Here's how carbon taxes work in real life.

[RollingThunder]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

 

[martybegan]

The key is the revenue neutrality, which progs would NEVER allow to happen in the US.

Its still an exercise in stupid, but at least they made it revenue neutral stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yawn

 

[jc456]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

Could the decline be that people left and the 3% rise was those same people relocating? This kind of stuff just makes me laugh. What a bunch of whoee this effn stuff is. No one said they were smart. And it looks like based on the numbers some are and moved. hahaahahahahahahahahahaha OMG.

So dude, what's changed in the world based on the sacrifice these BC Columbians have made? What is the gain other than making an individual poorer?

Oh, oh, oh, what was the objective?

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

Could the decline be that people left and the 3% rise was those same people relocating? This kind of stuff just makes me laugh. What a bunch of whoee this effn stuff is. No one said they were smart. And it looks like based on the numbers some are and moved. hahaahahahahahahahahahaha OMG.

So dude, what's changed in the world based on the sacrifice these BC Columbians have made? What is the gain other than making an individual poorer?

Oh, oh, oh, what was the objective?

JustCrazy's usual clueless retarded drivel....lacking any meaning or significance. Deeeeeep in denial of the real world evidence.

 

[jc456]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

Could the decline be that people left and the 3% rise was those same people relocating? This kind of stuff just makes me laugh. What a bunch of whoee this effn stuff is. No one said they were smart. And it looks like based on the numbers some are and moved. hahaahahahahahahahahahaha OMG.

So dude, what's changed in the world based on the sacrifice these BC Columbians have made? What is the gain other than making an individual poorer?

Oh, oh, oh, what was the objective?

JustCrazy's usual clueless retarded drivel....lacking any meaning or significance. Deeeeeep in denial of the real world evidence.

and again you show you have no answers. None. You're just a wandering blunderhead.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

Could the decline be that people left and the 3% rise was those same people relocating? This kind of stuff just makes me laugh. What a bunch of whoee this effn stuff is. No one said they were smart. And it looks like based on the numbers some are and moved. hahaahahahahahahahahahaha OMG.

So dude, what's changed in the world based on the sacrifice these BC Columbians have made? What is the gain other than making an individual poorer?

Oh, oh, oh, what was the objective?

Do you understand what the words "per person" means?

 

[jc456]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

Could the decline be that people left and the 3% rise was those same people relocating? This kind of stuff just makes me laugh. What a bunch of whoee this effn stuff is. No one said they were smart. And it looks like based on the numbers some are and moved. hahaahahahahahahahahahaha OMG.

So dude, what's changed in the world based on the sacrifice these BC Columbians have made? What is the gain other than making an individual poorer?

Oh, oh, oh, what was the objective?

Do you understand what the words "per person" means?

do you know what no change in global footprint and the per person sacrifice was for nothing don't you understand. Your type made people suffer. shame on you!! Human haters.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

Could the decline be that people left and the 3% rise was those same people relocating? This kind of stuff just makes me laugh. What a bunch of whoee this effn stuff is. No one said they were smart. And it looks like based on the numbers some are and moved. hahaahahahahahahahahahaha OMG.

So dude, what's changed in the world based on the sacrifice these BC Columbians have made? What is the gain other than making an individual poorer?

Oh, oh, oh, what was the objective?

Do you understand what the words "per person" means?

do you know what no change in global footprint and the per person sacrifice was for nothing don't you understand. Your type made people suffer. shame on you!! Human haters.

What's my "type"?

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

Could the decline be that people left and the 3% rise was those same people relocating? This kind of stuff just makes me laugh. What a bunch of whoee this effn stuff is. No one said they were smart. And it looks like based on the numbers some are and moved. hahaahahahahahahahahahaha OMG.

So dude, what's changed in the world based on the sacrifice these BC Columbians have made? What is the gain other than making an individual poorer?

Oh, oh, oh, what was the objective?

Do you understand what the words "per person" means?

do you know what no change in global footprint and the per person sacrifice was for nothing don't you understand. Your type made people suffer. shame on you!! Human haters.

