The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

That is just objectively false. You have not provided any evidence for such a claim, nor will you ever be doing so. That tells me something.

CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperature.

Either that, or I am just more honest.

As the climategate emails showed, it's probably worldwide in the sense that multiple countries' governments and citizens are involved; but there needn't be very many individual people involved. Certainly not as many as had to be involved in the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy, the Iraq fake-WMD conspiracy, the Syrian chemical attack conspiracy, and many other conspiracies that are known to have been carried out.

 

Contrails ftw!

 

No, that is just a bald fabrication on your part. You simply made it up. My intent is justice. You merely hate justice because you find injustice more congenial to your own narrow financial interests, and are so intent on profiting from injustice that you disingenuously choose to call justice "punishment." Simple.

You haven't provided any evidence that consumers are or would be happy to pay sales taxes, nor will you ever be doing so. You merely presume to speak for others despite having no mandate to do so.

Being forced to pay for subsidies to rich, greedy, privileged parasites is not freedom, and I will thank you to remember it.

Most states also have income taxes, and there is prosperity there, too. All states have property taxes, and statistically, their prosperity varies with the rate thereof. Can you find a willingness to learn from such facts? Can you find a willingness to learn from what a national sales tax has done to Japan?

It's not up to me, but I would certainly oppose such institutionalized injustice.

I don't want to know anyone's income, I oppose income tax, and I can point you to posts of mine in this forum where I have stated that explicitly. Can you find a willingness to learn from being proved objectively wrong about my views?

 

No. Buyers do not drive up value. They merely respond to perceived advantages by bidding commensurately for the right to enjoy them. It is those advantages that drive up value.

Jobs provided by the community, not the landowner.

I suppose that must be why land is so much cheaper in NYC than in Santa Fe, so much cheaper in Vancouver than in Phoenix.

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: it isn't.

Weather has little relation to unimproved land value, which is created by the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. You might notice the absence from that list of anything the landowner provides.

Provided by the community.

Excellent schools are not provided intentionally?? Good roads, water and sewer infrastructure, police and fire protection, etc. are not provided intentionally by the community at taxpayers' expense? Give your head a shake.

That appears to be a statement that you do not understand how economics works, and don't want to. But I do. I have read literally millions of words on the subject, and millions more specifically on the economics of taxation. You have not.

And where it doesn't, everyone in the community is forced to shovel money into private landowners' pockets in return for nothing. That is kinda the point.

 

No, I already explained why that is false. There is nothing remotely fair about taxing sales or consumption. As the ultimate purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption, taxing consumption is anti-economic nonsense.

I just proved to you that it is easily used by the rich to not pay taxes: they can just do their consuming in countries that don't tax consumption. Ordinary citizens don't have that option.

No, it divides the burden between consumers and producers according to the relevant elasticities of supply and demand. A broad-based sales tax such as the "Fair"tax divides the burden roughly equally between producers and consumers.

No, there is nothing fair about it. Why should producers and consumers be forced to subsidize landowners? What on earth is fair about that?

No, taxpayers are involuntary purchasers of government, which benefits the privileged, especially landowners. Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading.

That is exactly what location subsidy repayment (LSR) does: each location holder pays the community the free market value of what he has chosen to take from the community.

Please explain how that is not fair.

Thought not.

 

I believe posters that actually study taxes will find several things are true.
This is not a new idea.
You presently pay sales taxes and the USA has not collapsed.
Some states tax food. Idaho does but offers a $120 rebate that I do not ask for.

How much do you love your own accountant? Check his bill. That bill is forced by you paying income taxes, not sales taxes.
Sure sales taxes has opponents.
Do you ever catch them asking Government to end all sales taxes? If so, where?
Study the total advantages of the Sales Tax. Big Government lovers hate them for the Feds, love them for states.
Do you want funding for the poor? It is provided to them using the FAIR TAX.
Democrats are against this idea because they want the Feds to consume your income.

 

You can ALWAYS find one guy who disagrees with the entire world of science.

Surely that must be some sort of rule, or something.

 

Right. And one of them is that sales taxes are unfair and economically harmful.

Likewise income tax. But they are both unfair and economically harmful.

I don't have or need an accountant. Sales taxes are simple, true. Income tax has to be complicated to make it tolerable.

Yes, and they are called "the intelligent, informed and honest."

Yes, right here and right now.

I have. It has only three advantages: simplicity; ease of collection; and shifting of some of the burden onto foreign countries that sell us consumer goods.

I hate them anywhere.

I want justice.

Charity is not a substitute for justice.

I'm not a Democrat, and as I have already informed you twice now, I oppose income tax.

 

I smell desperation. It's going to get worse, much worse, before this is over.

 

To all posters intending to control climate.... GOOD LUCK

 

That one scientist IS one scientist. Recognizing the truth is fully rational.

The demonstration of irrationality is ignoring the entire world of climate related sciences in favor of one scientists who you think confirms your own opinion.

