The Great Global Warming Swindle

[ghost]

So who's trying to settle scientific questions by counting scientists now?

And "appears" is the operative word.



The IPCC bureaucracy is not large at all. The contributors to the reports all have day jobs.

Not counting, just listening to arguments for and against the debate at hand.

It "appears" there is no concensus, therefore it appears there is no definative man made global warming....

Now polution is a whole different issue, but lets not digress....

[ghost]

The IPCC bureaucracy is not large at all. The contributors to the reports all have day jobs.

Yeah, their the scientists writing the reports on gobal warming.....$$.... Tui moment

[Quasievil]

You've seen it, you just didn't believe it.

Is that it ? mate for me to pass on my cash to some government run organisation I need way better and conclusive evidence than that

SO we pay tax and everything is okay, lets look at some examples of where we pay tax and it all becomes okay

ummmmm

ummmmm

Nope not a bean so how is me paying tax going to change anything at all ?

Particularly when the basis for Co2 Emissions being caused by man is a floored argument and one that isnt proven or the science settled.

[Mikkel]

Anyway I aint seen no evidence to encourage me to part with my hard earned cash yet.

Well, one day you might be presented with very solid evidence - such as a statutory enactment of said tax. Feel free to try and not pay it once it has been ratified

[Badjelly]

There is no consensus to science. There is what is proved and disproved.

It "appears" there is no concensus, therefore it appears there is no definative man made global warming....

Just asking a question here, but can you see a contradiction?

Yeah, their the scientists writing the reports on gobal warming.....$$.... Tui moment

So let's say, hypothetically, that there's some scientific question that turns out to be relevant to the rest of the world, and the policy makers feel they'd like some info on it before they, hypothetically, spend trillions of dollars solving it or, hypothetically, decide to do nothing and see what happens, and maybe leave a bill of even more trillions for the future.

So what's the best course of action. Pay some scientists their rather modest salaries to look into it and write a report? (Yeah scientist do love their expensive toys, but they work for peanuts 'cause they love their job.) Do a poll of anyone who thinks h/she knows something about it? Do a quick survey of blogs, talkback radio and internet forums?

But scientists being scientists they will always say, often quite sincerely, that what they want to study is really important and they might even be biased. So how do you stop the whole process going off the rails? Why, make the fuckers explain exactly why they conclude what they do. Put it all out in the open, let anyone review it. OK, it's a bit hard to judge the contents of a huge technical report. But here's the thing: scientists love being contrary. They love saying Smith & Jones (1994) said this but we (scientists always say "we" even when there's only one) say something else. There's nothing to raise the reputation of a budding scientist as overturning the theories of the greybeards. (Yes, the greybeards get a bit pissed off and you might find some of your papers rejected, but persistence pays off.)

In the end, people have to make judgements about all the information being presented. So you have to judge it based on how careful & methodical the work is, is the whole thing consistent?

The sceptics and denialists have published very few scientific papers. That might be because of a huge conspiracy, but I think it's because they've got fuck all to say. Furthermore, many of the ideas being put forward in public debate don't have any (any!) support from any scientists who know their arse from their elbow. Eg Quasievil's 1.7%. Mistakes get made and never corrected: Bellamy turned 55% into 555 via a typo 5 years ago and he still hasn't admitted it.

But yeah, there's a debate so we can't do anything because we just don't know.

[Skyryder]

When you write/post on KB with your name and end the sentance with a ? That is a question. Questions generally end with a ? Statements end with a .

My point was how can mean sea temperture solely contribute to rising / lowering when tectonic plate movement both above and below, thermal dymamics, current flow, atomosperic pressure has a long term localized effect on sea level. I was asking this as a question. but feel free to cloud the issues when some one ask a question were the tax issue sits with this and how taxing ourelves will somehow fix these issues...

Yep ok I missed the ? (see my greenie to you) mark it's why I usually add ??

I don't believe that there is a single contributing factor for sea level changes but the general consensus that I get from those that do or will not acknowledge, that the bulk of the scientific community agrees that global warming is 'predominately' influenced by man and his technology. Whenever there is some type of opposition like petitions or declarations, summits call them what you may………..somewhere in the background there is an industry whose financial interests are in opposition to the science that ‘clearly’ shows the influence of said industry. These tend to be the fossil fuel industries, but plastics are another to name just one.

Governments do not wily nily put in place extra costs to business in fact most western governments have embraced the free market position in the belief to reduce costs, not only to corporates but it’s citizens in their daily lives.


Don’t know about the tax but some have referred to the carbon credit. This is not a tax.

Carbon credits put a monetary value to the cost of pollution. These emissions become a cost that can be seen on the audit books along with raw materials, liabilities and assets. As yet I am unsure of how these costs are worked out or by whom but I’m looking into this.

