Enjoying the Carbon Scam?

[Quasievil]

While Many got taken Hook line and Sinker with this whole ETS, carbon tax, global warming scam shoved down everyones throat by those with the simple agenda of making money out of us, it comes to light YET ANOTHER damning piece of scientific FACT that is blowing a "Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" bullshit.

To late now the policies are in place and the milking of YOUR dollar is well underway !

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

This shit makes me angry

Enter here greenies with your crap manipulated justifications

[schrodingers cat]

Enter here greenies with your crap manipulated justifications

Errrrrrrrr - brain hurts. Don't confuse me with facts. Carbon evil - tax will save the world. Al Gore for leader of New World Order

[BMWST?]

While Many got taken Hook line and Sinker with this whole ETS, carbon tax, global warming scam shoved down everyones throat by those with the simple agenda of making money out of us, it comes to light YET ANOTHER damning piece of scientific FACT that is blowing a "Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" bullshit.

To late now the policies are in place and the milking of YOUR dollar is well underway !

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

This shit makes me angry

Enter here greenies with your crap manipulated justifications

i think you need to read more carefully....all this article says is the ALARMIST(ie extreme models) have been shown to be .....er ...extreme.

[cold comfort]

Was there a prize for how many times he could say "alarmist computer models"?

[Quasievil]

i think you need to read more carefully....all this article says is the ALARMIST(ie extreme models) have been shown to be .....er ...extreme.


I think I Read it fine thanks
But who are the Alarmists do you think? Al Gore? Politicians ? the IPCC ?
yeah thats right all of the above, the ones with the agenda to get your money under the guise of saving the world.
Add to that that the green loonies with the agenda of returning us to a horse and cart.
it was a scam.

[avgas]

its not too bad really. i mean in comparison to the increase in acc......

[Winston001]

Sooo...Quasi, you like air pollution? Dirty rivers lakes and seas? Poisoned soil?

Because the pollutants have lots of carbon molecules. Where do you think smog comes from? And what would happen if there was less of it? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

[Quasievil]

Sooo...Quasi, you like air pollution? Dirty rivers lakes and seas? Poisoned soil?

No Winston, definitely not


Because the pollutants have lots of carbon molecules. Where do you think smog comes from? And what would happen if there was less of it? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

No it wouldnt be a good thing.

Point isnt that tho is it, point is that significant lies and manipulations have occurred to encourage this scam, that's a problem, do you like that ?

[Spearfish]

Sooo...Quasi, you like air pollution? Dirty rivers lakes and seas? Poisoned soil?

Because the pollutants have lots of carbon molecules. Where do you think smog comes from? And what would happen if there was less of it? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Pollution response has suffered because of global warming scams. Especially at the real core of the problem.

[Scouse]

While Many got taken Hook line and Sinker with this whole ETS, carbon tax, global warming scam shoved down everyones throat by those with the simple agenda of making money out of us, it comes to light YET ANOTHER damning piece of scientific FACT that is blowing a "Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" bullshit.

To late now the policies are in place and the milking of YOUR dollar is well underway !

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

This shit makes me angry

Enter here greenies with your crap manipulated justificationsHold on dont you work for an Oil Company?

[Winston001]

Point isnt that tho is it, point is that significant lies and manipulations have occurred to encourage this scam, that's a problem, do you like that ?

No lies. No scam.

The carbon tax idea is simple and Europe has had emissions trading since 2005. The Christchurch City Council make $1 million per year selling carbon credits because they have a landfill which captures methane.

The United States has emissions trading for Nitrous Oxide and Sulphur Dioxide since 1995 - its called cap and trade.

If you own a factory which burns heaps of coal, you will have to buy carbon credits from someone who has reduced their emissions. Or pay an equivalent penalty to the government.

So, you put up the price of what you sell. However a competitor installs a micro hydro power scheme and undercuts you. That means you have to change or close down. ETS is basic capitalist economics.

[jonbuoy]

No Winston, definitely not



No it wouldnt be a good thing.

Point isnt that tho is it, point is that significant lies and manipulations have occurred to encourage this scam, that's a problem, do you like that ?

You don´t think less smog is a good thing? :blink:

[jonbuoy]

Hold on dont you work for an Oil Company?

Mobil isn´t it?

[eelracing]

No lies. No scam.



The United States has emissions trading for Nitrous Oxide and Sulphur Dioxide since 1995 - its called cap and trade.

If you own a factory which burns heaps of coal, you will have to buy carbon credits from someone who has reduced their emissions. Or pay an equivalent penalty to the government.


Come on Winston you do realise that recent volcano eruption (the name of I can't spell,let alone pronounce)just spewed more Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere in one week than all the industrial coal burning factories worldwide have ever done since man discovered coal.


It's all a have and you should lay off the Nitrous (laughing gas) while your at it.

[sinfull]

Come on Winston you do realise that recent volcano eruption (the name of I can't spell,let alone pronounce)just spewed more Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere in one week than all the industrial coal burning factories worldwide have ever done since man discovered coal.


. OMG No ! We're all going to die ? The planet will warm to the point where volcanoes will explode and fault lines will crack and and an awww hang on they are!
Someone pay Al Gore a few million to stop this shit will ya !

[Quasievil]

Hold on dont you work for an Oil Company?

Yes I do, and ??
did you have a point?

[Quasievil]

No lies. No scam.

Sorry but there was and it is, the whole thing is based on biased science and agendas, as proven with the link earlier and other developments, for example the leaked emails highlighting the extend of the fraud.


The carbon tax idea is simple and Europe has had emissions trading since 2005. The Christchurch City Council make $1 million per year selling carbon credits because they have a landfill which captures methane.

The United States has emissions trading for Nitrous Oxide and Sulphur Dioxide since 1995 - its called cap and trade.

If you own a factory which burns heaps of coal, you will have to buy carbon credits from someone who has reduced their emissions. Or pay an equivalent penalty to the government.

So, you put up the price of what you sell. However a competitor installs a micro hydro power scheme and undercuts you. That means you have to change or close down. ETS is basic capitalist economics.

The Carbon trading scheme is actually failing.

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2011/06/02/carbon-trading-system-has-suffered-almost-total-collapse/

And anyway whats the point if the science is false and many major emitters are not involved because they havent signed up to the Kyoto protocol, btw neither has mother nature who has been very keen on spouting a few years worth of emissions in a single fart from one of her orifices (volcanos)

the whole global warming, ETS scam is simply about money, end of story, you dont actually need the workings of money to make emission reductions you only need policy lead by governments, money does not need to be involved at all.

[ducatilover]

Blame Thatcher, it's easy to do.

[Winston001]

Come on Winston you do realise that recent volcano eruption (the name of I can't spell,let alone pronounce)just spewed more Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere in one week than all the industrial coal burning factories worldwide have ever done since man discovered coal.


That is completely wrong. This misinformation has been circulating on the net for a while so I understand why people might latch on to it. The fact is, Iceland's Eyjafjoell emitted 0.3% of annual greenhouse gases. A tiny proportion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics


...the whole thing is based on biased science and agendas, as proven with the link earlier and other developments...



The Carbon trading scheme is actually failing.

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2011/06/02/carbon-trading-system-has-suffered-almost-total-collapse/

And anyway whats the point if the science is false and many major emitters are not involved because they havent signed up to the Kyoto protocol...

Interesting article, thanks.

If carbon trading is failing then that undermines the "scam" theory. No money flow to scam. How do you explain that?

[ducatilover]

That is completely wrong. This misinformation has been circulating on the net for a while so I understand why people might latch on to it. The fact is, Iceland's Eyjafjoell emitted 0.3% of annual greenhouse gases. A tiny proportion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics



Interesting article, thanks.

If carbon trading is failing then that undermines the "scam" theory. No money flow to scam. How do you explain that?
So what's the biggest contributor?

[Scuba_Steve]

so if this carbon credit scam is "working" why don't we extend it to other areas???

I don't thief things so for 3000$ someone can have a week of stealing, it'd save all that court time too as they would have already paid for their crime :facepalm:

[admenk]

so if this carbon credit scam is "working" why don't we extend it to other areas???

We already do - you work hard all week to gain enough credits, for your MP to sit on their arse all week enjoying themselves. :facepalm:

[Banditbandit]

Yes I do, and ??
did you have a point?

Hang about - if you think it is wrong for Helen Clarke and Jeanette Fitzsimmons to own shares in a wind power company and push Green propaganda supporting wind farms, why should we take seriously the anti-climate change arguments of an oil comapny employee?

[Quasievil]

If carbon trading is failing then that undermines the "scam" theory. No money flow to scam. How do you explain that?

Simple really, not all scams work out the way they where planned (look at the other recent significant scam relation to weapons of mass destruction) , and now considering the article above as well as many other facts coming to light concerning man made global warming misinformation it will continue its demise.

[avgas]

Sooo...Quasi, you like air pollution? Dirty rivers lakes and seas? Poisoned soil?

Because the pollutants have lots of carbon molecules. Where do you think smog comes from? And what would happen if there was less of it? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
There would also be less dead people if we ban carbon.
I mean think about it - if you weren't allowed to turn into carbon you would effectively be banned from dying.

Also Volcanoes would have to stop erupting. Fires would have to stop burning. Isotopes would have to trade in their half lives for full ones.

What a wonderful world it would be.

Oh wait - what do you mean it doesn't work that way?

[Quasievil]

Hang about - if you think it is wrong for Helen Clarke and Jeanette Fitzsimmons to own shares in a wind power company and push Green propaganda supporting wind farms, why should we take seriously the anti-climate change arguments of an oil comapny employee?

And what power do I have in comparison to these loonies ?

I am but a commoner, a tax payer and a citizen that can see this for what it is, a fraud, the biggest the world has ever seen.

[avgas]

Hang about - if you think it is wrong for Helen Clarke and Jeanette Fitzsimmons to own shares in a wind power company and push Green propaganda supporting wind farms, why should we take seriously the anti-climate change arguments of an oil company employee?
There is no payment under the scheme to wind farms. They simply get taxed less.
The only way to claim credits is to appoint a Forrest under the scheme. I can't remember the exact criteria but something along the lines of 50cm stump diameter and atleast 1 ha.

I remember trying to get some money for the old man, but turns out they don't care about 10 ha of Kiwifruit crop even though it removes more carbon that 1 ha of pines.

[Indiana_Jones]

So could someone make a 'paper company' and then since i'm not using up all my 'carbon' I could sell it to someone else?

-Indy

[avgas]

So could someone make a 'paper company' and then since i'm not using up all my 'carbon' I could sell it to someone else?

-Indy
Yes provided you have been allocated credits. But do it wrong and they could charge you for the credits you aren't using :blink:

Better tactic would be to buy some bush/scrub land in the middle of nowhere and claim it is full of 100 year old Kauri's.
They give you credits for saving the planet but don't actually check to see if you have any trees. As long as you submit the business case to them they will approve it.
There is no "credit checker" who drives around NZ in a 4wd, its all managed out of a law office.
Of course the only way out after that is to sell the land. But I suppose you could live off the carbon credits, plant some pines and in 20 years its no longer considered fraud. By then you sell the land and trees to the foresty and go awol with your millions.

[Banditbandit]

And what power do I have in comparison to these loonies ?

I am but a commoner, a tax payer and a citizen that can see this for what it is, a fraud, the biggest the world has ever seen.

I'd probably suggest that we ignore your views as you have a vested interest in the pollution industries ..

[DEATH_INC.]

I'd probably suggest that we ignore your views as you have a vested interest in the pollution industries ..
I'd suggest you don't know Mr Quasi at all.
He has a job there, not a vested interest, and he'd be the first to say the opposite if he believed it.

[Banditbandit]

I'd suggest you don't know Mr Quasi at all.
He has a job there, not a vested interest, and he'd be the first to say the opposite if he believed it.

And who do you work for? Or which companies do you have shares in?

[DEATH_INC.]

It IS simply a scam, you greenies can believe whatever you want, but 'till you all get rid of all your own carbon (and all the other shite you lot spout on about) producing possessions and lead by example then you can all go f*ck yourselves. :yes:

[DEATH_INC.]

And who do you work for? Or which companies do you have shares in?
None of the above, tho I am in the automotive industry. What are you doing on a website that has mostly unessential carbon producing vehicles if you so believe in what you say?

[Banditbandit]

None of the above, tho I am in the automotive industry. What are you doing on a website that has mostly unessential carbon producing vehicles if you so believe in what you say?