What's my "type"?

Way, way, WAY smarter and better informed than JustCrazy's type of ignorant, ideologically motivated, severely retarded denier cult dingbats.

That's what makes his clueless comments and denial of reality so hilarious.

 

[SSDD]

Here is how carbon taxes work in real life:

 

[RollingThunder]

Here is how carbon taxes work in real life:

Here's how denier cult science works in real life....

 

[dilloduck]

Thank You BC for saving the world ( and getting rich while doing it ). Got anything for Ebola up there ?

 

[SSDD]

Here is how carbon taxes work in real life:

Here's how denier cult science works in real life....

You are a climate denier if you believe:

• That the atmosphere has continued to warm for the past 17 years
• That Antarctica is melting
• That the melting in West Antarctica is caused by a warming atmosphere
• That 97% of scientists are in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2
• That models accurately represent the climate of the earth
• That climate models accurately model the behavior of so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
• That around the turn of the century CO2 decided to warm the oceans instead of the air
• That manmade CO2 is responsible for climate "disasters"

 

[Crick]

Is that hard on your ears?

 

[SSDD]

Is that hard on your ears?

You tell me...it is you guys who are the true deniers...

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's how denier cult science works in real life....

You are a climate denier if you believe:

• That the atmosphere has continued to warm for the past 17 years
• That Antarctica is melting
• That the melting in West Antarctica is caused by a warming atmosphere
• That 97% of scientists are in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2
• That models accurately represent the climate of the earth
• That climate models accurately model the behavior of so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
• That around the turn of the century CO2 decided to warm the oceans instead of the air
• That manmade CO2 is responsible for climate "disasters"

Your post is a great example of anti-science reality denial at its most insane level. Most of what you list are actual facts and are indeed true. That you imagine that acceptance of those facts, which are affirmed by the world scientific community, makes some one a "denier" of your denial of reality is absolutely hilarious, as well as absolutely insane.

1. The atmosphere, the oceans, the land surfaces and the ice have all continued to warm for the past 17 years.
Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends
Kevin Cowtan1, and Robert G. Way
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297
12 FEB 2014

2. Antarctica is melting and losing ice mass at increasing rates.
Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Study Finds
NASA

3. Some of the melting in West Antarctica is being caused by a warming atmosphere and some is the result of the warming ocean waters.
Soaring Temps in West Antarctica May Fuel Sea Level Rise
Temperatures in West Antarctica are have increased by 4.3°F over the past 50 years or so, according to a new paper released Sunday in Nature Geoscience. That increase is far more than scientists have thought, and nearly as much as the 5°F rise on the nearby Antarctic Peninsula, the fastest-warming region on Earth. ...On bigger, colder East Antarctica...even a significant temperature increase wouldn’t push the mercury above the freezing point. In the west, though, the ice is already somewhat unstable since much of it sits on land that’s below sea level. Relatively warm ocean currents have already started eroding the ends of glaciers from below, allowing the ice to flow faster toward the sea. On the Antarctic Peninsula, meanwhile, ice shelves have abruptly collapsed, and in this case, much of the damage has come from meltwater on the surface. “Melting does bad things to ice shelves,” Bromwich said in an understatement. The scientists found that winter and spring temperatures rose the most over the 50-year period they studied, but summer temperatures rose as well. Most of the time, they didn’t quite get above freezing, but Bromwich said, “we’ve seen some years when satellites have showed extensive melting” — something like the surface melting seen last summer in Greenland, where temperatures year-round have always been significantly higher than in West Antarctica. “The point is that the closer you get to freezing, the more likely you are to cross that threshold,” Bromwich said.

