Global Warming Gas Tax? WTF!
 

I am for fighting global warming, but this looks more like a scam to me!:disgust


http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/s...nup=1&mbid=yhp

Should Drivers Pay for Global Warming?
By Marty Jerome April 02, 2008 | 11:32:58 AMCategories: Emissions, Policy
Nothing riles Southern Californians like a new tax on their God-given right to drive. Yet motorists in Los Angeles County might be paying an extra 9 cents per gallon at the gas pump -- or an additional $90 on their vehicle registration fees. The purpose? It would help fight global warming.

Voters will decide whether to approve a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee" under a proposed law being debated by the state legislature. It has already been endorsed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The money would be used to fund public transportation and other projects that ease traffic congestion at a time when the state budget is strapped and money from Washington has all but dried up. Critics are hopping mad. They say that it exploits public sympathy for global warming in order to fund projects that are already sucking down taxpayers' dollars.

Who gets tapped? Read after the jump.

Supporters point out that many ambitious public transportation projects, including the Subway to the Sea, the Wilshire bus-only lane and the extension of the Gold Line subway aren't fully funded -- and risk being sidelined.

The tax would pull in an estimated $400 million a year, which makes it a model that other cash-strapped states will no doubt find enticing. California voters will have to decide whether or not it's fair.

Sources: Los Angeles Times, LAist. Read More

No thanks. :)

planet X is supposed to cause the warming

Nooooooooooooo.

Maybe people will slowly open their eyes to the whole fucking scam soon. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Instead of that, they should push an extra tax for the clods in the SUVs and other vehicles that are <20mpg.

"cash-strapped states will no doubt find enticing"

read between the lines

It amuses me that California now generally fucks itself first, before it does it to the rest of the country.

oh my f'in god..

This is so about that 400m a year and nothing about the fact that global warming is man made bullshit to feed the morons of the world.

Everyone wants to have their pie and eat it too.

I'll give you that there are people whose aim is to benefit financially from the "fad" aspect of global warming.

But that doesn't negate the science. Global Warming, in the best estimates of our global scientific community, is most certainly a reality. It's important that bit doesn't get lost in exposing possible profiteers.

You and DaddyHB should hang out. You seem equally delusional on this particular issue. :thumbsup:2 cents:

The next step is big cities charging $20 to $50 as tolls into the cities on top of the regular tolls. Just you wait an see :thumbsup

Wonderful! Let's triple the price of gas. Seriously!

Three or four years ago in Phoenix some pipeline broke and Phoenix went without gas for like three weeks. It was wonderful! I noticed the gas stations putting out signs saying "no gas" so I went in, asked some questions - and quickly decided to fill up all of my cars and some extra cans with gas. It was fucking great - no cars on the roads or freeways!

We should triple the cost of gas so that the roads empty out!

I'm actually in favor of such tax.

:2 cents:

It's already up to $8 to get into manhattan. :2 cents:x400

Global warming produced by humans is not real at any level. That is what these people are trying to make money off of. It's a tax on the people for the natural cycles of earth.

They should have raised taxes for the global freezing too after all science is NEVER wrong.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

cue this guy....

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9...raymondgm5.jpg

http://www.socialist.net/global-warm...ding-fraud.htm

vote for me

Man made global warming is a myth. Cooling and warming is part of a natural earth cycle.
Someone at the top is making a lot of money on this scheme.

I don't feel you're qualified to make that kind of assessment.

We're in a state of warming. Man-made compounds have permeated our atmosphere and environment to the point that they're finding levels of toxicity in the livers of polar bears - the carnivores arguably most distant to human settlements on the planet - to the extent that they negatively affect the bears' ability to reproduce.

Meanwhile, data gathered from other models in our solar system (i.e. Venus - where lead melts on the surface partially due to ambient atmospheric heat), strongly suggest that large amounts of atmospheric CO2 gas result in the trapping of heat energy within the confines of a planetary atmosphere (i.e. "the greenhouse affect")

The human population releases countless metric tons of CO2 gas into the Earth's atmosphere every year.

Those are facts. Make of them what you will.