Hang about - what have I said ??? I simply question Quasi's objectiveness as he works for an oil company ... much as he questioned Clarke and Fitzsimmons' stands because they owned shares in a Green company ..

[DEATH_INC.]

Hang about - what have I said ??? I simply question Quasi's objectiveness as hde works for an oil company ...
Correct, but as I've said already Quasi is a VERY straight up bloke. He doesn't benefit at all from this stuff, he just has a job there.

[Banditbandit]

Correct, but as I've said already Quasi is a VERY straight up bloke. He doesn't benefit at all from this stuff, he just has a job there.

That would seem to be a benefit ...

[DEATH_INC.]

And it's still a f*cking scam, it's ok to pollute if you're rich enough :yes:

[Banditbandit]

And it's still a f*cking scam, it's ok to pollute if you're rich enough :yes:

It is? .... That's amazing ..

[Quasievil]

Hang about - what have I said ??? I simply question Quasi's objectiveness as he works for an oil company

Can you explain how that compromises my ability to be a free thinker ?
precisely ?

[Maha]

And it's still a f*cking scam, it's ok to pollute if you're rich enough :yes:

.....I dunno, some non rich fuck was here on Saturday and managed to pollute the downstairs shitter, so much so we need a plumber to......releave us of the offending pollutant...:blink:

[Quasievil]

That is completely wrong. This misinformation has been circulating on the net for a while so I understand why people might latch on to it. The fact is, Iceland's Eyjafjoell emitted 0.3% of annual greenhouse gases.

Thats one Volcano only, and there are other natural forces at play here which contribute for your info New Zealand emits just 0.11% of global emissions. I'm going to write it BIG so people can see it:

0.11%

Even if that were reduced to zero, the planet wouldn't give a shit.

Meantime we are all paying $150 a year for it and thats about to go up in 2013 to double !

is it doing much ?

[Banditbandit]

Can you explain how that compromises my ability to be a free thinker ?
precisely ?

It does not compromise your ability as a free thinker. It suggests that your opinion, as expressed, might not be as clear cut because you have a vested interest in the company you work for and in maintaining your job.

It suggests that any position you take in this argument might be influenced by the need to maintain your job ...

Now, this is only a suggestion - but it does add to the facts which need to be taken into account when considering your opinion ... and its worth.

[Winston001]

Could somebody please explain how emissions trading is a scam? A fraudulent scheme designed to steal money.

What are the names of the scammers? How did they do it?

[ducatilover]

So what is it achieving? Why the need to charge money and who has the rights to sell "carbon credits" :angry: Can I have some for my trees?

Someone is profiting from this, to think otherwise would be silly.

[Swoop]

The scheme does not prevent or stop pollution, which is the aim. It merely moves the blame around.

http://www.cheatneutral.com/ has the same system.

[Quasievil]

Could somebody please explain how emissions trading is a scam? A fraudulent scheme designed to steal money.

What are the names of the scammers? How did they do it?

Yes. It was built on the back of the "man made" global warming theory via carbons causing it.
This isnt truthful.

Therefore it is a scam or a fraud, however sadly its one that has been embraced and possibly LEAD by some governments and interest groups towards it becoming an income stream, which it is.
Who are the Scammers, there are many, but this grew into a dirty great big lie very quickly with encouragement from.......... IPCC and its "in the pocket, seeking funding" scientists , Al Gore, stupid Media bandwagoners, right through to the Nats and our good friend Nick Smith.
How did they do it? scaremongering via various means using the winning "we are all going to die if you dont do this" tactics add to it the ever enthusiatic looney greens and green peace nutters and pressure groups and the governments of the world.

It infected the stupid like a religion, societies became blinded by this crap and few questioned it, and now we can all "save the planet" by paying a new tax called the ................which of course hasnt and wont EVER change a fucking thing.

[Spearfish]

NZ the super power of influence around the world.......China will shake in thier rice bowl at a awesome power of NZ's ETS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

[Quasievil]

So what is it achieving? Why the need to charge money and who has the rights to sell "carbon credits" :angry: Can I have some for my trees?

Someone is profiting from this, to think otherwise would be silly.

Good to see a few on here that can think.

Actually thats rude, there are two sides to anything I know this, however this is the side that is reinforced with Facts as opposed to lies.

No one wants the world to die, no one wants pollution to reign.

But what we dont want and shouldnt want is scams like this pulling money out of our pockets for nothing.

[Badjelly]

YET ANOTHER damning piece of scientific FACT that is blowing a "Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" bullshit.

To late now the policies are in place and the milking of YOUR dollar is well underway !

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html



It's nice to see you've resumed your efforts to learn about climate change science, Quasi. Last I heard, you'd swallowed Air Con whole and decided that you knew everything about the subject. And here you are reading a peer-reviewed scientific paper!

You have read the paper, haven't you? :blink:

[ducatilover]

We certainly don't want the world to die, I'm all for solutions to pollution (Excuse the crap rhyme). I fail to see how a carbon credit selling system works....if you pollute you can buy credits and keep polluting? WTF?

[Quasievil]

It's nice to see you've resumed your efforts to learn about climate change science, Quasi. Last I heard, you'd swallowed Air Con whole and decided that you knew everything about the subject. And here you are reading a peer-reviewed scientific paper!

You have read the paper, haven't you? :blink:

Did you have a point amongst that?:blink:

[Banditbandit]

We certainly don't want the world to die, I'm all for solutions to pollution (Excuse the crap rhyme). I fail to see how a carbon credit selling system works....if you pollute you can buy credits and keep polluting? WTF?


No. In simplistic terms ... If you pollute you can buy carbon credits from someone who has stopped polluting - or from someone who has planted trees to soak up the carbon ... if you can't buy credits then you have to stop polluting.

Overall it should reduce the amount of carbon produced into the atmosphere

[oneofsix]

No. In simplistic terms ... If you produce carbon emissions you can buy carbon credits from someone who has stopped producing carbon emissions - or from someone who has planted trees to soak up the carbon ... if you can't buy credits then you have to stop producing carbon emissions.

Overall it should reduce the amount of carbon produced into the atmosphere

there just fixed that for you Banditbandit. Got to get the story straight. They don't give a :shit: about pollution it is about carbon emissions, well actually about making money buy trading in credits for carbon, you the stuff that all life forms are based on.

[Quasievil]

Overall it should reduce the amount of carbon produced into the atmosphere

How will they measure that to see if it does exactly?

at a current total human contribution of 1.7% towards the total Carbon Dioxide emissions on the planet they wont be able to.............aint that convenient.

we are already divided and conquered, thos little payments on your gas and power bills and everything you purchase already exist, it aint going to go away now ever.

[DEATH_INC.]

if you can't buy credits then you have to stop polluting.
So who's enforcing this? Best they pop off to China....

[Badjelly]

It suggests that any position you take in this argument might be influenced by the need to maintain your job ...

For what it's worth, I don't think Quasi holds the opinions he does on global warming (comprehensively wrong as they are) because of his job.

[bogan]

So what is it achieving? Why the need to charge money and who has the rights to sell "carbon credits" :angry: Can I have some for my trees?

Someone is profiting from this, to think otherwise would be silly.

You only get monery for trees if they are new ones, and you lose money if you cut down old ones I think.

It seems like an ass backwards system which does an exceeding shit job of repairing the moral bankruptcy exhibited by some corporations.

I'm a greenie in that I think we need to maximise use of renewable resources, and minimse pollution, but there are enough reasons to do these things without having to scaremonger and tax the general public with this sort of bollocks.

[Badjelly]

Did you have a point amongst that?:blink:

You're proclaiming the scientific article in question as YET ANOTHER damning SCIENTIFIC FACT on the basis of a press release. Are you sure? Wouldn't it be a good idea to be just a wee bit sceptical?

[Scuba_Steve]

You only get monery for trees if they are new ones, and you lose money if you cut down old ones I think.

It seems like an ass backwards system which does an exceeding shit job of repairing the moral bankruptcy exhibited by some corporations.

I'm a greenie in that I think we need to maximise use of renewable resources, and minimse pollution, but there are enough reasons to do these things without having to scaremonger and tax the general public with this sort of bollocks.

See here is a good "greenie" ^.
Scamming people doesn't solve anything.

[ducatilover]

You only get monery for trees if they are new ones, and you lose money if you cut down old ones I think.

It seems like an ass backwards system which does an exceeding shit job of repairing the moral bankruptcy exhibited by some corporations.

I'm a greenie in that I think we need to maximise use of renewable resources, and minimse pollution, but there are enough reasons to do these things without having to scaremonger and tax the general public with this sort of bollocks.
I agree we need to clean up our act etc. I didn't understand the carbon credits though. Renewable resources should be utilised far more IMHO.


No. In simplistic terms ... If you pollute you can buy carbon credits from someone who has stopped polluting - or from someone who has planted trees to soak up the carbon ... if you can't buy credits then you have to stop polluting.

Overall it should reduce the amount of carbon produced into the atmosphere
Thanks, now I know the idea behind them.
So, if I stop polluting (Pretend I am a company that makes ugly black smoke, eg: Lucas Electrics) can I make a profit/make back the money invested in being greener, by selling said credits?
If so, it may be an incentive to become greener.

[Banditbandit]

For what it's worth, I don't think Quasi holds the opinions he does on global warming (comprehensively wrong as they are) because of his job.

I don't either .. but he had a dig at others for a biaised point of view - I had the opportunity to have a dig back ..

[Banditbandit]

I agree we need to clean up our act etc. I didn't understand the carbon credits though. Renewable resources should be utilised far more IMHO.


Thanks, now I know the idea behind them.
So, if I stop polluting (Pretend I am a company that makes ugly black smoke, eg: Lucas Electrics) can I make a profit/make back the money invested in being greener, by selling said credits?
If so, it may be an incentive to become greener.

Yes .. that's exactly the point .. more profit in being greener ...

[Quasievil]

You're proclaiming the scientific article in question as YET ANOTHER damning SCIENTIFIC FACT on the basis of a press release. Are you sure? Wouldn't it be a good idea to be just a wee bit sceptical?

Am I sure.........yes given the source Author and peers that reviewed it........... so Skeptical no
Did you have a counter peer reviewed scientific article I can read to balance it out if so I will read it.

[slowpoke]

, why should we take seriously the anti-climate change arguments of an oil comapny employee?

And aren't you one of the many who needs hydrocarbon products and all their many derivatives? Best you stay out of this debate too until you're able to argue from a more sustainable position.

[Banditbandit]

And aren't you one of the many who needs hydrocarbon products and all their many derivatives? Best you stay out of this debate too until you're able to argue from a more sustainable position.

Don't we all? If you apply that criteria then there is no-one to take part in the debate ... except maybe a few tribesman in the Amazon jungles .. and I'll bet I know which side of the argument they fall on ..

And I think you need to learn the distinction between arguing a point of view and having a dig at Quasi ... the former is boring the latter is at least amusing

[Badjelly]

Did you have a counter peer reviewed scientific article I can read to balance it out if so I will read it.

It's going to take a while for the responses to Dr Spencer's article to be peer reviewed themselves. In the meantime you could read this

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

The fundamental problem is that you can't say anything about the climate sensitivity to external radiative forcing by measuring the changes in radiative balance associated with internally generated fluctuations (basically ENSO).

Oh, and by the way, I don't share your opinion about the quality of the author's previous work. He has recently occupied his time with exploring simple models of the climate and has done a dreadful job of it. See:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/

Just the sort of thing that climate sceptics would come down on like a ton of bricks, if it gave answers they didn't want to hear.

[avgas]

So what is it achieving? Why the need to charge money and who has the rights to sell "carbon credits" :angry: Can I have some for my trees?
Someone is profiting from this, to think otherwise would be silly.
Well if your big enough you can buy directly from the govt here : http://www.eur.govt.nz/

Otherwise if your a "small trader" you could always go through these guys:
http://www.carbonconsciousnz.co.nz/
http://www.carbonmarketsolutions.com/
I hear they also do Forex and other things.......so you could do all in one.

As for claiming credits - your trees:
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/participating/forestry/allocation/
But I know somewhere it says something about trunk diameter being a minimum 50cm diameter. So if your trees are smaller than that forget about it.

