The Carbon Tax Scam

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “The Carbon Tax Scam

      • Classic misdirection, three times in the opening sentences he conflates smog and CO2 whilst showing billowing clouds of condensing water vapour.

        This is what we most often berate alarmist crusaders like the Guardian for.

  1. It has never been anything BUT a scam.

    I could parody George Harrison’s “Taxman” right here.
    They’ll tax your stove and tax your car
    They’ll tax you just for who you are
    They’ll tax you for the air you breathe
    And tax the downspouts on your eaves
    ‘Cause they’re the Taxmen – oh, yeah!

    Not my best effort but it’s early.

  2. Where can I get one of the drink box water bottle things? All of the drink boxes that I’ve seen use a plastic straw but maybe they make those straws out of renewable hemp fibers now or something.

    • He clearly made it up. Maybe he thought saying “I get one of the minions to bring me drinks so I never see the original container” was too much openness from True-Doh.

    • Dear Leader couldn’t even hit an utterly predictable softball. But rest assured, the only Canadians to see that video are the heretics who visit this site, and journalism students as they learn their highest calling is to fall on such grenades for DL.

  3. It’s more an Oxygen tax than a Carbon tax. They literally are taxing the air we breathe.

  4. Trudeau stumbled. Initially he was touting no straws and then stated they were drinking out of plastic bottles.
    Discovered his error and went to drink boxes that have straws.
    Outstanding video in the article plus good ones in the posts.
    But liberals have to see these presentations of reality.

  5. Wealth redistribution with a percentage deep in the pocket.

    “If I give thousand, how much do I get ?”

  6. It’s a politicians dream- tax the air we breathe and have people (some useful idiots at least) thank them.

  7. Co2 is NOT pollution … Period! It is only “pollution” if you “believe” in CAGW. And if you “believe” in CAGW, then you are obligated to PROVE IT. Scientifically, prove it. Until that PROOF is forthcoming … then Co2 is NOT a pollutant.

    • feel free to read a dictionary … before you post s**T
      anything, even your own blood, is pollutant, when it is outside your body … so much in fact it is called BIO HAZARD

      • Wut? baaahahahaha

        CO2 is not a pollutant in the atmosphere.

        So tell me, if you increase your blood amount does it then become a pollutant to your body as CO2 is meant to be a “pollutant” in the atmosphere purely because it has increased?

        Answer is obviously no, and you are not very bright at all, which makes your arrogant reply rather amusing

      • Something that is required or essential for a system, does not become a pollutant because the level increases, even if the level is detrimental, you’re a, as we say in Ireland, gobsh*te

    • Nothing in science is “proven.” If you want proof, go to a liquor store, or study math.

      • Keith Sketchley
        July 5, 2019 at 9:18 am
        ——————

        But maybe, just maybe, everything in science is about being able to disprove fallacies,
        without the need of liquor stores,
        don’t cha think!

        Oh, well, this maybe too much for some to understand!

        cheers

      • There are some who would argue that Trigonometric proofs are not proof, they are torture! [but maybe trigonometry isn’t math either]

    • “Co2 is NOT pollution …” Rule number one, everything is toxic. Rule number two, we historically have classified a pollutant as certain amounts (concentrations) of a substance, with a safety factor, that produces an undesirable effect. Said gas at claimed concentrations produces an undetectable fraction of said effect. OK, there is a lot left out here.!

      I once filled in for somebody teaching toxicology where I learned that a certain state was a leader in developing pollution standards. Their law (over half century old) recognized “contamination, pollution, and nuisance.” The first you don’t mess with, the latter is mostly cosmetics, the middle is where the action is. We now often get these categories wrong, mostly elevating them. Oil is now often considered a contaminant, belongs in the pollution category, sometimes just a nuisance.

      The state was CALIFORNIA.

      • Toxic and polluting are different things, surely you know this? it appears not.
        Contaminant and Pollutant are again different meanings.

        “Rule number two, we historically have classified a pollutant as certain amounts (concentrations) of a substance, with a safety factor”
        No! a pollutant is external to a system, and it’s entry into the system is detrimental to the system

        A contaminant is not necessarily detrimental, a contaminant reduces purity.

        As for pollutants. If something increases in level, to create an imbalance and so becomes toxic, it’s not a pollutant. A pollutant does not need to be toxic either FYI, it needs to be detrimental to one or more things in a system, it needs context, is CO2 a pollutant to plants if it increases? No, but it is detrimental to humans if the levels reach high enough, it’s toxic but still not and never will be a pollutant as it is native to the atmosphere.

        Stop wordsmithing, badly, in an attempt to make the untrue true

    • Yes … in sufficient quantities … WATER is toxic to the human body. It dilutes the electrolytes necessary to carry nerve impulses.

      To me … that is PROOF of water’s toxicity. A clear mechanism for the damage is well understood.

      Now, simply show me the SCIENTIFIC connection between increasing man-made Co2 and global temperatures. And global EXTREME weather. And global anything. Science has PROVEN that Trees and plants NEED Co2 to survive. Now show me the PROOF that Co2 causes damage to the climate.

  8. yes yes the scam for which your grandchildren will call you the not very bright grandpas

    • Apparently you can no longer buy ‘dry ice’, or CO2. We used to buy it to put in a punch bowl, to make witch’s brew. No longer available.

  9. IF western Canada had the same number of people as do India and eastern China, it is most unlikely it would be anywhere near as “clean” as the video claims it is today.

    • It is not the number of people that determines how ‘clean; the environment is but the wealth of those people.

      You cannot worry too much about the environment if you are scratching out a living on low incomes.

      The ‘cleanest’ countries are those where the majority have sufficient income to live comfortably with some to spare to use for problems external to their own needs.

      Look at which countries are supposed to be paying reparations.

Comments are closed.