Let us not forget that the most successful snake oil salesmen sold snake oil as a remedy for problems that people actually had. Just because the offered cures might smell a little bit fishy doesn't mean there isn't an actual problem.

Maybe we're causing it... maybe we aren't... but, imho... with 99&#37;+ of the peer-reviewed scientific community offering that it's at least feasible that we're partially responsible for the accelerated climate change on this planet, I think that you might be a little off (not to mention, perhaps a bit full of yourself) in offering that "Global warming produced by humans is not real at any level."

I see that happening in cali A LOT quicker than happening in NY

It's not a bad thing.. In 30 years we'll look back in amazement and wonder how we used to burn oil just to move a 20mpg suv around instead of making medicines and whatnot with it.

Good point. This global warming hysteria is just another excuse to expand the size of government, add more layers of bureaucracy and, of course, increase taxes. Bureaucrats love regulations and taxes and "Global Warming" gives them an excuse for lots of both.

Blah blah blah... Tweny years ago it was getting too cold..... I don't belive any of it.

Fucking politicians. Instead of making tougher regulations to bring down pollutants what do they do invent a new tax.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that none of you have PhDs in any field related to climate science. Am I right?

If I am indeed right, it would appear that all of you are commenting on a field which you know relatively little about, and are arriving at a different conclusion than the bulk of the scientists actually working in this particular field.

That, to me, is bizarre.

Compare it with a group of medical doctors disagreeing with the majority of a group of programmers on the value of IPv6 as a successor to IPv4.

Compare it with a group of programmers disagreeing with the majority of a group of medical doctors on the correct method of catheterisation.

Hell, compare it with a group of environmental scientists deciding that the future of adult lies in TGP2.

Now, what I'm curious about is why you people take the word of a minority of scientists whose theories you don't fully understand over that of a majority of scientists whose theories you don't fully understand.

Don't spout about being qualified or not, when you yourself post nothing to prove your opposition of the argument.

And Minority? I think you may want to stop listing to Gore and group.

That was actually a theory around 35 years ago that, unlike "global warming" never received much popular backing among scientists.

Here's something I wrote on that exact point a few weeks ago when someone directed me to an article regarding "The Next Ice Age" in Time Magazine:

"I've read the article you listed, and a bit more on the subject over the last hour, and it appears that the idea arose from a greater understanding of global climate systems in the 70's paired with a decrease in temperature from the 40's to 70's. It was a new science working with recent data. The idea of "global cooling" was hyped by the media though it never gained any real scientific support. In example, to quote Dr. B.J. Mason of the Royal Meteorological Society as written in the QJRMS, 1976, p 473 (Symons Memorial Lecture):

And it's been later noted by a myriad of scientists - armed with that greater understanding of global climate systems and a lot more data - that we're most certainly in a stage of warming. The idea also seems to get hyped by the media - but the difference is that this time, unlike with "global cooling," the general concept has wide scientific support."


:2 cents:

Why not? What I'm seeing here is a rather large group of people, unburdened by expertise on the matter in any way, shape or form, discount the work of thousands of scientists based on what appears to be nothing more than a dislike for the conclusions.

That, to me, seems utterly ridiculous.

Yes, a minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

And since you'll undoubtedly start googling for evidence to the contrary:

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less...rticle8641.htm - meant to disagree with the pdf I linked, but it still has 45% endorsing the idea of human influence on global warming, 48% neutral, and only 6% actually rejecting it.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Bray.htm - this is actually a site that is strongly sceptic towards the idea of global warming (as well as towards the idea of secondhand smoke being harmful - which should make their leanings quite clear), but yet, even in the study quoted here, 55.8% of scientists endorse the idea of human influence on global warming, and only 29% reject it, with the rest being neutral towards it.

No matter how you look at it, those rejecting the idea of human influence on global warming are a minority within the scientific community.

Again... I doubt anyone with sense would say that there aren't opportunists in just about every facet of life.

But on both sides of the fence, I think it's the people that don't understand the matter that are most politicizing it.

I've asked this before, I'll ask it again: If you're able, please provide peer-reviewed sources that assert that global warming is a myth... because there's literally shelves and shelves of peer-reviewed articles and other scientific publications that assert it's a reality.