As for the comment about people scamming it - I have laid out enough information in this thread that anyone could scam it if they felt like it. I also know of many large industries in NZ scamming it by decreasing their credits. Some very inventive ways too, such as carbon doping water. Because water is not covered by ETS.
Mums the word though :innocent:

[ducatilover]

Well if your big enough you can buy directly from the govt here : http://www.eur.govt.nz/

Otherwise if your a "small trader" you could always go through these guys:
http://www.carbonconsciousnz.co.nz/
http://www.carbonmarketsolutions.com/
I hear they also do Forex and other things.......so you could do all in one.

As for claiming credits - your trees:
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/participating/forestry/allocation/
But I know somewhere it says something about trunk diameter being a minimum 50cm diameter. So if your trees are smaller than that forget about it.

As for the comment about people scamming it - I have laid out enough information in this thread that anyone could scam it if they felt like it. I also know of many large industries in NZ scamming it by decreasing their credits. Some very inventive ways too, such as carbon doping water. Because water is not covered by ETS.
Mums the word though :innocent:
Choice, I'm off to scam the fuck out of some carbon. :woohoo:

[Winston001]

So, if I stop polluting (Pretend I am a company that makes ugly black smoke, eg: Lucas Electrics) can I make a profit/make back the money invested in being greener, by selling said credits?
If so, it may be an incentive to become greener.

Yes.

Christchurch City Council does exactly that. Methane from the Burnside landfill is captured instead of going into the atmosphere. That creates carbon credits for CCC which sells them to British Gas for $1 million per year.

Even better, CCC then burn the methane to heat the QE II pool complex.

[Winston001]

I'm a greenie in that I think we need to maximise use of renewable resources, and minimse pollution, but there are enough reasons to do these things without having to scaremonger and tax the general public with this sort of bollocks.

Unfortunately not. If you were BP/Mobil/Shell etc why would you discourage consumers from using fossil fuel?

If the price of that fuel goes up because the supplier has to buy carbon credits, alternative energy becomes more economic.

People do not change their behaviour just because they are told they should. We'd all have stopped smoking 25 years ago if we behaved rationally.

[Scuba_Steve]

Hey for anyone who believes this carbon credit scam to be a good idea, I have some of the cheapest carbon credits for sale 100$ will get you 1000 credits.
Now while these credits aren't "brand-name" credits, they are just as good & work exactly the same as any other carbon credits on the market just at a much lower price. You give me money & in return I'll give you a worthless piece of paper.
Buy now & I'll give you a 2nd set of credits for free thats 2000 carbon credits for only 100$ :shit:

[Scuba_Steve]

Unfortunately not. If you were BP/Shell etc why would you discourage consumers from using fossil fuel?


they aren't they're driving up profits with this "climate change" scam

[oneofsix]

Unfortunately not. If you were BP/Mobil/Shell etc why would you discourage consumers from using fossil fuel?

If the price of that fuel goes up because the supplier has to buy carbon credits, alternative energy becomes more economic.

People do not change their behaviour just because they are told they should. We'd all have stopped smoking 25 years ago if we behaved rationally.

The price of crude goes up due to war in the middle east etc, the price at the pump goes up, profit for BP and Shell et al goes up. Carbon credit forces their costs up, they will make more profit, partly due to the carbon scaremongers and their scam. They are also big investigators of alternative so if the price of fossil goes up they get grants to continue the investigations they were doing anyhow and their profits still go up. :shit: they are on a win win, the only one to lose here are us and the planet, oh sorry you still believe reducing carbon emissions is going to reduce pollution don't you :facepalm:

[SPman]

Correct, but as I've said already Quasi is a VERY straight up bloke. He doesn't benefit at all from this stuff, he just has a job there.
That's the damn trouble - he is a straight up bloke - I'd consider him under informed on greater world events (which in some ways would be a great thing, there is so much shite going on out there, but, if you're not talking politics from a different viewpoint, he's as good as they come!
Now, back to the shit fight...
at a current total human contribution of 1.7% towards the total Carbon Dioxide emissions on the planet they wont be able to.............aint that convenient.and where do those figures come from?
....the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

[Quasievil]

That's the damn trouble - he is a straight up bloke - I'd consider him under informed on greater world events (which in some ways would be a great thing, there is so much shite going on out there, but, if you're not talking politics from a different viewpoint, he's as good as they come!
Now, back to the shit fight...and where do those figures come from?
....the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.


(Im here ya know) I will tell you something else about me, Im happy to be challenged if it turns out Im wrong I will probably thank you for it. I think Im right on this one tho, but challenge away.
One thing I have learnt in life is if you want the truth ask yourself, is there money involved, if so follow that for the truth.

here is a link to some of this info

http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/index.html

[Winston001]

and where do those figures come from?
....the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

The general consensus among climatologists is human activity has contributed 4% per year to annual greenhouse gases over 150 years. Volcanoes contribute much more as do natural processes. Nobody disputes that.

The argument is whether humans contribute 4% or a lot less.

But I don't bother arguing about that. What I see is pollution and I believe we should reign that in. We pour a heap of smoke into the world.

[Oblivion]

The general consensus among climatologists is human activity has contributed 4% per year to annual greenhouse gases over 150 years. Volcanoes contribute much more as do natural processes. Nobody disputes that.

The argument is whether humans contribute 4% or a lot less.

But I don't bother arguing about that. What I see is pollution and I believe we should reign that in. We pour a heap of smoke into the world.

Most of the smoke produced is from humans burning fuel for energy. China does it by the bucket, mostly coal. In South Africa they burn wood for warmth. Here, In New Zealand we burn wood for alot of things. The more people there are on the planet, the greater the consumption of resources.

Fuel like wood is a cheap and renewable resource.

The bulk of the ETS is pretty much making people pay a tax for living comfortably.

[SPman]

The general consensus among climatologists is human activity has contributed 4% per year to annual greenhouse gases over 150 years. Volcanoes contribute much more as do natural processes. Nobody disputes that.

As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO₂ per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO₂ into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO₂. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO₂ with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources.


Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO₂ emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO₂ than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO₂ emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO₂ that dwarfs the annual CO₂ emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaerial) and submarine volcanoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano) (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO₂ emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO₂ emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO₂ emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO₂ estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%ABlauea) volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO₂ output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO₂ emission rate to the anthropogenic CO₂ emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO₂ estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).
There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO₂ emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions dwarf global volcanic CO₂ emissions.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

[Winston001]

IPCC and its "in the pocket, seeking funding" scientists , Al Gore, stupid Media bandwagoners, right through to the Nats and our good friend Nick Smith.
How did they do it? scaremongering via various means using the winning "we are all going to die if you dont do this" tactics add to it the ever enthusiatic looney greens and green peace nutters and pressure groups and the governments of the world.



Sooo...I don't really understand this.

Are you saying Al Gore had a bright idea one day, got hold of various scientists from all over the world, and told them to make up data which implied the Earth was warming?

Then he secretly called together politicians from various nations and said - "Boys, do I have a scam for you!".

Actually I'm surprised Al Gore even knows Nick Smith.

But hang on - the previous Labour government introduced emissions trading in NZ. That can't be right. National carried on with it. So Al Gore must first have conspired with Labour to get it going. But why would Nick Smith of all people support a Labour idea? And actually bring it into law?

[Quasievil]

Sooo...I don't really understand this.

Are you saying Al Gore had a bright idea one day, got hold of various scientists from all over the world, and told them to make up data which implied the Earth was warming?

Then he secretly called together politicians from various nations and said - "Boys, do I have a scam for you!".

Actually I'm surprised Al Gore even knows Nick Smith.

But hang on - the previous Labour government introduced emissions trading in NZ. That can't be right. National carried on with it. So Al Gore must first have conspired with Labour to get it going. But why would Nick Smith of all people support a Labour idea? And actually bring it into law?

How would I know who knows who and the ineer workings of the UN and their IPCC cronies, there are organisations and they do talk to each other (of course) and progressively we have ended up with the tax scam we have today.

[pete376403]

Yes.

Christchurch City Council does exactly that. Methane from the Burnside landfill is captured instead of going into the atmosphere. That creates carbon credits for CCC which sells them to British Gas for $1 million per year.

Even better, CCC then burn the methane to heat the QE II pool complex.

Lower Hutt city Council do a similar thing with gas from the Silverstream landfill. That gas is burned to generate electricity.
However according to Wiki burning methane produces heat, water and CO2
"CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l) (ΔH = −891 kJ/mol (at standard conditions))
where bracketed "g" stands for gaseous form and bracketed "l" stands for liquid form."
Do the councils then tax themselves for their emissions?

[Scouse]

Yes I do, and ??
did you have a point?Well yes I do, do I need to spell it out? I thought that you were intelligent enough to read between the lines of that question, others on the site seem to have got it.

[Quasievil]

Well yes I do do I need to spell it out? I thought that you were inteligent enough to read between the lines of that question, others on the site seem to have got it.

Oh, it was as simplistic as it appeared,sorry.
Great contribution, well done

[Scouse]

Oh, it was as simplistic as it appeared,sorry.
Great contribution, well doneMy pleasure

[Quasievil]

My pleasure

So give me a go on your speed triple, I want one to try out:yes:

[BMWST?]

Lower Hutt city Council do a similar thing with gas from the Silverstream landfill. That gas is burned to generate electricity.
However according to Wiki burning methane produces heat, water and CO2
"CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l) (ΔH = −891 kJ/mol (at standard conditions))
where bracketed "g" stands for gaseous form and bracketed "l" stands for liquid form."
Do the councils then tax themselves for their emissions?

but the methabe would have escaped any way,so by burning it to produce electricity we have "free" carbon emmisions cos they would have escaped any way....its like the argument f or burning wood,if you burn wood you produce CO2 but no more than the co2 that would have been emitted if the wood deconposed on the forest floor.Its about efficiency too,

[jonbuoy]

Genuine questions Quasi:

Do you think there is way too much man made pollution? (maybe its not so easy to see in clean green NZ buts it pretty horrific in a lot of countries).

Do you believe we can carry on burning fossil fuels and polluting the way we all are at the moment for hundreds of more years without any consequences?

Do you think we should all cut down?

Do you think asking people politely to cut down will work or is the only way to hit them in their pockets?

More than anything I think governments should be putting a massive tax on goods imported from countries with poor human rights (slave labour) and poor environmental considerations - ie anything made in China.

[Quasievil]

Do you think there is way too much man made pollution? (maybe its not so easy to see in clean green NZ buts it pretty horrific in a lot of countries).
Yes of course


Do you believe we can carry on burning fossil fuels and polluting the way we all are at the moment for hundreds of more years without any consequences?
Nope we need to find other ways of creating energy


Do you think we should all cut down?
Yes reduction of energy use is a good thing


Do you think asking people politely to cut down will work or is the only way to hit them in their pockets?
I think Governments via legislation and various mandates is fine as far as a usefull tool to encourage reduction, I dont see it as necessary at all to tax people further, especially when it actually isnt working (TV3 news this morning even noted that we are not meeting the bullshit objectives or anywhere near them) and I take (as you might have noticed) particular offence to the FACT that these taxes where introduced under the smoke scree of false science and scare mongering tactics.


More than anything I think governments should be putting a massive tax on goods imported from countries with poor human rights (slave labour) and poor environmental considerations - ie anything made in China.
I dont, that just means we pay more..........again.

Just to reiterate, NZ contributes just 0.11% towards the total apparent manmade emissions, 0.11% so whats the point of us being so hell bent on this issue if the major players, china india, the USA arent involved in the Kyoto protocol and its scammy ways.
we shouldnt be leading this, how can we we (as I said) could go to ZERO % and the planet wouldnt notice nor would anyone else.
Its pointless, so what are we paying $150 a year for exactly ??? (due to rise to double that in 2013)

[Spearfish]

Yes of course


Nope we need to find other ways of creating energy


Yes reduction of energy use is a good thing


I think Governments via legislation and various mandates is fine as far as a usefull tool to encourage reduction, I dont see it as necessary at all to tax people further, especially when it actually isnt working (TV3 news this morning even noted that we are not meeting the bullshit objectives or anywhere near them) and I take (as you might have noticed) particular offence to the FACT that these taxes where introduced under the smoke scree of false science and scare mongering tactics.


I dont, that just means we pay more..........again.

