SteeleRedux

you are misinformed about climate change.

The scientific method demands that we declare the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming a failed hypothesis due to its long history of failed predictions. In other words, the continued belief in catastrophic man-made global warming is anti-science because it has ignored a basic requirement of the scientific method.

You could start to inform yourself by reading the article, ‘Science Theory Unbound by Test – The Story of the Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis’ https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2021/02/science-theory-unbound-by-test-story-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AnObjectivistIndividualist+%28An+Objectivist+Individualist%29

I haven’t scarpered anywhere idiot.

I stand by my original post.

Galen

This is pure virtue signalling by the EU. By WHO rules any attempt to erect protectionist tariffs (which these are) will invite immediate retaliatory tariffs.

To put tariffs on Aus who imports nearly 3x as much from the EU as it exports to the EU would an act of economic self-harm.

Galen,
Why do you stand by your mistakes instead of standing corrected?

__________________________________________________________________________

Raycom,
You are misinformed not only about climate change, but also about the scientific method.

Firstly, the statistics alone give only an indication, not an explanation, of what's going on. Science tries to find an explanation as to why the statistics are as they are.

Secondly, there's no separate "hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming". It's all part of the theory of climate. We know how the greenhouse effect works, and we know that altering the composition of the planet's atmosphere affects it. We know that human activity has resulted in a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And we have ample evidence the planet is warming. We also know that there are potential positive feedback mechanisms which, if triggered, could warm the planet a lot more.

By focussing only on the catastrophic predictions, you're cherry picking. That's an unscientific approach.

But worse than that, you're misrepresenting many of what you regard as "failed predictions". Many were conditional on inaction, yet the world, and particularly Europe, has made huge efforts to reduce its CO2 emissions. And most were on such long timescales that it's far too early to declare them wrong yet.

There are of course some genuine incorrect predictions, but they don't invalidate the correct ones. And they certainly don't invalidate our understanding of the physics, though they may help improve it. Scientists learn from their mistakes as well as from what they get right.

___________________________________________________________________________\

Shadow,
Whether applying a carbon tax on imports counts as a tariff is unclear, but we shouldn't punish them for trying.

Aidan,

Seriously, there is absolutely no doubt that it is a tariff:

"a tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports."

And under WHO regulations any tariff can be reciprocated by the country on which it is placed.

And a tariff placed on imports from Aus is a punishment and a reciprocal punishment is called for unjust tariffs.

Dear Galen,

Tut tut my dear fellow, defending a baseless fabrication can obviously be taxing for you. Please don't over do it, I need you around for giggles.

Dear Raycom,

Hansen's predictions have nailed it. We have employed measures to decrease carbon output thus making his Scenario B predictions the most relevant. It turns out the current trends are in lockstep with it.

http://youtu.be/UVz67cwmxTM

Your linked site is terrible. Not only is it terribly designed may of the statements made are simply not true or are complete distortions. Is there a couple of statements from it that you are prepared to hang your hat on?

Shadowminister,

Are Australia's emission standards on imported motor vehicles a tariff or not?