Study suggests Liberal carbon tax plan would put more money in Canadians' pockets

[Frankfooter]

More bullshit. I don't need to prove the veracity of what I posted, since every one of the greatest hits is fully sourced with a link to the original post.

If anyone is running away from his record, it's Frankfooter, who keeps trying to deny his own record. Unlike Franky, I stand behind my posts, including my posts about Frankfooter's "greatest hits" on man-made global warming.

Weasel, weasel, weasel.

Yes, you just confirmed that your 'greatest hits' copy and paste nonsense is just that; nonsense.
You refuse to stand even one of them when challenged.
By the way, I'm here standing by my posts, you are the one who posts accusations and then runs away.

Its one thing to be a scientifically illiterate science denier like CM or larue, but you push it into out and out bullshit.
At least the others can claim ignorance.

 

[Ref]

China has a long way to go.... and Canada is on the wrong half of this chart.

So in Canada we have Trudeau pushing his hardest to place a carbon tax on all Canadians. Then he turns around and gifts a $100 million IT project to India, one of the worlds worst polluters. Why is he even doing business with a nation that is killing the planet on such a scale? Wouldn't it be better if he was to tell India to start cleaning up their act and then he will award the contract to them?

 

[nottyboi]

China has a long way to go.... and Canada is on the wrong half of this chart.

you can only count percaptia emissions. Total emissions is meaningless.

 

[nottyboi]

So in Canada we have Trudeau pushing his hardest to place a carbon tax on all Canadians. Then he turns around and gifts a $100 million IT project to India, one of the worlds worst polluters. Why is he even doing business with a nation that is killing the planet on such a scale? Wouldn't it be better if he was to tell India to start cleaning up their act and then he will award the contract to them?

actually that would be illegal under WTO rules and also idiotic.

 

[JohnLarue]

actually that would be illegal under WTO rules and also idiotic.

So the Canadian environmentalists get to pic and choose ?
They defy the Canadian Federal Govt but must respect the WTO ?

That is idiotic

 

[JohnLarue]

Weasel, weasel, weasel.

Yes, you just confirmed that your 'greatest hits' copy and paste nonsense is just that; nonsense.
You refuse to stand even one of them when challenged.
By the way, I'm here standing by my posts, you are the one who posts accusations and then runs away.

Its one thing to be a scientifically illiterate science denier like CM or larue, but you push it into out and out bullshit.
At least the others can claim ignorance.

You are the ignorant one
You claim to be undeniable 100% absolute based upon science you clearly do not understand
And anyone who does not agree with you 100% is labeled a denier

There is no need for you to claim ignorance.
You have made that crystal clear to all

 

[Moviefan-2]

Unlike Franky, I stand behind my posts, including my posts about Frankfooter's "greatest hits" on man-made global warming.

You refuse to stand even one of them when challenged.

As has been mentioned before, Frankfooter is functionally illiterate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Frankfooter, you apparently missed this question. I'll try again.

What happened to this prediction?

The right wingers will avoid this thread as well.

:doh:

 

[Moviefan-2]

China has a long way to go.... and Canada is on the wrong half of this chart.

So much for China's "historic" agreement with Obama. :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

So much for China's "historic" agreement with Obama. :biggrin1:

That chart is listed in tonnes, so countries with large CO2 output obviously look like they are making bigger changes then those with smaller economies.
A more useful chart would show that change in percentage.

But we know you have big problems with numbers and charts.

Booming economy = more CO2 at present.
The US declined only 0.5%, for instance, largely because of actions in California and a switch over to natural gas from coal for generation.
Ontario's CO2 output declined under the liberals while Alberta's increased quite a bit.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...ntal-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Meanwhile, businesses are moving on and recognizing the real costs of climate change.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/climate-change-costs-1.4833281

Oh, and the Trump administration just released this:
Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100

 

[Moviefan-2]

That chart is listed in tonnes, so countries with large CO2 output obviously look like they are making bigger changes then those with smaller economies.
A more useful chart would show that change in percentage.

Would that be similar to a properly scaled graph that shows a 1C increase in the global temperature over 135 years as a straight horizontal line? Funny, your NASA graphs don't look like that to me. :biggrin1:

In any event, there is growing attention to China's leading role in the global increase in man-made carbon emissions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-24/china-is-adding-more-coal-capacity

 

[Frankfooter]

Would that be similar to a properly scaled graph that shows a 1C increase in the global temperature over 135 years as a straight horizontal line? Funny, your NASA graphs don't look like that to me. :biggrin1:

Did you get a new ruler?

 

[JohnLarue]

Did you get a new ruler?

What about you ?
Did you get a new ruler, after Osama Bin Laddin was eliminated?

 

[Moviefan-2]

What about you ?

It is quite odd that Franky is now mocking his own recommendation that people should use a proper scale to illustrate numerical changes.

 

[Frankfooter]

It is quite odd that Franky is now mocking his own recommendation that people should use a proper scale to illustrate numerical changes.

I'm noting your history with providing dodgy charts that you don't understand.
Your posts on climate change are all suspect, this chart shows that.

