[quote=“Vay”]
Perhaps you don’t realize it but every attempt to address questions is brushed aside by you and more questions thrown as if that somehow addressed the points I made.
Then feel free to point out where I’ve done so, and I will attempt to do better. But to me, silence just says “ignore”. I made a pretty thorough, friendly and respectful attempt to answer your criticisms about the carbon tax quite a few pages back. Got no answer at all. Same for your more recent criticism. So when you then come back with liberal this and left-wing that and basically a recap of what we’ve already heard after what appeared to be a blatant ignore, well, my tone shifts accordingly. [/quote]
Silence does not mean ignore, we are on a public forum and from me it means I am giving what you said some thought. Everyone else can read what you said and a no answer means there is no immediate answer from me that would adequately address what you wrote. That doesn’t mean I have serious doubts or given time to look into the details will not be able to articulate exactly where and why I have misgivings. Like to change your tone because someone didn’t swallow what was being served? Might work well when talking about the science of global warming, regarding a carbon tax, that might not be the best idea.
[quote=“Vay”]
As for my questions, are you talking about leaded gas, CFC’s and acid rain? Call me crazy, but I don’t find it irrelevant that none of the major environmental issues in modern history have been solved by personal initiative or the Invisible Hand.[/quote]
Honestly, the incessant non stop of questions reminds me of a conspiracy theorist or a climate denier unwilling to engage in debate. To your credit this is a much better post, but would you expect to ask a climate denier to prove there is no such thing as global warming? Of course not, we make the claim and it’s up to us to provide evidence, which I would suggest is overwhelming, is it up to me to prove a carbon tax is ineffective? The same is true, Im not in the business of debunking theories, you make the claim, so you need to back it up.
[quote=“Vay”]
I didn’t say the planet cared. But by comparing countries you are basically comparing apples to oranges. Of course Australia can’t emit as much as China or India overall. Luxembourg was topping the list a few years ago - shall they nevertheless be exempt from any emissions caps at all, since they can’t in a million years emit as much as the US? [/quote]
What list? By per capita? Is that how we measure things, officially?
[quote=“Vay”]
I still can’t see how Fred’s point is “a valid one”. TBH, I can’t even see what the hell his point is. That the collective action problem exists, therefore do nothing is the best solution? Please, do elaborate. [/quote]
Ok, key point, please consider this carefully. You want as a government to bring down peoples overall use of CO2, how do you do that. You’r an example of someone who is well aware of the impact of global warming yet is very difficult to change your lifestyle can be expanded to the millions who really dont give a shit and how effective a carbon tax solution will be.
That was a tongue in cheek remark. I can understand why I got a bit of heat on it, but really? Haven’t I and other mods been urging you not to bring your wife and family into the debate?
[quote=“Vay”]
Um, I pretty much try to go by the evidence. I have my biases like everyone else, and on this topic my bias is probably influencing the sources I choose. Nevertheless, I have yet to see good evidence that carbon taxes don’t work, let alone that the left-wing media is hiding this fact. If you want to claim that, go for it - but I’ll take you a lot more seriously if you offer evidence for it. [/quote]
They may work. I took a look at your last couple of links the first says BC decreased fuel consumption from roughly 4.56 thousand liters in 2010 to 4.4 thousand liters in 2014. Whats that a 2% decrease, attributed to the carbon tax, must be right? Then opened up your other one by the Duke Nicholas Institute, who are these guys by he way? See, skepticism works both ways. You may recognize the same questions I ask of climate deniers that I am now asking from you. They claim in the second paragraph a reduction by 5 to 15 %, my skeptical bells are ringing.
[quote=“Vay”]
Yes I honestly realize there are such rules. But since the rule about personal attacks against me seems so flexible, I feel less inclined to follow other rules. [/quote]
No comment. But so you don’t think I am ignoring this, will say some times when I don’t comment, its because Im not looking for a confrontation with you.
