Chuck, it is a consensus!!!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You keep telling us how important consensus is. Well, I see in the Western Producer thread which caseih posted, there is a consensus of those forced to absorb and pay the costs of a CO2 tax, that it is the wrong strategy. So far 42 posters have liked the original post, and 0 have liked the posts of the lone dissenter in the thread. So, if we count the lone dissenter, that makes nearly 98% consensus, that is an even bigger consensus that the imaginary one about scientists supporting global warming. So since you use that consensus as justification for draconian measures, and to condone silencing all dissension, I trust that you will also support using this consensus to accept that the CO2 tax is not effective nor is it the appropriate measure. These are after all the foremost experts in their field, literally and figuratively, All of whom now have vast experience with paying the increased costs related to this tax.

I just recounted, 8 additional posters posted on the thread not supporting the CO2 tax, but did not like the original post, so the consensus is actually much stronger than the fraudulent global warming consensus, it is now over 98%, a full percentage point higher than yours, you must bow to authority, the consensus has spoken, and cannot be questioned. Any heretic who dares to speak out against the consensus shall be labelled a tax denier and any time they attempt to voice an opinion, shall be silenced by calling upon the authority of the all mighty consensus.

[chuckChuck]

Grasping at straws are you?

Preston Manning and Michael Chong both prominent Conservatives favour a Carbon tax as the most effective and market based way to reduce carbon emissions.

So even within the Conservative movement there is support for a Carbon Tax.

But you don't think there is a problem with climate change, so there is not much of a reason to discuss a carbon tax.

A carbon tax is but one tool. We will need new technology, increases in energy efficiency and regulations as well, to reduce emissions. The world will move on without you and your denial that there is a problem.

[Oliver88]

You can’t argue with this data gathered from experts, it sounds like we definitely have a tax denier on Agriville.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Grasping at straws are you?

Preston Manning and Michael Chong both prominent Conservatives favour a Carbon tax as the most effective and market based way to reduce carbon emissions.

So even within the Conservative movement there is support for a Carbon Tax.

But you don't think there is a problem with climate change, so there is not much of a reason to discuss a carbon tax.

A carbon tax is but one tool. We will need new technology, increases in energy efficiency and regulations as well, to reduce emissions. The world will move on without you and your denial that there is a problem.

See, right on cue, you call on the authority of a consensus of politicians. The trouble is, that politicians are the farthest thing from being experts on taxes, having never been on the receiving end, while simultaneously trying to create wealth for the country.

And as we have discussed previously, none of those politicians are qualified as climate scientists either.

You have spent months searching for proof that there really is a problem, and so far have provided us with no credible evidence that global warming has had ANY negative effects, over 30 years after the public catastrophic projections first started. I only deny that there is a problem because the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that there is no problem as of 2019. The problem only exists in future projections made by models. Which we don't need to rehash all over again.

[chuckChuck]

Yeah right! Its a waste of time discussing this with you.

The scientists are wrong, its a conspiracy, its a hoax and a fraud, there is no problem.........blah blah blah.

Don't you have anything better to do. I certainly do.

[Guest]

He's the resident strawman. That's what he does.

[Herc]

Yeah right! Its a waste of time discussing this with you.

The scientists are wrong, its a conspiracy, its a hoax and a fraud, there is no problem.........blah blah blah.

Don't you have anything better to do. I certainly do.

Better things to do but you still reply......

[pgluca]

Yeah right! Its a waste of time discussing this with you.

The scientists are wrong, its a conspiracy, its a hoax and a fraud, there is no problem.........blah blah blah.

Don't you have anything better to do. I certainly do.

When you use what politicians say as proof of anything you ignore their sole motivation. That is to be elected. To do that they have to give lip service to all kinds of irrational and baseless ideas that segments of the population have accepted whether they are based on fact, conjecture, self interest or simply the first social media post on the subject. There is no way any one in politics can ignore this with even the remotest hope of electoral success. Which explains why we are where we are today...…….

[fjlip]

Climate Barbie knows...

[LWeber]

This just sucks

[fjlip]

[ATTACH]4883[/ATTACH]

This just sucks

And Lieberals/Greens/NDP want it COLDER! Vote with a brain...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

[ATTACH]4883[/ATTACH]

This just sucks

I think whoever was in charge of adjusting the temperatures to ensure that this one continues the trend of hottest ever forgot to tune down the adjustment from max. Did anyone else notice it being more than 5 degrees warmer than normal for the past month? Chuck probably did.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Yeah right! Its a waste of time discussing this with you.

The scientists are wrong, its a conspiracy, its a hoax and a fraud, there is no problem.........blah blah blah.

Don't you have anything better to do. I certainly do.

Yes, you certainly do, you are supposed to be looking up what places haven't been saddled with exhorbitant price increases due adding unreliables to the grid. and you still have unfinished homework from months ago trying to find examples of a current net negative effect of global warming. Still waiting for a precise value on the human contribution to SLR too, you know, one where the error bars are not bigger than the prediction itself.

But it wouldn't be a waste of time discussing these issues with me if you could provide the answers to those questions. You can easily win me over to your side by bringing such facts to the discussion. Your refusal is what makes it such a waste of time. If you spent a fraction as much time researching the actual evidence, instead of cutting and pasting media propaganda, we could be having a productive intellectual discussion about the issues.