Lowest ice cover ever at both poles[W:284]

[Lord of Planar]

You lefties sure like your taxes. You want to tax the very air we breath.

CO2 is not a pollutant and should not be taxed.

I would be for a specific property tax however.

Property tax could be based on a sliding scale. A multiplier for example. Starting at 50% of the property for example.

Any property that has 50% of more of it as viable growing soil with vegetation and gets taxed as normal Then another value to be later determined, that is multiplied by the percentage of development on the land.

Call it a loss of flora tax.

The people causing these changes in nature are the ones who should pay.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Keep in mind, that CO2 is only known to warm the atmosphere slightly, and all we see are positive affects that we know are from CO2. The alarmism is speculation, and SWAG.

We know the health effects of ozone, where there are no traces of problems with elevated CO2.

Way not tax what we know, instead of the carbon tax.

 

[Media_Truth]

And what do I keep saying about aerosols?

Did you know that "fine particles" are "aerosols?"

Ozone is another matter yet, and has a natural cycle which we do influence.

I agree with the fine particulates. Ozone? Maybe. As a powerful oxidizer, it probably does have a dramatic effect at very small qualities. I have never read enough about it to consider myself qualified on the issue. However, like most things the AGW alarmist crowd brings up, ozone is produced in nature too. Separating the natural from human ozone levels are much easier to determining than temperature though, or even how much CO2 and CH4 is natural. Ozone does have a larger concentration in urban areas, like the loss of evapotranspiration. If fact the cause is the same root problem. Loss of natural vegetation. If you want to make ozone standards tighter, you are going to have to increase city green spaces. We are likely responsible for all of that, but not 50 miles or more outside of built up areas. I would be all for that over time, but a very long time as buildings come down, or if an interested green foundation wishes to buy a city block and make it a park. We spend too much in tax dollars already to return prime real estate to nature, with subsidies.

Now tell me.

Do you get paid by the number of posts? You sure are bombarding this thread. Ozone is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOx and VOC. Eliminate the source. Eliminate the ozone. No subsidies required to tear down buildings and build parks. No taxes on air.

But perhaps we can avoid the taxes necessary for a $6 Trillion dollar Iraqi Oil War. You Righties sure like your taxpayer-funded wars.

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you get paid by the number of posts? You sure are bombarding this thread. Ozone is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOx and VOC. Eliminate the source. Eliminate the ozone. No subsidies required to tear down buildings and build parks. No taxes on air.

But perhaps we can avoid the taxes necessary for a $6 Trillion dollar Iraqi Oil War. You Righties sure like your taxpayer-funded wars.

And you like falsehoods. The war was not about oil, and did not cost anywhere near $6 trillion.

 

[Media_Truth]

And you like falsehoods. The war was not about oil, and did not cost anywhere near $6 trillion.

You need drop the naivety, and read up, about Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) in Iraq. While you're at it, read about Cheney, Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld; and their organization called Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

Because the US is running a deficit, this war was financed with loans. Factoring in the debt interest, the cost of the Iraqi War was over $6 Trillion (and still climbing).

 

[Jack Hays]

You need drop the naivety, and read up, about Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) in Iraq. While you're at it, read about Cheney, Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld; and their organization called Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

Because the US is running a deficit, this war was financed with loans. Factoring in the debt interest, the cost of the Iraqi War was over $6 Trillion (and still climbing).

The US never took a drop of Iraqi oil. All US wars were financed by debt -- every one. And the cost was not even half your $6T.

 

[Media_Truth]

The US never took a drop of Iraqi oil. All US wars were financed by debt -- every one. And the cost was not even half your $6T.

Again, no backup whatsoever. But I have some.

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

 

[Threegoofs]

Again, no backup whatsoever. But I have some.

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

As usual, I’m sure he read something different on a discredited wingnut blog, which he will post next.

 

[Jack Hays]

Again, no backup whatsoever. But I have some.

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

Thank you for conceding ($1.7T) and making my point ("could grow"). Now stop peddling nonsense.

Less than $5T for all wars and operations since 2001.

[h=3]US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting[/h]watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/.../Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINA...

US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting. Summary of Costs of the USWars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and.

 

[Jack Hays]

As usual, I’m sure he read something different on a discredited wingnut blog, which he will post next.