In the meantime, I'll just copy/paste myself from last week, since no one seems to be addressing that point... and, frankly, I tire of typing out a fresh post on the subject every time someone decides to ignore all the old discussions, and start up again.

----
originally posted: 03-26-2008, 11:05 AM


I guess I was incorrect in saying I'm not an alarmist... because, in a sense I am... it bothers me, to a significant degree, that people seem to disregard peer-reviewed articles on scientific matters over that of what a blogger or start-up program or even single scientist (often sponsored by big oil) might have to say on the matter... and, being a scientifically-minded individual interested in the acquisition of knowledge, I feel it's my duty to sound the alarm when I witness what I consider the dispersal of blatant misinformation, contrary to what science is really telling us.

Though I've been keeping an eye on the science of global climate change for well over 20 years now (the subject first struck my interest as a kid in Jr. High), I've recently done some extensive old-school fact-digging on the subject: I went to the Los Angeles Central Public Library to perform research on an scientific research paper I was writing in relation to the status quo of the Polar Bear a few years ago (before Mr. Gore's movie), and the amount of data that's there - in their science department - on the subject of global climate change, collected over the last few decades, fills up shelves upon shelves upon shelves. I also skimmed over countless periodicals: papers and articles published in peer-reviewed journals - many of which touched on or dwelt on the idea that the climate is currently in a state of change and, overall, is engaged in a warming trend. All in all, I must have spent some 120 hours in hard research.

In all that time, honestly, I can't recall a single paper or shred of peer-reviewed information that said the Earth was not warming, or what mankind is doing is having no affect on the state of his environment. However, as I said, there was plenty of information saying things are getting warmer, and even more saying that man is affecting his environment _at least_ to peril of other species.

One downfall of the internet, I think, is it spreads disinformation just as quickly as it can spread any other type of information. Much as I intend to go over those articles you linked, I'd encourage you to find peer-reviewed sources that back up the assertion that the climate is not in a state of significant warming...

or simply go to a central library and check the experience out for yourself.

I don't have time to pull stuff up, cooking fish :)

For every document or scientist that says "HUMAN" global warming is real, you have an equal and even greater amount that have started to prove that "humans" are not causing global warming.

I'm talking about Humans, I know earth is warming up in it's natural cycle.

However the articles Libertine posted do prove what I said, he should try reading it..

"Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90&#37; likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself."

God damn fucking politicians.

like all other things gubment this is bullshit!!!

:eek7

They do not prove what you said at all. The two studies I mentioned both indicate that a MINORITY of scientists reject the idea of human influence on global warming.

Now, note that neither of these studies passed peer review, both were done by medical researchers rather than people working in a relevant field, and both are commonly perceived to have huge holes (just google it yourself).

Yet these are some of the studies most commonly quoted by those trying to detract from the idea of a scientific consensus on the matter - and still they disagree with you!

Basically, if even these studies disagree with your idea that the scientists rejecting the idea of human influence on global warming are not a minority, you can safely assume that you are completely and utterly mistaken.

Hey guess what? Your experts were wrong before
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

I do not know why you quoted me I am only quoting your so called experts. It is bizarre to me that anyone would blindly follow anything, religion or science because todays "experts" claim they know everything. And when global warming fails these so called experts say that regular weather is proof of global warming. Sorry I think the verdict is still out. If you base your sound science on assumptions that their foundations are correct there is a lot of room for error.

To me make gas 7 bucks a gallon it will get us off the oil nipple finally.

Nothing can stop anyone else from instituting their God given ride to charge more for their products based on supply and demand. Or charge you higher fees because that too is their God given right.

Here's a radical idea why don't we all use one gallon of fuel less per week. Walk to the shops or restaurant, share a ride to work, ride a bike or use a scooter. This would not cost us a single cent more in fact we could save a few dollars a week and the side effect is some of the fat fucks in this country could actually lose a few pounds and become more health ( more savings on outrageous medical bills ) . Hows that for a radical theory ? :2 cents::thumbsup

Libertine, these so called scientists you are talking about, well they really didn't write that shit or publish it. Actually, most of what they say is taken out of context and is old.