Just to reiterate, NZ contributes just 0.11% towards the total apparent manmade emissions, 0.11% so whats the point of us being so hell bent on this issue if the major players, china india, the USA arent involved in the Kyoto protocol and its scammy ways.
we shouldnt be leading this, how can we we (as I said) could go to ZERO % and the planet wouldnt notice nor would anyone else.
Its pointless, so what are we paying $150 a year for exactly ??? (due to rise to double that in 2013)

You missed the point of our ETS!!!!
It not about cutting emissions if it was we would have the $2500 bulshit version the darkgreens and pinkos were advocating just before they were tipped out.
We sell shit to countries who are insane with eco this and save the planet that so we have to be seen to be doing what is right by their standards. All it would take is for a competitor of a NZ product to point the bony finger and say our products are to carbon expensive and we would be rogered up our exhaust pipes. To our customers it would be socially irresponsible to support destroying the planet.


As the world motto goes...

Keeping it green keeps the customers keen even if an ETS is a financial kick in the spleen.
(I do wonder though just how big bike mufflers can get before its ridiculous)

Repeat that 1000 times every hour while facing magnetic north until you loose any trace of independent thought.

[Quasievil]

You missed the point of our ETS!!!!
It not about cutting emissions if it was we would have the $2500 bulshit version the darkgreens and pinkos were advocating just before they were tipped out.
We sell shit to countries who are insane with eco this and save the planet that so we have to be seen to be doing what is right by their standards. All it would take is for a competitor of a NZ product to point the bony finger and say our products are to carbon expensive and we would be rogered up our exhaust pipes. To our customers it would be socially irresponsible to support destroying the planet.


As the world motto goes...

Keeping it green keeps the customers keen even if an ETS is a financial kick in the spleen.
(I do wonder though just how big bike mufflers can get before its ridiculous)

Repeat that 1000 times every hour while facing magnetic north until you loose any trace of independent thought.

That is the best challenging post yet in this entire thread, nice, let one think that over a bit.:yes:

[Deano]

ISO14001 is a sufficient and appropriate standard for reducing pollution, and some foreign companies also use it as a criteria for buying our products. No certification, no buy.

Why doesn't the govt make certification under ISO14001 mandatory, particluarly for large companies ?

There's no good/bad science to worry about. Still compliance costs which would be passed to the consumer, but at least the results are measurable and tangible.

[Banditbandit]

We sell shit to countries who are insane with eco this and save the planet that so we have to be seen to be doing what is right by their standards. All it would take is for a competitor of a NZ product to point the bony finger and say our products are to carbon expensive and we would be rogered up our exhaust pipes. To our customers it would be socially irresponsible to support destroying the planet.




This is true. Some countries are already counting the carbon credits to ship our goods to market - by far the highest inthe world when we ship to Europe ... by sea or by air.

Maybe we should be looking at reducing the carbon outputs of shippping - we need it more than anyone. If we developed some wind-powered ships we could create a boat building industry and have plenty of jobs ... we already lead the world in racing sail power why not bulk shipping sail power?


ISO14001 is a sufficient and appropriate standard for reducing pollution, and some foreign companies also use it as a criteria for buying our products. No certification, no buy.

Why doesn't the govt make certification under ISO14001 mandatory, particluarly for large companies ?



And the business community i.e. National's buddies, would scream about Government interference in business.

[Quasievil]

You missed the point of our ETS!!!!
It not about cutting emissions if it was we would have the $2500 bulshit version the darkgreens and pinkos were advocating just before they were tipped out.
We sell shit to countries who are insane with eco this and save the planet that so we have to be seen to be doing what is right by their standards. All it would take is for a competitor of a NZ product to point the bony finger and say our products are to carbon expensive and we would be rogered up our exhaust pipes. To our customers it would be socially irresponsible to support destroying the planet.


As the world motto goes...

Keeping it green keeps the customers keen even if an ETS is a financial kick in the spleen.
(I do wonder though just how big bike mufflers can get before its ridiculous)

Repeat that 1000 times every hour while facing magnetic north until you loose any trace of independent thought.

Thanks Spearfish for that challenging post, I thought about it a bit ad have come to the thinking that this argument, and now situation, on world market competitiveness is a valid one, however this more so is a testimony as to the depth that this crazyness has gone and (I know Im using this word alot but to say it again in the descriptive sense) the "scam" has enabled this scenario to now become a reality of commerce.
It is a reality and youre correct I believe, but as I say this reality is a by product we suffer under this scam.

thats my thoughts on it

[Spearfish]

Thanks Spearfish for that challenging post, I thought about it a bit ad have come to the thinking that this argument, and now situation, on world market competitiveness is a valid one, however this more so is a testimony as to the depth that this crazyness has gone and (I know Im using this word alot but to say it again in the descriptive sense) the "scam" has enabled this scenario to now become a reality of commerce.
It is a reality and youre correct I believe, but as I say this reality is a by product we suffer under this scam.

thats my thoughts on it

Your not wrong, that's why is easier just to repeat the mantra until your spleen stops hurting.

Your thinking way to much.

[Banditbandit]

the "scam" has enabled this scenario to now become a reality of commerce.


So let's see it as an opportunity - if the world has been scammed into accepting climate change and is demanding actiion let's create a boat building industry based on wind power. Plenty of jobs and massive opportunities for a huge income for this country ...

Capitalism at its best - reap huge rewards from a scam .. Damm ... if I was rich I would invest ..

[ducatilover]

So let's see it as an opportunity - if the world has been scammed into accepting climate change and is demanding actiion let's create a boat building industry based on wind power. Plenty of jobs and massive opportunities for a huge income for this country ...

Capitalism at its best - reap huge rewards from a scam .. Damm ... if I was rich I would invest ..

That's actually an interesting idea.
But how would they tax us for carbon emissions? I'm sure there will be a way to fuck that idea over :facepalm:

[Banditbandit]

That's actually an interesting idea.
But how would they tax us for carbon emissions? I'm sure there will be a way to fuck that idea over :facepalm:

Naaa .. see by reducing the carbon fuel based shipping out of Godzone we'd be earning carbon credits which we could then sell overseas .. making a profit from selling the wind-powered ship AND from selling carbon credits ...

And there would be a reduction in carbon production as well .. a win-win all round .. isn't capitalism wonderful

[avgas]

Lower Hutt city Council do a similar thing with gas from the Silverstream landfill. That gas is burned to generate electricity.
However according to Wiki burning methane produces heat, water and CO2
"CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l) (ΔH = −891 kJ/mol (at standard conditions))
where bracketed "g" stands for gaseous form and bracketed "l" stands for liquid form."
Do the councils then tax themselves for their emissions?
Yes they will have to register to pay tax on their emissions.
The fact that they use rubbish methane does not mean they escape the tax. Just that they have a free supply of fuel for it.
However if they don't register for emissions credits........mums the word.

Starting to see the holes in this scheme yet?

[avgas]

Yes reduction of energy use is a good thing
Raises a good point. How come we are not taxing consumption?
Taxing emissions is like taxing the poor harder than the rich.
Makes no sense.

No wonder India and China are out.

[Spearfish]

Naaa .. see by reducing the carbon fuel based shipping out of Godzone we'd be earning carbon credits which we could then sell overseas .. making a profit from selling the wind-powered ship AND from selling carbon credits ...

And there would be a reduction in carbon production as well .. a win-win all round .. isn't capitalism wonderful

I wish the ETS would stop my neighbour tipping engine oil along the back of his/our fence.

No weeds though.

[oneofsix]

I wish the ETS would stop my neighbour tipping engine oil along the back of his/our fence.

No weeds though.

You should fully support and encourage your neighbour. They are returning the oil to the ground and isn't adding to the carbon emissions by causing it to be shipped back to the refinery.

[ducatilover]

Naaa .. see by reducing the carbon fuel based shipping out of Godzone we'd be earning carbon credits which we could then sell overseas .. making a profit from selling the wind-powered ship AND from selling carbon credits ...

And there would be a reduction in carbon production as well .. a win-win all round .. isn't capitalism wonderful

Don't be so bloody positive. We'll have to pay Waterway User Charges and there will be toll booths for boats.

I like your idea though

[avgas]

I wish the ETS would stop my neighbour tipping engine oil along the back of his/our fence.

No weeds though.
Next time he tries it - flick him a light.

[oneofsix]

Next time he tries it - flick him a light.

:no: that will release those nasty carbon creatures.

[Scuba_Steve]

So let's see it as an opportunity - if the world has been scammed into accepting climate change and is demanding actiion let's create a boat building industry based on wind power. Plenty of jobs and massive opportunities for a huge income for this country ...

Capitalism at its best - reap huge rewards from a scam .. Damm ... if I was rich I would invest ..

seems your a bit too late, someones already re-looking at wind power
http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/wind-boat-sets-sail_69.jpg

[avgas]

:no: that will release those nasty carbon creatures.
If you feel bad - don't drive the car, light a fire and ride the motorbike for a week.

Besides burning oil is a common occurrence in daily life. They can't charge for that.
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-5/oil-rig.jpg:facepalm:

[avgas]

[QUOTE=Scuba_Steve;1130121314]seems your a bit too late, someones already re-looking at wind power


And then some
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/04/13/could-huge-solar-blimps-haul-cargo-fast-and-clean-at-30000-feet/

[oneofsix]

If you feel bad - don't drive the car, light a fire and ride the motorbike for a week.

Besides burning oil is a common occurrence in daily life. They can't charge for that.
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-5/oil-rig.jpg:facepalm:

Awl look at all those carbon creatures escaping directly to the atmosphere. Must be lovely and warm on the rig :yes:
Hopefully the bike will be back on the road tonight.
Its winter so of course there is a daily fire of some sort, be it coal, wood, gas or electric.

[Winston001]

Thanks Spearfish for that challenging post, I thought about it a bit ad have come to the thinking that this argument, and now situation, on world market competitiveness is a valid one, however this more so is a testimony as to the depth that this crazyness has gone and (I know Im using this word alot but to say it again in the descriptive sense) the "scam" has enabled this scenario to now become a reality of commerce.
It is a reality and youre correct I believe, but as I say this reality is a by product we suffer under this scam.

thats my thoughts on it

Quasi, you are a decent guy and you are willing to form a point of view.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that politicians all over the world - mainly in the rich countries - have agreed that carbon emissions are a bad thing. Various ETS schemes have been introduced.

Politicians hate new taxes, hate telling the voters about new bills to pay. Corporate business hates the new bills as well and especially hates taxes. Politicians are scared stiff about not being re-elected, and not getting money from business to run their campaigns.

Wouldn't the obvious move be to rubbish carbon trading? Not to have it at all? Think of the votes and money that would attract.

Yet even in NZ which as you say pollutes very little, a National govt (right-wingish, business friendly) has brought in our own ETS.


Why on earth would they do that?

[Winston001]

Oh - and why have the rich countries landed carbon taxes on their citizens? You don't get rich by making life tougher for your own people. In fact they have made life easier for third world competitors. That does not make any sense at all.

[Banditbandit]

seems your a bit too late, someones already re-looking at wind power


I knew it was not an original idea .. but surely we could do better than attaching a parasail to the bow .. How about sails and masts using the technology of our big racing yachts?


And then some
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/04/13/could-huge-solar-blimps-haul-cargo-fast-and-clean-at-30000-feet/

Yeah .. maybe ...

[SPman]

..especially when it actually isnt working
It's not? Most reports I read show it is having an effect..but isn't hitting the big polluters yet because of Nationals massive subsidies

The government released its first Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, tracking progress in the ETS, today. Their conclusion is that the scheme is working well, ........ Forestry emissions - the most direct and immediate way we can control our emissions profile - are down, forest owners having stopped cutting down trees the moment it started costing them money. Energy sector emissions are also down (mostly due to good weather, but in part due to generators prioritising plants which wouldn't cost them money), and investment has been steered towards renewables and away from dirty generation. At the same time, it also highlights the biggest flaw of National's modifications to the ETS: the massive pollution subsidy scheme, which sees emitters rewarded for destroying the environment. National's ETS means subsidies for everyone, from cement-works to capsicum growers. But the biggest beneficiaries are two of our biggest companies: New Zealand Aluminium Smelters and Methanex. Unfortunately, the report doesn't say how much these companies received, and obfuscates its numbers to make it difficult to work out. But it does highlight the scale of subsidies: NZAS gets 4.36 tons of carbon credits for each ton of Aluminium produced, to offset its already generously low electricity costs. And Methanex gets 0.35 tons of carbon for each ton of Methanol. Despite the low latter figure, the company received 9% of all credits allocated to industry - or about 160,000 tons (and that will double after next year)

..introduced under the smoke scree of false science and scare mongering tactics... on which I would sorely disagree - the science is certainly not false...unless the Nats and ACT were involved somewhere...!

The scaremongering is over the top, but, would people actually take any notice if there was none?