This is a common direction by Hayes. He'll cite some unpublished, unreviewed paper of one scientist and then claim that the entire world of the climate related sciences is not just wrong, but corrupt.

I don't answer that stuff in much detail anymore, as it is a common pattern.

 

Every one scientist on any side of any scientific controversy is one scientist. Duh. So your statement is mere propaganda. As usual.

Recognizing the truth is fully rational.

No, the demonstration of irrationality is persistently making that false claim knowing it remains false. The "CO2 controls climate" hypothesis is not supported by "the entire world" of climate related sciences; and it is disputed by a large number of scientists, not just one.

No, almost every article Jack posts has links to peer-reviewed research that supports the posted article.

Talk about common patterns...

 

No, that is just plain wrong. Scientists throughout the world are agreeing on significant aspects of climatology.

You can not discard that on the basis that one scientist thinks they are ALL wrong, not just on some conclusions, but on pretty much EVERY fundamental.

lol!

 

There are many like him. Here are a few of his frequent collaborators.

Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing
Svensmark, H., Svensmark, J., Enghoff, M. B. & Shaviv, N. J., 2021, (Accepted/In press) In: Scientific Reports.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

 

It is correct.

Of course. But "CO2 controls global temperature" is not one of them.

Ridiculous strawman.

Again, that is an absurd and disingenuous strawman. "CO2 controls global temperature" is in no sense a fundamental of climatology. It is a highly tenuous inference based on falsified data, absurd assumptions, and post hoc fallacies.

 

"CO2 controls global temperature" is a STUPID claim made by deniers who suggest that is what climate scientists are saying.

Got that?

The fact of the matter is that is not what climate scientists are saying.

Here's and idea: How about learning the difference between CRAP pitched by deniers and the findings of the entire world of scientists who study fields that are important in climatology???

Maybe then you won't fall for the nonsense you spam.

 

Do YOU know what the AGW conjecture consist of?

 

No, it's the actual claim being made by people who claim to be climate scientists, and that you think are climate scientists, but are actually just anti-fossil-fuel hysteria-mongers.

Got that?

Right, because anti-fossil-fuel hysteria-mongers are not climate scientists.

Here's an idea: How about learning the difference between CRAP pitched by deniers and the findings of the entire world of scientists who study fields that are important in climatology???

Maybe then you won't fall for the nonsense you spam.

 

No, NOBODY in climate science is claiming "control". That is a denier term. Deniers use that term as a strawman, since they can't really deal with the world of scientists working in climate related fields.

I constantly watch NASA, NOAA, IPCC and other sources on the subject of climate science.

I make every effort not to project personal opinion. It's not personal opinion that the use by deniers of "control" terminology is a stupid strawman.

 

Second time, you going to duck it again?

Do YOU know what the AGW hypothesis IS?

 

Yes.

 

Right. It's anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers, not climate scientists.

Bull$#!+. It is the gravamen of the AGW hypothesis.

It's not a strawman. The claim that more than half the increase in temperature since the LIA is due to CO2 is a claim that CO2 controls global temperature.

 

No, that is NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and every other body of significant climate related science throughout the entire world.

These scientists from the entire world are not having some sort of anti-fossil-fuel brain fart. They are actually studying climate related sciences and having their results reviewed and published.

I agree that the press isn't great at projecting an accurate rendition of what science finds - on this or other topics. Having the press miss is not unusual.

If you think there is some sort of control over what almost every scientist is finding, then you need to give evidence of a conspiracy that enormous and that perfect.

CO2 having more influence than other factors does NOT indicate "control".

There is NO evidence that Earth's temperature can be set by adjusting CO2. It just means that right now, CO2 is having more influence than other factors.

Also, it is one of the few factors humans can affect, so it is significant in that respect, too.

 

The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one, and NASA and NOAA are, on matters of climate, thoroughly in thrall to AGW nonscience peddled by the likes of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. It is simply not the case that "every other body of significant climate related science throughout the entire world" is on board with anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

Most of them are doing what they think will be good for their careers. Right now, that means genuflecting to anti-CO2 hysteria.

By other people genuflecting to anti-CO2 hysteria because they think it will be good for their careers.

Not what they are finding. What they are publishing.

I've already stated that there is no need for it to be enormous or perfect. A handful of people in the right places is quite sufficient to put a thumb on the scale.

Yes, of course it does.

I agree. Tell that to the anti-CO2 hysteria-mongers.

That is a conjecture based on falsified data, absurd assumptions, cherry picking, and post hoc fallacies.

We can affect CO2, at great cost. CO2 just can't significantly affect climate, a fact you will continue to see proved by actual physical events. How will you apologize when thousands are freezing to death because of your nonscience?

 

No your recent replies to bringiton indicate you don't know what it is, which is why I asked you the question.

The lack of knowledge of the AGW hypothesis is visible in your replies such as this one:

Your ignorance of the AGW hypothesis in some details is embarrassing.