The link he cited to try to make his point is the one I was going to cite to refute him. This was too easy.

Cost for all wars and operations since 2001:

[h=3]US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting[/h]watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/.../Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINA...

US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting. Summary of Costs of the USWars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and.

 

[Threegoofs]

The link he cited to try to make his point is the one I was going to cite to refute him. This was too easy.

Cost for all wars and operations since 2001:

[h=3]US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting[/h]watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/.../Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINA...

US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting. Summary of Costs of the USWars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and.

404 error.

But it sounds like your defense is that it wasn't 7 trillion, it was only 5 trillion.

Hilarious.

I'll also note that the page you sent us to has this list:

_---------------------------
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN COUNTED

We did not assess all the effects of these wars.

We did not include in our budget tallies:

Some expenses related to veterans, including, for example, total benefits to veterans from state and local governments;

State and municipal homeland security costs;

Costs of the wars to allies of the United States, including costs to the governments and economies of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and

Budgetary and economic effects of the wars on the regional neighbors of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, including costs of caring for war refugees, for example.

We did not systematically estimate the:

Effects on natural disaster preparedness of having US National Guard troops and equipment abroad;

Number of contractors employed by US allies who were killed or wounded;

Number of opposition forces killed; and

Resources devoted by the United Nations system, non-governmental organizations, and other nations to ameliorate war related suffering in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

(Page updated as of January 2015)

 

[Jack Hays]

404 error.

But it sounds like your defense is that it wasn't 7 trillion, it was only 5 trillion.

Hilarious.

Iraq war $1.7T per the link helpfully posted by M-T. Saved me the trouble. $4.79T is for all wars and operations since 2001, not just Iraq. Read first. Then post.

And the link works just fine.

 

[Threegoofs]

Iraq war $1.7T per the link helpfully posted by M-T. Saved me the trouble. $4.79T is for all wars and operations since 2001, not just Iraq. Read first. Then post.

And the link works just fine.

The link doesn't work.

But I did find this gem on that site... which looks like it supports the $7 trillion figure, estimating it to be approaching 8 trillion!

Again, this is FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE.

But you'll black knight it into oblivion anyway.

 

[Jack Hays]

The link doesn't work.

But I did find this gem on that site... which looks like it supports the $7 trillion figure, estimating it to be approaching 8 trillion!

Again, this is FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE.

But you'll black knight it into oblivion anyway.

Again, you're not reading. Our discussion was about the cost of Iraq. This table is the cost of "Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and Homeland Security."

The link works for me. Must be operator error on your part.

 

[Jack Hays]

I suggest a new thread in a more appropriate subforum if you want to continue with Iraq cost.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you get paid by the number of posts? You sure are bombarding this thread. Ozone is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOx and VOC. Eliminate the source. Eliminate the ozone. No subsidies required to tear down buildings and build parks. No taxes on air.

But perhaps we can avoid the taxes necessary for a $6 Trillion dollar Iraqi Oil War. You Righties sure like your taxpayer-funded wars.

Ozone is present in nature, without any industrialization. Plant life helps remove it, and many produce VOCs. Replace the plant life with asphalt, concrete, and building, and you have less removal of it.

Modern cars non't produce VOC's, unless the catalytic converter is malfunctioning. Most sources have already been "contained" or highly mitigated from the past. Not much more we can do without getting rid of diesel engines.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You need drop the naivety, and read up, about Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) in Iraq. While you're at it, read about Cheney, Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld; and their organization called Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

Because the US is running a deficit, this war was financed with loans. Factoring in the debt interest, the cost of the Iraqi War was over $6 Trillion (and still climbing).

You should do some reading from an unbiased author:

https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Our-Time-Terrorism/dp/145558567X

 

[Jack Hays]

Whatever is happening to ice cover at the poles, it's apparently not causing the sea level to rise.

