Court Finds Conservative Newspaper Guilty for Spreading 'Climategate' Smears, Defaming Scientist

a reply to: Sunwolf

So there's a plot to forgo the already existing taxes on coal/oil and existing infrastructure and go against the politician's biggest money contributors in those same industries to impose lesser carbon taxes..er why?

Do you people think this stuff through or what?

originally posted by: Sunwolf
How about "Big carbon Taxes" that big enough for you?

And where do you think the money from "big carbon taxes" ends up? In Al Gore's bank account?

In British Columbia it goes straight back to the taxpayer:

The carbon tax is revenue neutral, meaning every dollar generated by the tax is returned to British Columbians through reductions in other taxes.

The Minister of Finance is required by law to annually prepare a three-year plan for recycling carbon tax revenues through tax reductions.

Source - British Columbia Ministry of Finance


The whole idea of a carbon tax is to just make using carbon-heavy resources less appealing, so you spend your money elsewhere - but that money is still all yours to spend however you want. If you use it on low carbon alternatives you actually come out ahead in the equation.

So where's the conspiracy?


The only people taking heavy losses in this system are the fossil fuel companies because they are the ones losing all the business. And these happen to be the same people arguing that climate change is a hoax and Al Gore just wants to tax the air you breathe.

...Meanwhile people are railing on Brian Williams...

Pot, meet kettle.

originally posted by: mc_squared
Yeah nowhere did I say the court case justifies the science. The science does a perfectly fine job of justifying the science.

What this court case does is justify all the lying media that have been trying to undermine and derail the science.

But just as I predicted in the OP - some people have this disinfo so deeply ingrained into their bloodstream there's just no going back to facts and truth.

Here's the thing about "science" (And for the record, I LOVE science, but I'm also a realist)

Science is merely a bunch of theories and hypothesis' waiting to be disproved by other scientists. It's happened throughout history, and will continue to happen. Facts can be made to support any theory. Anything we humans touch or create is fallible.

"Science" once told us that we could not survive in space, other scientists said no, and now we have a space program. They once said Mars had canals too.

Ever hear of the "Blank Slate Theory"? Scientists once believed that when we were born, we were an empty vessel and our experiences and knowledge we accumulate throughout life is all we have. We now know that we have genetic instincts, and inherited traits that help determine our personality.

You should also look up "Einstein's Universe" or "Static Universe"even he was wrong, and had to abandon a whole body of work.

How about the 1989 "Invention" of Cold Fusion? It was hailed as the next big thing, and was later revealed to be a farce.

My point is, don't hold too much faith in science, it's an ever changing field. And will continue to be so.

Do I believe in Climate Change? Yes, I absolutely do. I however believe we are wasting our time trying to fight it or reverse it.
It's cyclic, and is caused by the sun. We may aggravate it a bit, but the Earth has survived far worse than we humans.

Our time would be better spent realizing how stupid we were to build cities on the coasts of our continents, even though history is full of stories that the seas have been rising since the last Ice Age, and looking for ways to correct that mistake.

a reply to: poncho1982

I like this point of view, it is sensible and you maintain an open mind. Can the same be said for the average AGW fanatic? Clearly not.

For me, with most things, it is about doing everything possible to block and reverse every control over our lives which has been enshrined in legislation. I see this as another big attempt on our personal sovereignty.

For you anti-religious nuts, what is the difference between a religious patrician and a bureaucratic one?