[avgas]

It's not? Most reports I read show it is having an effect..but isn't hitting the big polluters yet because of Nationals massive subsidies

on which I would sorely disagree - the science is certainly not false...unless the Nats and ACT were involved somewhere...!

The scaremongering is over the top, but, would people actually take any notice if there was none?
Errr you do know what has happened in the last few years.
It wasn't exactly "productionville - burn the dollar" lately......... We did have that GFC thing......

[slowpoke]

Quasi, you are a decent guy and you are willing to form a point of view.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that politicians all over the world - mainly in the rich countries - have agreed that carbon emissions are a bad thing. Various ETS schemes have been introduced.

Politicians hate new taxes, hate telling the voters about new bills to pay. Corporate business hates the new bills as well and especially hates taxes. Politicians are scared stiff about not being re-elected, and not getting money from business to run their campaigns.

Wouldn't the obvious move be to rubbish carbon trading? Not to have it at all? Think of the votes and money that would attract.

Yet even in NZ which as you say pollutes very little, a National govt (right-wingish, business friendly) has brought in our own ETS.


Why on earth would they do that?

Why would they do that? Because it's a golden opportunity for them. Here we have a whole Climate Change Industry dedicated to justifying it's own existence, coming up with scarier and scarier scenarios that the media just love to use for a headline. Pollies are rubbing their hands together with glee in that they can promote new taxes as "doing the right thing for you and the environment", whilst using the new taxes to balance their budgets in tough economic times. Everyone else is doing the dirty work for them, and given there is no credible Opposition they are in a win-win position.

It's Y2K all over again.

[Quasievil]

It's not? Most reports I read show it is having an effect..but isn't hitting the big polluters yet because of Nationals massive subsidies

on which I would sorely disagree - the science is certainly not false...unless the Nats and ACT were involved somewhere...!

The scaremongering is over the top, but, would people actually take any notice if there was none?

Well there is a MASSIVE quantity of credible information that would argue that SPman.
What I do see tho through your post is the big CHIP sitting on your shoulder in respects of ACT and National, heaven forbid if your beloved labour got in power there intentions where far worse than the nats have established.

Based on their policey ACT would most likely remove the ETS, one of the reasons they will get my Vote this year.

[ducatilover]

And then some
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/04/13/could-huge-solar-blimps-haul-cargo-fast-and-clean-at-30000-feet/

Now, that is cool! The $5m cost is unbelievable too, that's madness at how cheap that could be. The more of them they make = more oil to refine for us instead of those big fat boats.

[SPman]

..heaven forbid if your beloved labour got in power


Actually, I reckon Labour have lost the plot - beloved of mine - no way! I'm a communal anarchist!

When National or ACT show any signs of policies that aren't all about further enriching the already rich to the detriment of everyone else, and looking after society as a whole, as they (well, National), once did, many years past, I may pay them some heed. Until then, I class most of them as dross of the worst order who are worthy of a precisely placed bullet.

[Quasievil]

Actually, I reckon Labour have lost the plot - beloved of mine - no way! I'm a communal anarchist!
.

Can I ask what Party currently lines up with your beliefs now?

who will offer relief to the poor, and why would/ should a party oppress the rich so they can be poor to? how much money classifies someone as rich?

this is dumming down the people to the lowest denominator

[SPman]

Can I ask what Party currently lines up with your beliefs now?

who will offer relief to the poor, and why would/ should a party oppress the rich so they can be poor to? how much money classifies someone as rich?

this is dumming down the people to the lowest denominator
What party - I don't think there is one - some have snippets...I guess it's the usual voting pattern of voting for the MP in the electorate I consider best of the bunch, then looking at the party vote and seeing which, if any have appalled me the least....

You offer relief to the poor, by making society a better and more equitable place to live in, with policies that promote justice, fairness and cohesiveness - not pitting one section of society off against the other and then spitting on them all - you know - utopian ideals that seem to be receding so fast into the distance, we'll not see them in my lifetime...

There is a difference between having the wealthy pay their way and oppressing them. A lot of the rich are already poor - in spirit, outlook and empathy - you don't have to make them poor. If you mean relieve them of some of their wealth, to provide decent health, infrastructure & education to society at large, then I think that is a good enough reason. How much money classifies someone as rich - the very rich don't know - it seems the more they have the more they want - if you've got a million, you want 5, if you've got a 100 mill, then 200 mill is better....and so it goes. I'm not earning a super amount, but I'm quite happy to pay my $25k a year in taxes if it helps towards a more equitable society.
Dumbing down?
If someone makes , say, $500,000 a year and is expected to pay, say $150,000 tax, should you feel sorry for him that he has to live on only $350,000 a year, when the median income is $40,000?
How is that pulling a wealthy person down to the bottom?
I guess it's all about expectations .......and those of the '60's have been well and truly shat upon, to the extent I'd prefer to keep most people away at the end of a big, sharp, pointy stick, whilst never ceasing to be amazed at how truly, deeply, stupefyingly dumb they are!

[scott411]

What party - I don't think there is one - some have snippets...I guess it's the usual voting pattern of voting for the MP in the electorate I consider best of the bunch, then looking at the party vote and seeing which, if any have appalled me the least....

You offer relief to the poor, by making society a better and more equitable place to live in, with policies that promote justice, fairness and cohesiveness - not pitting one section of society off against the other and then spitting on them all - you know - utopian ideals that seem to be receding so fast into the distance, we'll not see them in my lifetime...

There is a difference between having the wealthy pay their way and oppressing them. A lot of the rich are already poor - in spirit, outlook and empathy - you don't have to make them poor. If you mean relieve them of some of their wealth, to provide decent health, infrastructure & education to society at large, then I think that is a good enough reason. How much money classifies someone as rich - the very rich don't know - it seems the more they have the more they want - if you've got a million, you want 5, if you've got a 100 mill, then 200 mill is better....and so it goes. I'm not earning a super amount, but I'm quite happy to pay my $25k a year in taxes if it helps towards a more equitable society.
Dumbing down?
If someone makes , say, $500,000 a year and is expected to pay, say $150,000 tax, should you feel sorry for him that he has to live on only $350,000 a year, when the median income is $40,000?
How is that pulling a wealthy person down to the bottom?
I guess it's all about expectations .......and those of the '60's have been well and truly shat upon, to the extent I'd prefer to keep most people away at the end of a big, sharp, pointy stick, whilst never ceasing to be amazed at how truly, deeply, stupefyingly dumb they are!

nice way to not really answer the question,

you say you are happy to pay $25k for a fair society, i am happy to pay a bit more, but it depends on what you earn, i think 33c in the dollar is a pretty fair amount to pay as a top rate, and i think aligning the company rate, teh trust rate and the top tax rate is a very good idea, i also think the GST system is an extremely fair tax as well, i even think a capaital gains tax is not that bad of an idea, but it is going to be a nightmare in implement, i think that once you start making exemptions to something, it becomes very hard to implement
(and that includes trying to make fresh fruit and veges gst free, it won;t effect the price much, and it will make a fortune for the accountants trying to sort out all the shit that goes with it)

i do not think that working for family's or interest free student loans are a good thing either, I think that teh wefare system is a shambles and needs a huge shakeup as well, helping those who are honestly in need, and not a way of life like it has become for far to much of our population,

[Winston001]

Why would they do that? Because it's a golden opportunity for them. Here we have a whole Climate Change Industry dedicated to justifying it's own existence, coming up with scarier and scarier scenarios that the media just love to use for a headline. Pollies are rubbing their hands together with glee in that they can promote new taxes as "doing the right thing for you and the environment", whilst using the new taxes to balance their budgets in tough economic times.

The "climate change industry" as you term it, is tiny. A few journalists, some commentators, and scientists doing research. Not exactly a scary bunch. Especially when you put them up against the oil, coal, and steel industries which can only be hurt by emission charges.

If there really was some conspiracy of money and power behind carbon trading, don't you think the USA would have been in there boots and all?

And incidentally, governments don't make any significant money from emissions trading. In fact it probably slows economic growth, its unpopular, and a vote loser.

So again: why have politicians all around the world introduced carbon charges/taxes?

[Scuba_Steve]

The "climate change industry" as you term it, is tiny. A few journalists, some commentators, and scientists doing research. Not exactly a scary bunch. Especially when you put them up against the oil, coal, and steel industries which can only be hurt by emission charges.

If there really was some conspiracy of money and power behind carbon trading, don't you think the USA would have been in there boots and all?

And incidentally, governments don't make any significant money from emissions trading. In fact it probably slows economic growth, its unpopular, and a vote loser.

So again: why have politicians all around the world introduced carbon charges/taxes?

Since when have Govt's done anything right??? And if you remember before this scam was signed it was 'sold' on the idea that NZ being "green" would profit from it & of course after it was signed "oh no we're not as "Green" as we thought, it'll actually cost us"
also to note, of these countries in it most don't want to be (at people level), media would hype it to sound like it's a 'popular idea' (like the RWC) but in reality the opposite is true, unfortunately tho they are like NZ & run under a party led dictatorship.

Oh and the Oil industry isn't about to "hurt" by any of this, no less than 2 of them are behind this scam & the rest are just riding the increased profits

[Spearfish]

So again: why have politicians all around the world introduced carbon charges/taxes?

For the same reason celebraties buy a Toyota Prius.

[SPman]

nice way to not really answer the question,
..... and not a way of life like it has become for far to much of our population,
the 5-6% of the population that will be there regardless of the state of the economy....4 mill pop...200k relying on benefits to live - sounds about average.

[Badjelly]

...YET ANOTHER damning piece of scientific FACT...

I realise everyone's moved on from the damning piece of scientific FACT with which Quasi started this thread, but those who are still interested might want to read this...

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/spencer-braswell-2011-proof-that-global-warming-is-exaggerated-or-just-bad-science/

[Badjelly]

I haven't really contributed to the debate on whether the ETS is a good idea, etc, because I don't know much about the subject. (Not talking on subjects you know little about! A new trend on Kiwibiker? Nah, it'll never catch on.) I generally restrict myself to trying to clear up misunderstandings about the science. However I do think it's absolutely clear that the people of the world should be trying to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, because these represent a substantial climate forcing, and this is likely to be a bad thing, possibly a very bad thing. (Spare me your 1.7% of natural emissions, please Quasi. It's irrelevant. Anyone who takes his scientific facts from Ian Wishart seriously needs to adjust his credibility meter.)

Anyway, I do wonder if a carbon tax would be a better idea than a trading scheme. I seem to recall that Labour proposed to introduce one a few elections ago but were blocked by their coalition partner, Peter Dunne. At that time all the opponents were saying that a trading scheme would be much better than a tax. Odd.

[Scuba_Steve]

I haven't really contributed to the debate on whether the ETS is a good idea, etc, because I don't know much about the subject. (Not talking on subjects you know little about! A new trend on Kiwibiker? Nah, it'll never catch on.) I generally restrict myself to trying to clear up misunderstandings about the science. However I do think it's absolutely clear that the people of the world should be trying to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, because these represent a substantial climate forcing, and this is likely to be a bad thing, possibly a very bad thing. (Spare me your 1.7% of natural emissions, please Quasi. It's irrelevant. Anyone who takes his scientific facts from Ian Wishart seriously needs to adjust his judgements about credibility.)

Anyway, I do wonder if a carbon tax would be a better idea than a trading scheme. I seem to recall that Labour proposed to introduce one a few elections ago but were blocked by their coalition partner, Peter Dunne. At that time all the opponents were saying that a trading scheme would be much better than a tax. Odd.

weither its tax or trading they're both bad ideas especially for something unproven and effectively a fairy tale. I want to see a shutdown on pollution but with all this carbon BS going on no-one cares about REAL problems, there are a few "greenies" tacked onto this carbon scam that ignorantly believe it'll stop pollution neglecting the fact so far all it's done is cost everyone more & created more pollution.

[SPman]

weither its tax or trading they're both bad ideas especially for something unproven and effectively a fairy tale. Don't read very widely, then, eh!.......
Don't really care about carbon taxes or ETC schemes - if people need to be beaten into accepting stuff, it's not worth it and they can stew in their own crap if that's what they want, just spare me from people who refuse to comprehend or acknowledge the real science and observations out there.....and I don't mean the stuff sponsored by the Koch brothers and big business and espoused by the likes of Monckton, et al.!