Sea level
[h=1]Inconvenient: NASA shows global sea level…pausing, instead of rising[/h]This is interesting. It appears that a “pause” has developed in global sea levels. For two years, since July 2015, there has been no sustained increase in global sea level, in fact, it appears to have actually fallen a bit. This graph, provided by NASA’s Global Climate Change website, tells the story: A zoom of…

 

[Jack Hays]

Antarctic / Humor
[h=1]Penguins devastated by “unseasonably extensive amounts of sea ice.”[/h]Guest “drive by” by David Middleton Alternate Title: “Tarantino does ‘Happy Feet’” Is Antarctica gaining ice? 01:47 (CNN) A penguin colony in Antarctica has suffered a massive breeding failure, with only two chicks surviving the disaster. Terre Adélie (Adélie Land) is home to more than 18,000 pairs of Adélie penguins, but this year almost all the…

 

[Media_Truth]

Ozone is present in nature, without any industrialization. Plant life helps remove it, and many produce VOCs. Replace the plant life with asphalt, concrete, and building, and you have less removal of it.

Modern cars non't produce VOC's, unless the catalytic converter is malfunctioning. Most sources have already been "contained" or highly mitigated from the past. Not much more we can do without getting rid of diesel engines.

Catalytic convertors aren't functional until the temperature gets high enough. So none function at startup of an engine, and for the first mile or two. And that doesn't even address other producers of VOC's - paints, varnishes, coal burning (same issue with catalytic convertor), etc.

 

[Media_Truth]

Whatever is happening to ice cover at the poles, it's apparently not causing the sea level to rise.

Sea level
[h=1]Inconvenient: NASA shows global sea level…pausing, instead of rising[/h]This is interesting. It appears that a “pause” has developed in global sea levels. For two years, since July 2015, there has been no sustained increase in global sea level, in fact, it appears to have actually fallen a bit. This graph, provided by NASA’s Global Climate Change website, tells the story: A zoom of…

/More misinformation and lies from the High Schooler, Watts, who doesn't know diddly. Here's a recent article from NASA (4/2017).

As part of a study of how polar ice has changed over the past nine years, NASA’s Operation IceBridge is flying a set of eight-hour research flights over ice sheets and the Arctic Ocean aboard a retrofitted 1966 Lockheed P-3 aircraft.
....
Under natural conditions, some glaciers melt and retreat while others grow and advance. Measurements from Earth’s 5,200 glaciers show warming temperatures have increased the number of melting glaciers and the speed of glacial retreat, according to the study.

Arctic ice: Photos from NASA flights that found big changes

 

[Jack Hays]

/More misinformation and lies from the High Schooler, Watts, who doesn't know diddly. Here's a recent article from NASA (4/2017).

As part of a study of how polar ice has changed over the past nine years, NASA’s Operation IceBridge is flying a set of eight-hour research flights over ice sheets and the Arctic Ocean aboard a retrofitted 1966 Lockheed P-3 aircraft.
....
Under natural conditions, some glaciers melt and retreat while others grow and advance. Measurements from Earth’s 5,200 glaciers show warming temperatures have increased the number of melting glaciers and the speed of glacial retreat, according to the study.

Arctic ice: Photos from NASA flights that found big changes

The article was about sea level. Read first, then post.

 

[Buzz]

Whatever is happening to ice cover at the poles, it's apparently not causing the sea level to rise.

Sea level
[h=1]Inconvenient: NASA shows global sea level…pausing, instead of rising[/h]This is interesting. It appears that a “pause” has developed in global sea levels. For two years, since July 2015, there has been no sustained increase in global sea level, in fact, it appears to have actually fallen a bit. This graph, provided by NASA’s Global Climate Change website, tells the story: A zoom of…

No rise... for two years??

:lol:

Anthony must be getting really desperate for content if he is making a big deal of no rise for two years.

And only someone without any real understanding of the science would think that a two-year trend is significant.

 

[Jack Hays]

No rise... for two years??

:lol:

Anthony must be getting really desperate for content if he is making a big deal of no rise for two years.

And only someone without any real understanding of the science would think that a two-year trend is significant.

It is what it is: so far just a pause, as described. You're the only one using the word "trend." I'd say that's desperate.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Fast regrowth in Arctic sea-ice outpaces recent years[/h]Ron Clutz writes at Climate Change Dispatch: Arctic Sea Ice Surges Back During First Half of October Consider the refreezing during the first half of October through yesterday, adding an average of 96k km2 per day. On the left side, the Laptev Sea has filled in, and just below it, the East Siberian Sea is…
Continue reading →