4. At least 97% of climate scientists are "in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2", with a slightly lower percentage of the general scientific community also in agreement.
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
NASA
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

5. Many, not all, of the current climate models, while not perfect, do indeed fairly accurately represent the climate of the Earth.
Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

6. In spite of your crackpot anti-science denier cult myths, climate models very accurately "model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere".
Realistic Climate Models Exhibit Greenhouse Gas Sensitivity
Scientific American - March 16, 2014

7. CO2 is insentient and does not "decide" to do anything, retard. Over the last decade or so the oceans have been absorbing even more of the accumulating heat energy held inside the atmosphere by the rising CO2 levels.
What ocean heating reveals about global warming
RealClimate

8. It is a scientific fact that rising CO2 levels are causing the current abrupt warming trend observed over the last century and particularly the last four decades, and that this manmade CO2 caused warming is indeed responsible for the increasing number and severity of climate "disasters".
Steady Increase in Climate Related Natural Disasters
AccuWeather.com - November 15, 2013
The incidence of natural disasters worldwide has steadily increased, especially since the 1970's, according to a report from the New England Journal of Medicine.

Geophysical disasters include earthquakes, volcanoes, dry rockfalls, landslides and avalanches. Climate-related disasters include hydrological events such as floods, storm surge and coastal flooding, while meteorological events include storms, tropical cyclones, local storms, heat/cold waves, drought and wildfires.

The number of geophysical disasters has remained fairly stable since the 1970's, while the number of climate-related (hydro-meteorological) disasters has greatly increased. As a result, the amount of economic damage due to these natural disasters has seen a steady upturn. There were three times as many natural disasters between 2000 to 2009 compared to the amount between 1980 and 1989. A vast majority (80%) of this growth is due to climate-related events.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the scale of disasters has expanded, owing to increased rates of urbanization, deforestation, environmental degradation and to intensifying climate variables such as higher temperatures, extreme precipitation and more violent wind/water storms. The report goes on to say..... natural disasters, particularly floods and storms, will become more frequent and severe because of climate change.

 

[jc456]

Here's how carbon taxes work in real life. Really well.

British Columbia's carbon tax
The evidence mounts
The Economist
Jul 31st 2014,
UNTIL recently, British Columbians consumed as much fuel per head as their fellow Canadians. Nothing remarkable distinguished their use of fossil fuel until, in 2008, they began paying a carbon tax. Six years later the province remains the only jurisdiction in North America to levy a charge on fossil-fuel consumption.

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

Some industries remain unconvinced by the tax. BC cement makers say they’ve lost a third of their market share to US and Asian imports. Farmers facing competition from non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions have wrestled back rebates from the government. But even without the rebates, a study released in July by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), a research network, found that the agriculture sector didn’t suffer any downturn because of the tax.

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

Could the decline be that people left and the 3% rise was those same people relocating? This kind of stuff just makes me laugh. What a bunch of whoee this effn stuff is. No one said they were smart. And it looks like based on the numbers some are and moved. hahaahahahahahahahahahaha OMG.

So dude, what's changed in the world based on the sacrifice these BC Columbians have made? What is the gain other than making an individual poorer?

Oh, oh, oh, what was the objective?

Do you understand what the words "per person" means?

do you know what no change in global footprint and the per person sacrifice was for nothing don't you understand. Your type made people suffer. shame on you!! Human haters.

What's my "type"?

human hater!!!!

 

[jc456]

Here's how denier cult science works in real life....

You are a climate denier if you believe:

• That the atmosphere has continued to warm for the past 17 years
• That Antarctica is melting
• That the melting in West Antarctica is caused by a warming atmosphere
• That 97% of scientists are in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2
• That models accurately represent the climate of the earth
• That climate models accurately model the behavior of so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
• That around the turn of the century CO2 decided to warm the oceans instead of the air
• That manmade CO2 is responsible for climate "disasters"

Your post is a great example of anti-science reality denial at its most insane level. Most of what you list are actual facts and are indeed true. That you imagine that acceptance of those facts, which are affirmed by the world scientific community, makes some one a "denier" of your denial of reality is absolutely hilarious, as well as absolutely insane.