[Quasievil]

Don't read very widely, then, eh!.......
Don't really care about carbon taxes or ETC schemes - if people need to be beaten into accepting stuff, it's not worth it and they can stew in their own crap if that's what they want, just spare me from people who refuse to comprehend or acknowledge the real science and observations out there.....and I don't mean the stuff sponsored by the Koch brothers and big business and espoused by the likes of Monckton, et al.!

I dont think you are reading Spman.
it isnt real science, its full of B.S open your mind a bit

And you dont care if your conned into paying taxes based on Lies?

I do, alot

no one is saying they encourage pollution are they?

[Usarka]

This topic always amuses me. The scienctific approach that concludes that the rate of global warming is due to man-made emissions is exactly the same scientific approach that they use with everything else that people accept as scientific fact on a daily basis.

The last time so many people doubted the general scientific consensus in such great numbers was when they said the earth wasn't the centre of the universe.

[Winston001]

.

....was when they said the earth wasn't the centre of the universe.


SAY WHUT??

When did that happen? Dang. I need to get out more.

[Winston001]

...open your mind a bit

And you dont care if your conned into paying taxes based on Lies?

I do, alot

no one is saying they encourage pollution are they?

Quasi - seriously. Smog is comprised of carbon particulates. It comes from industries pouring smoke out of chimneys and from automobiles. Its poisonous. To people plants soil and water.

Somehow we have to get smog reduced. Carbon trading (which is not tax) and emissions trading is the method being used. It may be clumsy, it may be inefficent, it may appear too subtle....but what else would you suggest??

Incidentally FYI check out the South Asia Plume. I've seen it. Its real.

[Badjelly]

Winston001 there's a big difference between visible smog produced by burning coal and the carbon dioxide emissions. The smog consists of soot (unburned carbon) and sulphur oxides, which eventually get turned into ammonium sulphate. The soot is black and the ammonium sulphate is white. The soot is produced by incomplete combustion and the sulphur oxides by combustion of the sulphurous fraction of the fuel. Both the soot and the sulphur oxides can be reduced a great deal by improvements to the plant that's burning the coal, without a big reduction in output or huge expense

Carbon dioxide is produced even when the coal is burned cleanly, unless you adopt very expensive carbon capture technology. Or burn less coal.

The emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes being introduced in various places are intended to reduce or limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They may reduce smog, but that's somewhat incidental and if you want to reduce smog and don't care about greenhouse gases then reduction of greenhouse gas emissions isn't the smart way to go about it.

[jonbuoy]

No one will really know/accept the man made/natural cycle until its too late. Both sides can search around on the Internet to find the answers they want to hear, bit like reading six different weather forecasts until you find the one that fits in with your plans for the weekend. One thing is for sure we have to cut down on all kinds of pollution and burning of fossil fuels if we want to survive long term. Any one suggest a better idea to cut down on emission's other than a taxation/compensation? Asking nicely won´t cut it.

[Scuba_Steve]

No one will really know/accept the man made/natural cycle until its too late. Both sides can search around on the Internet to find the answers they want to hear, bit like reading six different weather forecasts until you find the one that fits in with your plans for the weekend. One thing is for sure we have to cut down on all kinds of pollution and burning of fossil fuels if we want to survive long term. Any one suggest a better idea to cut down on emission's other than a taxation/compensation? Asking nicely won´t cut it.

Something that would work rather than just driving up price & profit is a 'grace period' to sort out pollution (NOT "carbon" REAL pollution) if they fail to meet that 'grace period' shut them down until it's up-to standard. The 'grace period' would be of adequate time to resolve the problems & the deadline would be absolute no "we've started we just need to". Then it'll hurt the polluter rather than the end user & they would do something about it FAST.

The reason it's not run that way? BP, Shell, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Al Gore etc wouldn't be making the billions they are of the current scam

[SPman]

I dont think you are reading Spman.
45 yrs of varied scientific reading and, over the last 10 years an average core of 10-15 diverse websites of varying degrees of plausibility, coherence, stupidity, insightfulness, etc


it isnt real science, its full of B.S open your mind a bit - Que - science isn't real science? My mind's so open stuff keeps falling out.

And you dont care if your conned into paying taxes based on Lies? - I don't consider it based on lies and have sympathy with the premises on which they are based, I do however, consider a lot of the structuring based on cons!

I do, alot - I used to - now I don't worry about it...you'd go mad!

no one is saying they encourage pollution are they? - taken at face value, from many it can be easily implied.........

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa36/JonL_photo/Stuff/bullshit.jpg

Sorry - just wanted to see if it worked

[Quasievil]

Historically (450,000 years) higher Temperatures increased Carbon, now all of a sudden the reverse is apparently true................give me a break.

[Usarka]

The earth is warming. But the only way they can get the scientific models to come up with the current rate of warming is by factoring man-made emmissions.

Scientists used maths and modeling to find Neptune when no one could see it. Come on give me a break it can't be there.

I concur with someone earlier in the thread. What's more likely; a conspiracy of lies from scientists, or from oil companies and those with a vested interest in the status quo?

[Quasievil]

What's more likely; a conspiracy of lies from scientists, or from oil companies and those with a vested interest in the status quo?

Based on the incorrect manipulations from the IPCC I would say without question the scientists who have been played by the governments

[Usarka]

http://static.railbirds.com/gallery/2009/03/25397caution__tin_foil_hat.png

[Quasievil]

http://static.railbirds.com/gallery/2009/03/25397caution__tin_foil_hat.png

Is that all you got to reinforce what you said?

[Quasievil]

The 35 significant pieces of bullshit that featured in Al Gores BS movie the inconvieniant truth.

Worthy of Note that in England it is illegal to show this movie as part of the curriculum as it was deemed by the court of England to be untrue in many respects.
This was a significant legal battle.
Note also, in Australia it is within the school curriculum not once not twice but 4 times !

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Have a read.

[Usarka]

Is that all you got to reinforce what you said?

Quasi, I'm sure you've posted on here mocking people who post conspiracy theories. Yet here you are saying that the vast majority of scientists in the world have been duped by all the governments in the world so that they can implement a tax.

I'm personally open minded about conspiracy theories. I don't usually rule stuff out completely, but apply a "what's most likely" view to such things. But this topic amazes me. Not only is it the one thing that people say science is wrong about, but it also has people who would normally pull out the tin-hat argument themselves saying it's a conspiracy.

The truth is, the vast majority of free-thinking independant scientists agree that man-made emissions are greatly accelerating global warming. These same scientists have access to the same information you have. And the general scientific consensus is that global warming is real.

The rational choice to me is very clear. Until there is clear and scientifically accepted (by the majority) evidence to contrary, trust the scienctists and if the scientists are wrong then we've implemented a stupid tax system.



Edit/PS: Anyone can find articles on-line to support their view. Try this one, first one I found. http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

[Quasievil]

[QUOTE=Usarka;1130122937]. Until there is clear and scientifically accepted (by the majority) evidence to contrary, trust the scienctists and if the scientists are wrong then we've implemented a stupid tax system.[QUOTE]

The scientists , who have mostly been discredited partly by there own actions did get it wrong.
And yes we have implemented a stupid tax system in NZ.

I would personally rather have the "stupid Tax" system utilised based on undeniable factual data, not the other way around, but thats just me I guess.

Will read your article now, I may have already done so however :yes:

[Quasievil]

Edit/PS: Anyone can find articles on-line to support their view. Try this one, first one I found. http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Okay thanks got it, global warming is occuring and its manmade, rightio

so did the global warming occur in the era of the dinosours?

Back in those days the CO2 levels where 7000 parts per million, in 2005AD they are 379ppm
where was man in the paleozoic era?

pre industrial times they where 280ppm, yes they have climbed to 379ppm.

here is the point, if they apparently going to cause chaos from climbing 280ppm to 379ppm imagine how HOT the earth must have been with 7000ppm blasting around our atmosphere !!
BUT despite them leaping from 5000ppm to 7000ppm 650 million years ago there was NO CORRESPONDING CHANGE IN THE EARTHS TEMPERATURE.

CO2 does not drive higher temperatures FACT it never has in the history of the planet.

Around 480 million years ago CO2 dropped from 7000ppm to 4000ppm over 100 million years, and the temp stayed at 22c, something strange then happened CO2 level rose from 4000ppm to 4500ppm and the temps plummeted down to 12 c

So much for the global warming theory.

So then we had 4500ppm now we have 379ppm less than a tenth and the average temp is comparable to today.
So with this being so LOW what impacts are we going to have on this again ???
NONE, this CO2 global warming scenario is a scam.:yes:

ref, Yale Study, GEOCARB III, a revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time, Robert A Berner and Zavareth Kothavala, dept of geology and physics. Published in American Journal of science 2001.

(and I didnt copy and paste any of that above either, its from my own research)

[Winston001]

Scientists used maths and modeling to find Neptune when no one could see it.

And Einstein correctly used general relativity to explain why Mercury appears early from its orbit behind the Sun. Perihelion precession. Until then, noone could understand why.


I concur with someone earlier in the thread. What's more likely; a conspiracy of lies from scientists, or from oil companies and those with a vested interest in the status quo?

Occam's Razor.

[bogan]

Okay thanks got it, global warming is occuring and its manmade, rightio

so did the global warming occur in the era of the dinosours?

Back in those days the CO2 levels where 7000 parts per million, in 2005AD they are 379ppm
where was man in the paleozoic era?

pre industrial times they where 280ppm, yes they have climbed to 379ppm.

It would be foolish to assume that CO2 levels are the only factor. With a topic so open to interpretation and corruption, all I reckon we know, is that we don't know yet.

[Winston001]

Good on you Quasi for doing the reading. Its a complex subject.

There are answers to the points you make but I'll leave it to others. Plus I don't think we have the time or space here to clear up some misconceptions.

You earlier referred to carbon concentrations 450,000 years ago. In fact that is but a blink of the eye in geologic terms. For much of the Earths 4.6 billion years there was a harsh reducing atmosphere and carbon was locked up. It was the evolution of cyanobacteria 2.2 billion years ago which began the carbon age.

The point is, our atmosphere is a delicate balance reached at this moment in time. We thrive in it. But it can change - and we are accidentally helping that to happen.

[Quasievil]

Good on you Quasi for doing the reading. Its a complex subject.

Thanks dude, no one is really giving me a counter argument, more so just ramblings it seems.


There are answers to the points you make but I'll leave it to others. Plus I don't think we have the time or space here to clear up some misconceptions.

Go on, how else can I learn about the "other side"


You earlier referred to carbon concentrations 450,000 years ago. In fact that is but a blink of the eye in geologic terms.

Yes it was like yesterday in earth terms, but that works in my argument, not yours.
those facts I mentioned still stand I think

[Badjelly]

Thanks dude, no one is really giving me a counter argument, more so just ramblings it seems.

OK, here's one: the fact that higher atmospheric CO2 causes temperatures to increase in no way contradicts the fact that higher temperature causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. There are different time scales for the two (decades to centuries for the former, centuries to millenia for the latter) but they are in no way shape or form inconsistent with each other and they both need to be true to explain the ice ages.

When you've got that one, perhaps we can move on.

[Usarka]

Thanks dude, no one is really giving me a counter argument, more so just ramblings it seems.


Simple answer is I'm not qualified (or interested) to argue the details.

My point is that scientists can tell you this, and the vast majority of them agree. The earth is naturally warming but the rate that it is warming cannot be explained without factoring in man-made emissions.

[Quasievil]

OK, here's one: the fact that higher atmospheric CO2 causes temperatures to increase in no way contradicts the fact that higher temperature causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. There are different time scales for the two (decades to centuries for the former, centuries to millenia for the latter) but they are in no way shape or form inconsistent with each other and they both need to be true to explain the ice ages.

When you've got that one, perhaps we can move on.

Do you have anymore information on that, Im not sure I get the point completely dude.
Happy to learn on your point tho

[Quasievil]

Simple answer is I'm not qualified (or interested) to argue the details.

My point is that scientists can tell you this, and the vast majority of them agree. The earth is naturally warming but the rate that it is warming cannot be explained without factoring in man-made emissions.

Thats the general problem, people are just believing what they are told.

"vast majority of them agree" really who said that cliche

"man made emissions" ? yup your brainwashed dude.

Im about done on this, I dont think any of you are remotely interested in the other arguement, I looked at both in depth and am still looking (thanks badjelly)
and have formed a fact based opinion, to many on here have just bent over and taken what was given, fair enough to I guess, but point of this whole entire thread is

Yes there is Global warming, NO its not man made, so WHY are we being taxed ?

thats it................keep paying people

[Scuba_Steve]

Simple answer is I'm not qualified (or interested) to argue the details.

