GORE, Caught Lying really really badly... Desperately pathetic in fact. WAKE UP

[The Caped Cod]

People who insist on seeing Al Gore as being central to the case for climate change might as well be peering down a donkeys arsehole and arguing about where the teeth and tongue have gone.

Ever used David Icke or Alex Jones to attack someone else's arguement?

[Boggle]

Gore is irrelevant - and even had he made no money at all, he's a politician, which makes his motive suspect.

True...

You'd need to show that (a) there's no need for the taxes (which you seem to simply be assuming) and (b) that they affect small businesses more than large ones (which you're also assuming).

Actually, I'd think its people who want to impose taxes need to demonstrate, beyond reproach, the need for such taxes along with details of how they will be spent.
Not saying that there isn't a lot of correlation (or appears to be correlation) between CO2 and temperature, however I have yet to see damning evidence outlining causality.

or, if it comes to it, the fact that the smaller company appears to be able to thrive in a carbon-neutral way, whereas the large one does not, contrary to your assumption that emissions-reduction costs fall more heavily on small companies than large ones. In turn, that makes it obvious that we don't have to simply close our industries in order to reduce our emissions - well, not unless we're incredibly unimaginative.

Barring the companies who have are in the environmental sector, i have yet to see any evidence of this. Although so far it hasn't been a factor for smaller companies as this carbon tax thing hasn't really started yet... (Never heard of a small company having to buy or being able to sell surplus carbon tax credits).

Simply put, he higher your throughput, the more energy efficient the process becomes. The less energy per unit = less carbon cost per unit in manufacturing. Factor their own markup, transport costs and multiply it by whatever markup the retailer gets and even small amounts can become make or break issues. Also, big wind turbines are less cost prohibitive for bigger companies, which is just common sense.

[Gimpanzee]

Ever used David Icke or Alex Jones to attack someone else's arguement?

not that I can recall. I've no interest in them. On this issue, I've no interest in anything that anyone beyond the scientific community has to say, regardless what they say.

[The Caped Cod]

not that I can recall. I've no interest in them. On this issue, I've no interest in anything that anyone beyond the scientific community has to say, regardless what they say.

Kind of like only listening to Economists about the Economy, which sounds like a good idea but...

[myksav]

Fair enough but rowing back may be a more urgent requirement than you imagine!

Already too late. It makes a nice little game to see if I can guess which of 3 or 4 posters have put up the latest wild OP on climate change. So far, I've gotten a 90% accuracy on exactly which, 100% on that it would be one of the 3 or 4.

[Son_Of_The_Republic]

not that I can recall. I've no interest in them. On this issue, I've no interest in anything that anyone beyond the scientific community has to say, regardless what they say.

So you will be interested in this then:

COPENHAGEN, Dec. 8 /CNW Telbec/ - The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC - see Welcome to the International Climate Science Coalition Web Site) today released the names of over 140 leading climate experts from 17 countries who are asking the United Nations and other supporters of this month's Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming (AGW) and other changes in climate.


INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE SCIENCE COALITION | Causes of Climate Change not 'Settled': Scientists

[myksav]

By the way, why do so many of the anti-global warming people have such a fetish about Al Gore? What are his scientific qualifications in environmental science? zip, he's a politico.

A guess. People who vehemently oppose the idea of global warming as indicated via data rarely use science to disprove the position/theory so must use a singular person as a target. Because they cannot scientifically disprove the theory.

[ibis]

True...


Actually, I'd think its people who want to impose taxes need to demonstrate, beyond reproach, the need for such taxes along with details of how they will be spent.
Not saying that there isn't a lot of correlation (or appears to be correlation) between CO2 and temperature, however I have yet to see damning evidence outlining causality.

Here you go, then - Arrhenius 1896.

Barring the companies who have are in the environmental sector, i have yet to see any evidence of this. Although so far it hasn't been a factor for smaller companies as this carbon tax thing hasn't really started yet... (Never heard of a small company having to buy or being able to sell surplus carbon tax credits).

Here you go, then - Ecocem 2008.

Simply put, he higher your throughput, the more energy efficient the process becomes. The less energy per unit = less carbon cost per unit in manufacturing. Factor their own markup, transport costs and multiply it by whatever markup the retailer gets and even small amounts can become make or break issues. Also, big wind turbines are less cost prohibitive for bigger companies, which is just common sense.

Hm. First, energy isn't the only carbon cost, and second, the level of energy efficiency involved doesn't scale the same as other inputs. Larger companies can often afford to run less efficient plants.

[ibis]

Kind of like only listening to Economists about the Economy, which sounds like a good idea but...

...but economics isn't science.

[myksav]

Kind of like only listening to Economists about the Economy, which sounds like a good idea but...

Economics is more guesswork than science, events shift too quickly. Quite unlike climate study.