1. The atmosphere, the oceans, the land surfaces and the ice have all continued to warm for the past 17 years.
Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends
Kevin Cowtan1, and Robert G. Way
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297
12 FEB 2014

2. Antarctica is melting and losing ice mass at increasing rates.
Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Study Finds
NASA

3. Some of the melting in West Antarctica is being caused by a warming atmosphere and some is the result of the warming ocean waters.
Soaring Temps in West Antarctica May Fuel Sea Level Rise
Temperatures in West Antarctica are have increased by 4.3°F over the past 50 years or so, according to a new paper released Sunday in Nature Geoscience. That increase is far more than scientists have thought, and nearly as much as the 5°F rise on the nearby Antarctic Peninsula, the fastest-warming region on Earth. ...On bigger, colder East Antarctica...even a significant temperature increase wouldn’t push the mercury above the freezing point. In the west, though, the ice is already somewhat unstable since much of it sits on land that’s below sea level. Relatively warm ocean currents have already started eroding the ends of glaciers from below, allowing the ice to flow faster toward the sea. On the Antarctic Peninsula, meanwhile, ice shelves have abruptly collapsed, and in this case, much of the damage has come from meltwater on the surface. “Melting does bad things to ice shelves,” Bromwich said in an understatement. The scientists found that winter and spring temperatures rose the most over the 50-year period they studied, but summer temperatures rose as well. Most of the time, they didn’t quite get above freezing, but Bromwich said, “we’ve seen some years when satellites have showed extensive melting” — something like the surface melting seen last summer in Greenland, where temperatures year-round have always been significantly higher than in West Antarctica. “The point is that the closer you get to freezing, the more likely you are to cross that threshold,” Bromwich said.

4. At least 97% of climate scientists are "in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2", with a slightly lower percentage of the general scientific community also in agreement.
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
NASA
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

5. Many, not all, of the current climate models, while not perfect, do indeed fairly accurately represent the climate of the Earth.
Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

6. In spite of your crackpot anti-science denier cult myths, climate models very accurately "model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere".
Realistic Climate Models Exhibit Greenhouse Gas Sensitivity
Scientific American - March 16, 2014

7. CO2 is insentient and does not "decide" to do anything, retard. Over the last decade or so the oceans have been absorbing even more of the accumulating heat energy held inside the atmosphere by the rising CO2 levels.
What ocean heating reveals about global warming
RealClimate

8. It is a scientific fact that rising CO2 levels are causing the current abrupt warming trend observed over the last century and particularly the last four decades, and that this manmade CO2 caused warming is indeed responsible for the increasing number and severity of climate "disasters".
Steady Increase in Climate Related Natural Disasters
AccuWeather.com - November 15, 2013
The incidence of natural disasters worldwide has steadily increased, especially since the 1970's, according to a report from the New England Journal of Medicine.

Geophysical disasters include earthquakes, volcanoes, dry rockfalls, landslides and avalanches. Climate-related disasters include hydrological events such as floods, storm surge and coastal flooding, while meteorological events include storms, tropical cyclones, local storms, heat/cold waves, drought and wildfires.

The number of geophysical disasters has remained fairly stable since the 1970's, while the number of climate-related (hydro-meteorological) disasters has greatly increased. As a result, the amount of economic damage due to these natural disasters has seen a steady upturn. There were three times as many natural disasters between 2000 to 2009 compared to the amount between 1980 and 1989. A vast majority (80%) of this growth is due to climate-related events.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the scale of disasters has expanded, owing to increased rates of urbanization, deforestation, environmental degradation and to intensifying climate variables such as higher temperatures, extreme precipitation and more violent wind/water storms. The report goes on to say..... natural disasters, particularly floods and storms, will become more frequent and severe because of climate change.

you don't even know how CO2 gets in the atmosphere. your posts are garbage.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's how denier cult science works in real life....

You are a climate denier if you believe:

• That the atmosphere has continued to warm for the past 17 years
• That Antarctica is melting
• That the melting in West Antarctica is caused by a warming atmosphere
• That 97% of scientists are in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2
• That models accurately represent the climate of the earth
• That climate models accurately model the behavior of so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
• That around the turn of the century CO2 decided to warm the oceans instead of the air
• That manmade CO2 is responsible for climate "disasters"

Your post is a great example of anti-science reality denial at its most insane level. Most of what you list are actual facts and are indeed true. That you imagine that acceptance of those facts, which are affirmed by the world scientific community, makes some one a "denier" of your denial of reality is absolutely hilarious, as well as absolutely insane.