My point is that scientists can tell you this, and the vast majority of them agree. The earth is naturally warming but the rate that it is warming cannot be explained without factoring in man-made emissions.

Wow that's like saying a "vast majority" of NZer's are looking forward to RWC :facepalm:. And they could explain it without "man-made" they just aint getting paid too

[Winston001]

Winston001 there's a big difference between visible smog produced by burning coal and the carbon dioxide emissions. The smog consists of soot (unburned carbon) and sulphur oxides, which eventually get turned into ammonium sulphate...


The emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes being introduced in various places are intended to reduce or limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They may reduce smog, but that's somewhat incidental and if you want to reduce smog and don't care about greenhouse gases then reduction of greenhouse gas emissions isn't the smart way to go about it.

Yes I know but its simpler to explain emission controls in terms of visible effects. Most people have experienced air and water pollution and agree its a bad thing. Reducing the amount of carbon released becomes understandable for the average person who sees a diesel truck blasting black fumes or a nearby factory pouring smoke out of a chimney.

Talking about the troposphere, nitrous oxide, forcing, acidifcation of the ocean, methane substrates, ice cores etc just loses most people which I can understand. Still, I am often frustrated at the low level of knowledge of basic science.

And that's without going into the different effects of inorganic carbon (eg. CO2) and organic carbon (eg. glucose, protein etc).

[oneofsix]

Yes I know but its simpler to explain emission controls in terms of visible effects. Most people have experienced air and water pollution and agree its a bad thing. Reducing the amount of carbon released becomes understandable for the average person who sees a diesel truck blasting black fumes or a nearby factory pouring smoke out of a chimney.

Talking about the troposphere, nitrous oxide, forcing, acidifcation of the ocean, methane substrates, ice cores etc just loses most people which I can understand. Still, I am often frustrated at the low level of knowledge of basic science.

And that's without going into the different effects of inorganic carbon (eg. CO2) and organic carbon (eg. glucose, protein etc).

yeah love the lie and you wonder why the skepticism. Make the people believe you are cleaning up the pollution caused by sulphur and soot when you are talking about something totally different and aren't going to directly assist this type of pollution or even make it worse.

[avgas]

My point is that scientists can tell you this, and the vast majority of them agree.
A scientist once told me that I would become a nobody. I currently work for a figure twice of his using the same level of science as his.
Difference between me and him, I assume I can be wrong.
Must be an engineering thing.
I wonder what thermo-engineer says about the earth. He probably says we are going to fuck the earth well before it overheats.
Scientists say great stuff like "planet is warming" or "The sun is going to explode" but fail to mention the timeline is wayyyyy offfffff.

[oneofsix]

A scientist once told me that I would become a nobody. I currently work for a figure twice of his using the same level of science as his.
Difference between me and him, I assume I can be wrong.
Must be an engineering thing.
I wonder what thermo-engineer says about the earth. He probably says we are going to fuck the earth well before it overheats.
Scientists say great stuff like "planet is warming" or "The sun is going to explode" but fail to mention the timeline is wayyyyy offfffff.

modern scientists are afraid to disagree with the accepted current theory, engineers take pleasure in pointing out the errors in another engineer's idea :woohoo:

[Scuba_Steve]

engineers take pleasure in pointing out the errors in another engineer's idea :woohoo:

& saying "engineering" "Affirmative" ... I learnt that from C&C :innocent::laugh:

[carver]

Sooo...Quasi, you like air pollution? Dirty rivers lakes and seas? Poisoned soil?

Because the pollutants have lots of carbon molecules. Where do you think smog comes from? And what would happen if there was less of it? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

i do if i save a buck doing it!

[jonbuoy]

Thats the general problem, people are just believing what they are told.

"vast majority of them agree" really who said that cliche

"man made emissions" ? yup your brainwashed dude.

Im about done on this, I dont think any of you are remotely interested in the other arguement, I looked at both in depth and am still looking (thanks badjelly)
and have formed a fact based opinion, to many on here have just bent over and taken what was given, fair enough to I guess, but point of this whole entire thread is

Yes there is Global warming, NO its not man made, so WHY are we being taxed ?

thats it................keep paying people

I don´t know how you can be so sure its not man made when so many scientists are in disagreement. This whole thread is just regurgitating select facts from the internet were not even remotely qualified to understand. New Zealand carbon emissions aren´t the problem so I can understand why no one in NZ wants to pay the tax, Europe China and America are a different story.

[carver]

Hang about - what have I said ??? I simply question Quasi's objectiveness as he works for an oil company ... much as he questioned Clarke and Fitzsimmons' stands because they owned shares in a Green company ..

yeah, fuck quasi, he can burn in hell!

Who is with me????

[Quasievil]

yeah, fuck quasi, he can burn in hell!

Who is with me????

Yeah I reckon and all you can come with me oil burning fuckers !!
youre the problem im just satisfy your cravings :yes:

[carver]

Yeah I reckon and all you can come with me oil burning fuckers !!
youre the problem im just satisfy your cravings :yes:

your not satisfying my cravings

[Quasievil]

your not satisfying my cravings

Sorry I will never be gay

[mstriumph]

I don´t know how you can be so sure its not man made when so many scientists are in disagreement. This whole thread is just regurgitating select facts from the internet were not even remotely qualified to understand. New Zealand carbon emissions aren´t the problem so I can understand why no one in NZ wants to pay the tax, Europe China and America are a different story.

what bothers me is that there seems to be no middle ground in this debate and EVERYONE on BOTH sides of the argument seem to be having such a good time slinging so called facts and statistics at each other that nothing seems to be getting done.

me? I know the climate appears to be changing and i'm totally prepared to believe that humankind is playing a part in it. i don't know precisely how great a part that is and i'm fairly certain no-one else does either ... leaving it to be a rubbery statistic open to exaggeration or otherwise, dependent on the viewpoint of whoever is speaking at any given time.

my point? who CARES who's most responsible and to what extent? Irrespective of the size of our particular contribution, the planet would benefit if we reduced it.

we won't reduce it with knee jerk reactions like julia stupid bitch's australian carbon tax (tax the polluters who pass on the tax in costs to consumers who stupid bitch then compensates out of the proceeds of the tax with a large percentage of the proceeds sticking to the fingers of the additional bureaucrats she's putting in place to administer the cynical political money-go-round)

we MAY reduce it or at least slow it down by putting in place simple, cost-effective commonsense measures right now.

i listed a few here then deleted them because i'm sure that you can think of just as many as i can, some more viable than others, and i don't want to start yet another arguement :facepalm:

we need to stop arguing and start thinking, researching and acting - now.

think about the children! :violin:

[Badjelly]

For what it's worth, I don't think Quasi holds the opinions he does on global warming (comprehensively wrong as they are) because of his job.

Just as an aside to the main thread of the discussion (whatever that is), I often wonder why people like Quasi and my brother-in-law can be so sure and so wrong. Well, now there's a scientific explanation in an article in the journal of Global Environmental Change, called "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". It's at this link (but I don't know if you can see it because we scientists don't like the hoi polloi reading our stuff):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X

To quote

Yet, this pattern—where conservative white males are more confident in their knowledge of climate change than are other adults, even as their beliefs conflict with the scientific consensus—is consistent with our expectation that identity-protective cognition and system-justifying tendencies are especially strong within conservative white males. Such processes, we argue, lead them to reject information from out-groups (e.g., liberals and environmentalists) they see as threatening the economic system, and such tendencies provoke strong emotional and psychic investment, easily translating into (over)confidence in beliefs.
Yep, that sounds right to me. (And as I'm a white male myself, if it sounds right to me, it must be true.)

Quasi, I'll get back to you on the temperature-changes-CO2-changes-temperature thing when I get a chance.

[Cheshire Cat]

I think you're very ignorant if you think this "global warming" is real.

[oneofsix]

Just as an aside to the main thread of the discussion (whatever that is), I often wonder why people like Quasi and my brother-in-law can be so sure and so wrong. Well, now there's a scientific explanation in an article in the journal of Global Environmental Change, called "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". It's at this link (but I don't know if you can see it because we scientists don't like the hoi polloi reading our stuff):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X

To quote

Yet, this pattern—where conservative white males are more confident in their knowledge of climate change than are other adults, even as their beliefs conflict with the scientific consensus—is consistent with our expectation that identity-protective cognition and system-justifying tendencies are especially strong within conservative white males. Such processes, we argue, lead them to reject information from out-groups (e.g., liberals and environmentalists) they see as threatening the economic system, and such tendencies provoke strong emotional and psychic investment, easily translating into (over)confidence in beliefs.
Yep, that sounds right to me. (And as I'm a white male myself, if it sounds right to me, it must be true.)

Quasi, I'll get back to you on the temperature-changes-CO2-changes-temperature thing when I get a chance.

alternatively they tend to be better educated and can remember all those lessons where the scientific consensus got it wrong. Also they can remember this "climate crisis" being pushed by the liberals and environmentalists for so long ago that marijuana was still legal.

[Scuba_Steve]

Just as an aside to the main thread of the discussion (whatever that is), I often wonder why people like Quasi and my brother-in-law can be so sure and so wrong. Well, now there's a scientific explanation in an article in the journal of Global Environmental Change, called "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". It's at this link (but I don't know if you can see it because we scientists don't like the hoi polloi reading our stuff):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X

To quote

Yet, this pattern—where conservative white males are more confident in their knowledge of climate change than are other adults, even as their beliefs conflict with the scientific consensus—is consistent with our expectation that identity-protective cognition and system-justifying tendencies are especially strong within conservative white males. Such processes, we argue, lead them to reject information from out-groups (e.g., liberals and environmentalists) they see as threatening the economic system, and such tendencies provoke strong emotional and psychic investment, easily translating into (over)confidence in beliefs.
Yep, that sounds right to me. (And as I'm a white male myself, if it sounds right to me, it must be true.)

Quasi, I'll get back to you on the temperature-changes-CO2-changes-temperature thing when I get a chance.

That to me just sounds like they're trying to "belittle" any opposition, which usually people do when they know they're argument is wrong but they still want to win. Next they'll start on the straight-up personal attacks of the opposition.

[avgas]

modern scientists are afraid to disagree with the accepted current theory, engineers take pleasure in pointing out the errors in another engineer's idea :woohoo:
Yep sad truth there.
Makes me feel sad for the scientists out there that do think that all is not right.

[Badjelly]

...Next they'll start on the straight-up personal attacks of the opposition.

:innocent:

[SPman]

That to me just sounds like they're trying to "belittle" any opposition, which usually people do when they know they're argument is wrong but they still want to win. Next they'll start on the straight-up personal attacks of the opposition.Just like the deniers..........

[bogan]

That to me just sounds like they're trying to "belittle" any opposition, which usually people do when they know they're argument is wrong but they still want to win. Next they'll start on the straight-up personal attacks of the opposition.

Not sure if you guys can see the article (Massey has a subscription so I can), but a skim doesn't show that the author claims that they are wrong, just that they deny man made global warming.
Badjelly would have been better to say that 'they can be so sure, while being of a different opinion to so many'.

[oneofsix]

Just like the deniers..........

If the "deniers" (what a belittling term btw) make you feel belittled perhaps the fault is the believers argument.
I'm skeptical.

[Badjelly]

Badjelly would have been better to say that 'they can be so sure, while being of a different opinion to so many'.

I wasn't discussing the paper at that point in my post, just providing background leading up to it. What I wonder about Quasi and my brother-in-law actually is how they can be so sure and so wrong.

[oneofsix]

I wasn't discussing the paper at that point in my post, just providing background leading up to it. What I wonder about Quasi and my brother-in-law actually is how they can be so sure and so wrong.

because they are not :shutup::innocent:

[SPman]

Unfortunately, the "climate change" "debate" seems to have become like the evolution/creation "debate" - entrenched sides and points of view and "facts" becoming a tradeable,debateable or bashable commodity.......

I think you're very ignorant if you think this "global warming" is real. - so ..ocean warming, ocean acidification and glacial melt isn't happening, either? Global warming is contextual - it refers to a human point of reference where human habitation has taken a particular generally comfortable climatic regime as a "standard" reference point, and the climate is now starting to stray, upwards, out of that "comfort zone". Quoting different climates at different epochs is meaningless in that there was then,as far as we know, no human society around. What is relevant is what the climate is doing now, and how it is going to affect human society - and to deny there is a shift going on and that nothing untoward is happening, in particular with respect to it's effects on human habitation of this planet is foolhardy and extremely short sighted!
I think you're ignorant if you think it isn't!

