twelve "Social Studies".

[blackpowder]

Agreed but they teach some wierd pc crap in school today.
How quickly a science question became political. Thanks to.....
Point should be that, no matter the science, the policy must make sense, and cents, not reek with scent.

[macdon02]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-lining-up-climate-change-red-team/article/2629124

Looks like logic has a new best friend

[fjlip]

science...

[sumdumguy]

Why are you guys so obessesd with the redistribution of wealth?

All of you and your children have received goods and services from the redistribution of wealth. All of your off farm investments are a transfer of wealth in some form.

We have a progressive income tax system in Canada. The more you make the higher rate of tax you pay. Taxes are used to fund almost everything you depend on including health care, education, roads, police, emergency services, infrastructure.....

Taxes are also used to provide subsidies and safety nets to agriculture. Old age security, Guaranteed Income Supplement are programs to make sure that seniors dont live in poverty. All this and more are a tranfer of wealth and redistribution from tax payers.

Under Harper and the Conservatives most of the programs were similar.

So the question of whether transfers of wealth are a good thing really depends on which programs and services you support and which you don't.

A carbon tax will be a small part of the overall taxation system revenues. Provinces can decide how they use the carbon tax and exempt agriculture if they choose.

The price of energy has been much higher than it is now. This was also a transfer of wealth from Consumers to oil producers.

Canada currently has one of the strongest economies in the G7.

If I were premier and the carbon tax was forced on my province, I would exempt everyone but federal politicians. And I would quadruple it!

[grassfarmer]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-lining-up-climate-change-red-team/article/2629124

Looks like logic has a new best friend

Not much logic involved but the last comments summing up the issue pretty much say it all:

"The overwhelming majority — 97 percent — of peer-reviewed papers in the literature support the consensus view that human activities have contributed to the majority of recent warming," with a "vanishing small proportion" of published research rejecting the scientific consensus, she said.

But "giving equal, 50-50 weight to both the red and blue teams in the exercise would mislead the public into thinking there is a debate when there isn't one," Levin said. "And the Trump administration is likely to stack the red team with fossil fuel industry interests, as it has done with its Cabinet positions."

[sawfly1]

science got us this far , now we want to reject it , because we do not like what it says.

it is a hell of a big conspiracy, if that is what your thinking .

science has been right about everything else but not this apparently.

you trust science and math to steer your tractor straight down the field .
but not here.

yes , there will be some transfer of wealth, and some abuses i am sure.
but what if they are right ?

we may be ok , here , but melting polar caps, etc. etc.
wars, political turmoil , who knows
it will cost a bit , but would you not rather be safe than sorry ..
we will be long dead , before it hits.
so why should we care.
well maybe because we should

[burnt]

science got us this far , now we want to reject it , because we do not like what it says.

it is a hell of a big conspiracy, if that is what your thinking .

science has been right about everything else but not this apparently.

you trust science and math to steer your tractor straight down the field .
but not here.

yes , there will be some transfer of wealth, and some abuses i am sure.
but what if they are right ?

we may be ok , here , but melting polar caps, etc. etc.
wars, political turmoil , who knows
it will cost a bit , but would you not rather be safe than sorry ..
we will be long dead , before it hits.
so why should we care.
well maybe because we should

What a strange post - it's author could be afflicted with paranoid schizophrenia. It begins with wanting to trust science and ends with strictly emotional conjecture.

sawfly, are you okay?

BTW, the "97%" thing has been debunked quite some time ago. Read up on it, how the alarmists arrived at it.

Unfortunately, the alarmists have invested so much in their frenetic theories and doomsday projections that they will likely never back away from them.