The global temperature increase, which has hit 1ºC since pre-industrial times, is not a straight line, but its very much a real increase.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

[JohnLarue]

I'm noting your history with providing dodgy charts that you don't understand.
Your posts on climate change are all suspect, this chart shows that.

The global temperature increase, which has hit 1ºC since pre-industrial times, is not a straight line, but its very much a real increase.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The earths temperature & climate have been changing constantly over its 4.5 B year history
The last ice age was only 11,000 years ago
Did you ever consider the thawing cycle might just be continuing?

No....The all knowing Franfoolter , who cant calculate a simple weighted average, saw a hockey stick graph and proclaimed that he is 100% absolutely undeniable correct in his conclusion
Anyone else who disagrees or just does not agree is in Frankfurters view a "denier"
What a fool

 

[Frankfooter]

The earths temperature & climate have been changing constantly over its 4.5 B year history
The last ice age was only 11,000 years ago
Did you ever consider the thawing cycle might just be continuing?

Do you think that climatologists have never thought of that or checked it out?
Are you really so daft as to think this is a scientific breakthrough that nobody has ever studied?

This is the smartest argument you can come up with?

Do want to show us how your theory would look with historic temperatures?

 

[JohnLarue]

Do you think that climatologists have never thought of that or checked it out?

Since you are 100% absolute on this issue, & you refuse to even consider an opposing view you should know this inside & out
Yet you don't, you refer to some mythical climatologists instead

Are you really so daft as to think this is a scientific breakthrough that nobody has ever studied?

are you so arrogant that you label other people as deniers without having thoroughly checked this out & verified it yourself?
once again you prove that you really do not understand this , yet refuse to allow an opposing or questioning position

The fact of the matter is this is 100% political / agenda driven for you, as it is another tax & bigger government

This is the smartest argument you can come up with?

You stepped into it & proved yourself ignorant of the science once again, so it appears to be damn fine argument
Although fooling you is not really overly impressive

Do want to show us how your theory would look with historic temperatures?

Your little graph goes back 800 thousand years, which is not a useful time frame as the last ice age started approx 2.6 million years ago
You are trying to observe a change within in a time frame which should be 5-10X longer
You are trying to measure out a kilometer using a yardstick

https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html

The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago.

I suggest you stop trying to pretend you really understand science as it is not that difficult to show that you do not
And since you do not understand the science you can not be absolute in your position & have zero moral authority to call anyone a denier.

 

[Frankfooter]

Since you are 100% absolute on this issue, & you refuse to even consider an opposing view you should know this inside & out
Yet you don't, you refer to some mythical climatologists instead


are you so arrogant that you label other people as deniers without having thoroughly checked this out & verified it yourself?
once again you prove that you really do not understand this , yet refuse to allow an opposing or questioning position

The fact of the matter is this is 100% political / agenda driven for you, as it is another tax & bigger government



You stepped into it & proved yourself ignorant of the science once again, so it appears to be damn fine argument
Although fooling you is not really overly impressive



Your little graph goes back 800 thousand years, which is not a useful time frame as the last ice age started approx 2.6 million years ago
You are trying to observe a change within in a time frame which should be 5-10X longer
You are trying to measure out a kilometer using a yardstick

https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html

The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago.

I suggest you stop trying to pretend you really understand science as it is not that difficult to show that you do not
And since you do not understand the science you can not be absolute in your position & have zero moral authority to call anyone a denier.

Larue, you failed basic math in your post.
You stated that the last ice age was in the Pleistocene Epoch, which was 11,700 to 2.6 million years.
Really the last ice age peaked around 16,000 BC and ended about 11,700 years ago.

If you understood the basics of math and had enough basics in science to read a simple chart and your definition of the Pleistocene Epoch you would have noticed that the chart I posted uses a scale in thousands of years.
That means that 11,700 years ago would be just to the right of the 0, about 1/10th the way to 100, just where the lowest global temperatures are listed. Just as you would expect in an ice age.
That chart shows the end of the last ice age 11,700 years ago.
Loser.

You failed.

 

[JohnLarue]

Larue, you failed basic math in your post.
You stated that the last ice age was in the Pleistocene Epoch, which was 11,700 to 2.6 million years.
Really the last ice age peaked around 16,000 BC and ended about 11,700 years ago.

You did not read the link I gave
https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html
Here is the title of the article
Pleistocene Epoch: Facts About the Last Ice Age

So no you are wrong again
Here try this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
The current ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, and the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

If you understood the basics of math and had enough basics in science to read a simple chart and your definition of the Pleistocene Epoch you would have noticed that the chart I posted uses a scale in thousands of years.
That means that 11,700 years ago would be just to the right of the 0, about 1/10th the way to 100, just where the lowest global temperatures are listed. Just as you would expect in an ice age.
That chart shows the end of the last ice age 11,700 years ago.
Loser.

too bad the last ice age began almost 5 time greater than the scale of your chart & one should really look a lot farther back if one wants to pick out a change in order to make a conclusion, especially an absolute undeniable conclusion
Moron

Hey what does dy/dx mean to you?

You failed.

Nope you wear the dunce cap again
Moron