[bogan]

Unfortunately, the "climate change" "debate" seems to have become like the evolution/creation "debate" - entrenched sides and points of view and "facts" becoming a tradeable,debateable or bashable commodity.......

Except in this case, one side should be able to prove their claims. Pity those who would look at the problem objectively, are vastly outweighed by those obscuring results for their own ends.

[SPman]

I wasn't discussing the paper at that point in my post, just providing background leading up to it. What I wonder about Quasi and my brother-in-law actually is how they can be so sure and so wrong.

because they are not :shutup::innocent:

Just like the financial "wizards" who looted the worlds economies and brought about the latest recessions - paid for, as usual, by the general populations. They are still saying they are right and everyone else is deluded!
But - their bank accounts are very fine, thank you very much!

[Badjelly]

Except in this case, one side should be able to prove their claims. Pity those who would look at the problem objectively, are vastly outweighed by those obscuring results for their own ends.

Outshouted, certainly.

[Cheshire Cat]

Unfortunately, the "climate change" "debate" seems to have become like the evolution/creation "debate" - entrenched sides and points of view and "facts" becoming a tradeable,debateable or bashable commodity.......
- so ..ocean warming, ocean acidification and glacial melt isn't happening, either? Global warming is contextual - it refers to a human point of reference where human habitation has taken a particular generally comfortable climatic regime as a "standard" reference point, and the climate is now starting to stray, upwards, out of that "comfort zone". Quoting different climates at different epochs is meaningless in that there was then,as far as we know, no human society around. What is relevant is what the climate is doing now, and how it is going to affect human society - and to deny there is a shift going on and that nothing untoward is happening, in particular with respect to it's effects on human habitation of this planet is foolhardy and extremely short sighted!
I thinl you're ignorant if you think it isn't!

here we go. another dictionary quoter. jog on.


bite me

[Badjelly]

here we go. another dictionary quoter. jog on. bite me

The cogency of your argument impresses me, sir!

[Winston001]

modern scientists are afraid to disagree with the accepted current theory, engineers take pleasure in pointing out the errors in another engineer's idea :woohoo:

Can't let this pass. Rubbish.

Scientists are hypercritical of each other and continually question everything. Its in their nature and is a core requirement of research.

The only reason a debate on Anthropomorphic Global Warming exists is because a few scientists question the evidence. If all scientists agreed, there would be no argument.

[Cheshire Cat]

The cogency of your argument impresses me, sir!

your dictionary reading skills impresses me :)

[avgas]

Can't let this pass. Rubbish.

Scientists are hypercritical of each other and continually question everything. Its in their nature and is a core requirement of research.

The only reason a debate on Anthropomorphic Global Warming exists is because a few scientists question the evidence. If all scientists agreed, there would be no argument.
While I agree with most of what you have said.........there are a few elements in this I am not 100% with.
At the CORE of most scientists work is actually to prove an already existing theory. Not challenge it. Fact of the matter many of the scientists whom challenged the norm were shunned by the scientific community. It still shocks me that to this day not a single science class in the world teaches the findings of Lorenz or Mandelbrot.......truth be told many science graduates still don't know who these 2 are - yet most of the computer equipment we use is based off their work. There are probably countless others out there that have suffered the same fate due to their not being consensus within the ranks of the science community.

Thank goodness some decided to speak up in regards to Global warming. Or else it would have been proved or disproved years ago. Either way we would have lost something.

[Winston001]

While I agree with most of what you have said.........there are a few elements in this I am not 100% with.
At the CORE of most scientists work is actually to prove an already existing theory. Not challenge it.

Fact of the matter many of the scientists whom challenged the norm were shunned by the scientific community.

Fair enough, we just have to disagree. :D The scientists I know burrow deeper into cells and molecules to gain knowledge from which theories can be deduced. Genetics, oceanography, pharmaceuticals. I don't know anyone whose work is purely to prove existing theories: test theories yes but thats quite different.



It still shocks me that to this day not a single science class in the world teaches the findings of Lorenz or Mandelbrot.......truth be told many science graduates still don't know who these 2 are - yet most of the computer equipment we use is based off their work.


Chaos Theory? Thats pretty high level stuff which I'd have thought applied say to the origins of genetic codes. Higher mathematics. Computing as you say. Fairly rarified for the average science student. But hey - I could be completely wrong.

[avgas]

Chaos Theory? Thats pretty high level stuff which I'd have thought applied say to the origins of genetic codes. Higher mathematics. Computing as you say. Fairly rarified for the average science student. But hey - I could be completely wrong.
Their theories have been used from every thing from genetics to human behavior. The computing is the easy one.

I think it was Mandelbrot who actually found out that if you zoom from a map to standing on the coast of an island that the pattern repeats.

A snowflake is a good example of a natural Mandelbrot fractal. But if you look around you will find a few million of them around you.

Lorenz stuff is similar - basically he found that all those lovely things scientists call "errors" are actually important data. If you plot these bits of information out you soon see there is a pattern with the errors. Which means you can then start to predict, unpredictable unstable systems. Kinda vital to the whole Global warming argument considering before this stuff was figured out we were crap at predicting even the weather......let alone if the planet was warming.

How the average science student can work without this level of mathematics is kinda scary. But its not in any syllabus. And their seniors are the same people who shunned these 2 gentlemen out of public view.

They are the same people whom say the planet is warming/cooling. They do this with limited knowledge, their own theory and bend the stats to prove it.
They refuse to acknowledge the simple truth........they don't know.
That is the scariest part of the whole argument - how much do we hedge bets that they are right? If they don't know???

[Badjelly]

I think it was Mandelbrot who actually found out that if you zoom from a map to standing on the coast of an island that the pattern repeats.

Lorenz stuff is similar - basically he found that all those lovely things scientists call "errors" are actually important data.

How the average science student can work without this level of mathematics is kinda scary. But its not in any syllabus. And their seniors are the same people who shunned these 2 gentlemen out of public view.

They are the same people whom say the planet is warming/cooling. They do this with limited knowledge, their own theory and bend the stats to prove it.

Bollocks. Mandelbrot and Lorenz are very well known to any atmospheric scientist. They haven't been shunned. There were lots of popular articles about Mandelbrot a while back, coffee table books of the Mandelbrot set even, and you would be hard pressed to find a climate modeller who wouldn't know what a fractal or a Lyapunov exponent was. It's been known for decades that chaos imposes a limit on the period over which you can forecast the weather; weather prediction models are routinely run in ensemble mode (running the model several times with small perturbations to see how the members of the ensemble deviate from each other) to estimate the size of this effect.

[Badjelly]

The cogency of your argument impresses me, sir!


your dictionary reading skills impresses me :)

Though my irony may have escaped you ;)

[avgas]

Bollocks. Mandelbrot and Lorenz are very well known to any atmospheric scientist. They haven't been shunned. There were lots of popular articles about Mandelbrot a while back, coffee table books of the Mandelbrot set even, and you would be hard pressed to find a climate modeller who wouldn't know what a fractal or a Lyapunov exponent was. It's been known for decades that chaos imposes a limit on the period over which you can forecast the weather; weather prediction models are routinely run in ensemble mode (running the model several times with small perturbations to see how the members of the ensemble deviate from each other) to estimate the size of this effect.
Then why for every single time they look at global temperature readings do they say "Oh those spikes or dips don't count. They aren't a pattern they are erroneous data". "See its the over all trend that we are showing you"
(Sounds awfully like a sales pitch doesn't it.)

[Cheshire Cat]

Though my irony may have escaped you ;)

I don't iron so thats ok :)

[jonbuoy]

Just like the financial "wizards" who looted the worlds economies and brought about the latest recessions - paid for, as usual, by the general populations. They are still saying they are right and everyone else is deluded!
But - their bank accounts are very fine, thank you very much!

Not all their fault - no one forced the General population to take out the mortgages, unsecured personal car loans and then "consolidated the debts into one easy payment" and ran up more debt spending their next few years wages before they earned them.

[Badjelly]

Then why for every single time they look at global temperature readings do they say "Oh those spikes or dips don't count. They aren't a pattern they are erroneous data". "See its the over all trend that we are showing you." (Sounds awfully like a sales pitch doesn't it.)

The term is usually not "erroneous data", but "noise". And calling it "noise" isn't the same as claiming it doesn't matter. It just depends what you're looking for. It's precisely because of people like Mandelbrot and Lorenz that we understand that the climate system generates largely unpredictable short-term fluctuations. You can see them in time series of global temperature and you can see them in time series of the same quantity simulated by 3D global climate models. Further if you run a global climate model several times with identical forcing but slightly different initial conditions, then each run generates similar-looking fluctuations, but at different times.

People like Steve Goddard don't really understand the concepts here very well (and to be fair they are potentially confusing) so they make claims like

GISS shows no warming over the last decade (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/giss-shows-no-warming-over-the-last-decade/)

but we know that, even if you have a strong underlying trend, you won't be able to measure it accurately from a short period of data, because of the unpredictable fluctuations. And here a guy who calls himself Tamino explains what's wrong with Goddard's claim

Trend and noise (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/trend-and-noise/)

Being a statistician, he calls the fluctuations noise, but what he really means is basically unpredictable fluctuations with an interesting internal structure.

[avgas]

The term is usually not "erroneous data", but "noise". And calling it "noise" isn't the same as claiming it doesn't matter. It just depends what you're looking for. It's precisely because of people like Mandelbrot and Lorenz that we understand that the climate system generates largely unpredictable short-term fluctuations. You can see them in time series of global temperature and you can see them in time series of the same quantity simulated by 3D global climate models. Further if you run a global climate model several times with identical forcing but slightly different initial conditions, then each run generates similar-looking fluctuations, but at different times.

People like Steve Goddard don't really understand the concepts here very well (and to be fair they are potentially confusing) so they make claims like

GISS shows no warming over the last decade (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/giss-shows-no-warming-over-the-last-decade/)

but we know that, even if you have a strong underlying trend, you won't be able to measure it accurately from a short period of data, because of the unpredictable fluctuations. And here a guy who calls himself Tamino explains what's wrong with Goddard's claim

Trend and noise (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/trend-and-noise/)

Being a statistician, he calls the fluctuations noise, but what he really means is basically unpredictable fluctuations with an interesting internal structure.
Heh I loved his part about linear regression analysis.

Is a good reading. But the same punches he pulls against Mr Goddard could be used against him.
His data only goes to 1970's......

I will say it again. They are too scared to say they don't know.........
Also whats with the 5 year "seasonal" change?
If it raises say 0.2 in about 15 years. But in that time it has moved up and down every 5 years. Does this mean there is a 3rd harmonic?

But then again I wouldn't speculate on such things with only 50 years of data. Effectively that is would only be 10 samples. To prove my theory.

Haven't we been recording temperatures for over 100 years now.
Why only use date from the last 50? Why not use ALL the data?

I am not saying global warming is or isn't happening. I am saying that I "I DON'T KNOW". I say it to many things, it doesn't make me any less of a person.
Either way, why are climate scientists so confident?.......Especially when they aren't using all the data available to them?

[Badjelly]

Haven't we been recording temperatures for over 100 years now. Why only use date from the last 50? Why not use ALL the data?

You'll find plots of the last 100 years of global average temperature in many places, with discussions of the factors that may have driven the changes. Tamino, in particular, had a good post a while back in which he analysed this data and found 3 periods, basically warming from 1900-1940, a flatter period from 1940-1975, and a reasonably steady warming since 1975. Pretty standard stuff, but he used statistical techniques to identify the break points. I've had a quick look for the post, but it was a while back and the posts on the site are not well indexed.

As the IPCC reports explain, climate models can reproduce this pattern rather well, with a combination of forcings. To oversimplify, the early warning was generated in large part by an increase in solar output, the flat period by increasing sulphur aerosols and the recent warming by increasing greenhouse gases.

Hang on, here we are:

Anthropogenic Global Cooling (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/antrhopogenic-global-cooling/)

Edit: No, that's not the post with the statistical analysis of the breakpoints.

Re-edit: Here it is

Changes (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/changes/)

[Winston001]

There is a sea level gauge in Hobart which has been there for 300 years. The sea level is rising.


But anyway, Quantum Indeterminacy. http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm (http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/%7Eronald/310/Quanta.htm)