1. The atmosphere, the oceans, the land surfaces and the ice have all continued to warm for the past 17 years.
Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends
Kevin Cowtan1, and Robert G. Way
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297
12 FEB 2014

2. Antarctica is melting and losing ice mass at increasing rates.
Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Study Finds
NASA

3. Some of the melting in West Antarctica is being caused by a warming atmosphere and some is the result of the warming ocean waters.
Soaring Temps in West Antarctica May Fuel Sea Level Rise
Temperatures in West Antarctica are have increased by 4.3°F over the past 50 years or so, according to a new paper released Sunday in Nature Geoscience. That increase is far more than scientists have thought, and nearly as much as the 5°F rise on the nearby Antarctic Peninsula, the fastest-warming region on Earth. ...On bigger, colder East Antarctica...even a significant temperature increase wouldn’t push the mercury above the freezing point. In the west, though, the ice is already somewhat unstable since much of it sits on land that’s below sea level. Relatively warm ocean currents have already started eroding the ends of glaciers from below, allowing the ice to flow faster toward the sea. On the Antarctic Peninsula, meanwhile, ice shelves have abruptly collapsed, and in this case, much of the damage has come from meltwater on the surface. “Melting does bad things to ice shelves,” Bromwich said in an understatement. The scientists found that winter and spring temperatures rose the most over the 50-year period they studied, but summer temperatures rose as well. Most of the time, they didn’t quite get above freezing, but Bromwich said, “we’ve seen some years when satellites have showed extensive melting” — something like the surface melting seen last summer in Greenland, where temperatures year-round have always been significantly higher than in West Antarctica. “The point is that the closer you get to freezing, the more likely you are to cross that threshold,” Bromwich said.

4. At least 97% of climate scientists are "in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2", with a slightly lower percentage of the general scientific community also in agreement.
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
NASA
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

5. Many, not all, of the current climate models, while not perfect, do indeed fairly accurately represent the climate of the Earth.
Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

6. In spite of your crackpot anti-science denier cult myths, climate models very accurately "model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere".
Realistic Climate Models Exhibit Greenhouse Gas Sensitivity
Scientific American - March 16, 2014

7. CO2 is insentient and does not "decide" to do anything, retard. Over the last decade or so the oceans have been absorbing even more of the accumulating heat energy held inside the atmosphere by the rising CO2 levels.
What ocean heating reveals about global warming
RealClimate

8. It is a scientific fact that rising CO2 levels are causing the current abrupt warming trend observed over the last century and particularly the last four decades, and that this manmade CO2 caused warming is indeed responsible for the increasing number and severity of climate "disasters".
Steady Increase in Climate Related Natural Disasters
AccuWeather.com - November 15, 2013
The incidence of natural disasters worldwide has steadily increased, especially since the 1970's, according to a report from the New England Journal of Medicine.

Geophysical disasters include earthquakes, volcanoes, dry rockfalls, landslides and avalanches. Climate-related disasters include hydrological events such as floods, storm surge and coastal flooding, while meteorological events include storms, tropical cyclones, local storms, heat/cold waves, drought and wildfires.

The number of geophysical disasters has remained fairly stable since the 1970's, while the number of climate-related (hydro-meteorological) disasters has greatly increased. As a result, the amount of economic damage due to these natural disasters has seen a steady upturn. There were three times as many natural disasters between 2000 to 2009 compared to the amount between 1980 and 1989. A vast majority (80%) of this growth is due to climate-related events.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the scale of disasters has expanded, owing to increased rates of urbanization, deforestation, environmental degradation and to intensifying climate variables such as higher temperatures, extreme precipitation and more violent wind/water storms. The report goes on to say..... natural disasters, particularly floods and storms, will become more frequent and severe because of climate change.

you don't even know how CO2 gets in the atmosphere. your posts are garbage.

ROTFLMAO.....a perfect denier cultist response to getting your retarded drivel blown away by the facts.

You don't even know your ass from a hole in the ground....your posts are really putrid garbage.