You can have your opinion, but the facts have already started to come out that Humans aren't doing shit to this planet, rather she is doing shit to us.

Are you one of those guys that thinks humans can blow earth up too?

D already addressed the point you're trying to make by linking to that article. Scroll up a bit.

As for "blindly" following science... I am sitting behind a computer right now. Without science, that computer would have been impossible to make. That, to me, is a good reason to at least take science seriously. Add to that the very nature of the scientific process, where there is a large incentive for scientists to disprove both new and commonly held theories, and it should be clear that science can't simply be disregarded as "just another set of views".

Today's experts don't claim to know everything, and often, they are wrong. Nonetheless, they tend to be wrong a lot less often than people who haven't studied the subject matter as extensively as they have.

Were I a climatologist, perhaps I would have good reason to disagree with them. However, not being a climatologist, the only sensible thing to do for me is to accept the fact that a majority of climatologists endorse the idea of human influence on climate change. They might still be wrong, but they are rather less likely than me to be wrong.

Also, religion is a different matter entirely. Unlike science, it actually IS based on blind faith, and has failed to produce any of the technological thingies that science has brought us.

Here are a few so called scientists. Why don't you send them an email, let them know they aren't actually researching, writing or publishing. I'm sure they'll be thoroughly shocked when they find out what they have actually been doing these past few years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...tributor-bios/

It's a shame that these facts are consistently choosing to come out in other places than peer-reviewed scientific journals.

What about the global warming on mars? Hmmm....
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._011206-1.html

Maybe you should quit telling them to speak on subjects that don't effect the grants they get. You might actually get a fact then. If you want to buy into the hype from a bunch of ass hats that of course depend on saying global warming is real, then please do so.

Let me give you a quick run down of truth, that can be researched and proven, and has been.

We have been warming up for a really long time, and in the last hundred years before fossil fuels, it really started to increase. We still aren't as warm as we were before the little ice age, I guess global warming got us back then too? Anyway....

Again, before fossil fuels, all ice on this planet started to melt on it's own, as the entire planet got warmer on it's own.

This has a MAJOR effect on the warming cycle of the earth. As ice melts, the oceans absorb the suns heat, this of course creates more melting. This reduction in ice, also creations less reflection of the sun rays, which creates more warming.

When the ocean waters start to warm, the ice in the hell depths of the ocean starts to melt and give out too. This releases methane gas and lots of other nasty things straight into the atmosphere. Millions of times greater than humans ever could.

Global warming is a earth, sun, solar system thing... Way the hell past human control.

I'm done, You can take what I said and do your own research and find out real facts or listen to monkeys that will prove anything to be fact if the paycheck is coming in.

See... the thing is... I have done real research on matters that centered around this topic - as pointed out earlier in this very thread.

Real... academic... research.

At least 120 hours worth... which is just short of the research assistant requirement of most university graduate programs... in the stacks of the Los Angeles Central Library's Science department - with a couple shorter stints at the Library at UCLA.

And, in all that time - I didn't find this proof you're talking about... not one shred. In fact, many of the things I read suggested that man does, indeed, affect his own environment on a global scale... and often to the detriment of other species.

Drop me some peer-reviewed sources that say affecting global temperature (or, even any global system) is beyond our control, and I'd be happy to read them over... as that would interest me very much.

Until then, though - I'm of the mind that you're the one that's "buying into the hype" and needs to "do your own research," man.

All that said, though... and back on subject...

Again... I don't support the tax.

Assuming we are part of the problem, it's not the answer to the problem, imho... and instead of solving for it will mostly cause greater polarization on the matter, I think.

This thread's an example of that.

I'm in favor of such a tax.
you don't like it ? switch to a car that does not fuck up the planet

D, I have to say.. If you have really done 120 hours of research on this and haven't read everything the other side is saying, then you failed class :)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-gef071906.php

University of California - Santa Barbara
"Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes"

"Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide"

More: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829090326.htm

About the ice caps reflecting heat, along with clouds, ect..
http://www.sciencepoles.org/index.ph...&uid=625&lg=en