As I understand the system it works something like this.

A business whose factory is emitting 500.000 tons of greenhouse gas (carbon etc) and it has been granted (legislated) so that it can legally emit 400,000 tons. Now the factory either reduces its emissions to the legislated level of 400,000 or it can go even further and reduce this to say 300,000 tons. Now it has three choices. It can purchase carbon credits to offset the excess from the legal 400,000 up to 500,000. It can reduce it’s emissions down to the legal 400,000 or it can reduce down to 300,000 and then resell the 100,000 carbon credits. In essence carbon credits give a monetary value and as such create a market where a company can sell it’s credits by way of reducing emissions. In other words carbon credits give corpertes and incentive to reduce atmospheric pollution. Now like most things I’m sure some one will do scam on this but in essence, if I am correct in how the Carbon credit system works, I do not have a problem with it. That does not mean to say that I won’t in the future as I am still a bit uncertain on many of it's ideas, it’s just as things now stand any incentive that reduces atmospheric pollution for whatever reason I’ll go for it.

Skyryder

[Badjelly]

a) CO2 began to rise when we starting producing it in earnest, b) its isotopic signature demonstrates it comes predominantly from fossil fuels, and c) such an increase has not happened in at least 800,000 years as far as we can tell.

Particularly when the basis for CO2 Emissions being caused by man is a floored argument and one that isnt proven or the science settled.

So, let's see if I got this right. You're suggesting that when mankind started burning fossil fuels in big quantities in around 1850, all that CO2 vanished somehow or other and at the same time CO2 was released into the atmosphere in large amounts by a natural process that hadn't occurred previously in the last 800,000 years and the C13/C12 isotope ratio decreased in the way expected if the CO2 did come from fossil fuels, to values that also haven't been seen before.

Yeah, I'll put that theory forward at a scientific conference and see if the science is settled.

Over to you, Dr Evil.

[ghost]

Just asking a question here, but can you see a contradiction?



So let's say, hypothetically, that there's some scientific question that turns out to be relevant to the rest of the world, and the policy makers feel they'd like some info on it before they, hypothetically, spend trillions of dollars solving it or, hypothetically, decide to do nothing and see what happens, and maybe leave a bill of even more trillions for the future.

So what's the best course of action. Pay some scientists their rather modest salaries to look into it and write a report? (Yeah scientist do love their expensive toys, but they work for peanuts 'cause they love their job.) Do a poll of anyone who thinks h/she knows something about it? Do a quick survey of blogs, talkback radio and internet forums?

But scientists being scientists they will always say, often quite sincerely, that what they want to study is really important and they might even be biased. So how do you stop the whole process going off the rails? Why, make the fuckers explain exactly why they conclude what they do. Put it all out in the open, let anyone review it. OK, it's a bit hard to judge the contents of a huge technical report. But here's the thing: scientists love being contrary. They love saying Smith & Jones (1994) said this but we (scientists always say "we" even when there's only one) say something else. There's nothing to raise the reputation of a budding scientist as overturning the theories of the greybeards. (Yes, the greybeards get a bit pissed off and you might find some of your papers rejected, but persistence pays off.)

In the end, people have to make judgements about all the information being presented. So you have to judge it based on how careful & methodical the work is, is the whole thing consistent?

The sceptics and denialists have published very few scientific papers. That might be because of a huge conspiracy, but I think it's because they've got fuck all to say. Furthermore, many of the ideas being put forward in public debate don't have any (any!) support from any scientists who know their arse from their elbow. Eg Quasievil's 1.7%. Mistakes get made and never corrected: Bellamy turned 55% into 555 via a typo 5 years ago and he still hasn't admitted it.

But yeah, there's a debate so we can't do anything because we just don't know.

Or we could make a movie out of it, misquote, misrepresent, mislead, encourage goverments to introduce tax schemes that will have no impact except on the pockets of the citizens, and back it all up with reports from a UN agency.

I think the argument for Man Made global warming is to looks at too narrow a feild to be able to draw any reliable conclutions. If the atomosheric scientists are that good, why cant they predict the weather for next christmas. Probably because there are to many variables to contend with and not enough understanding how they each vary and impact on one another.

And to introduce a tax, which will effect you and I, with no proof on how it will solve global warming. (like global warming is bad).

Almost like introducing speed limits to stop road accidents, that one works doesnt it?

[cave weta]

Ive read about 8 pages of this thread... Im busy and cant digest all of it-
I havent followed any of the links or taken sides. Although Freerider, DavidRied and others are gaining lots of my respect for Their research and devotion top the subject that has been discussed here for coming up a full year.

I have just one Question that has not been touched on yet...

What is causing the Global Warming on other planets that dont have SUVs, coal fired powerstations and aerosols?

[Mikkel]

So let's say, hypothetically, that there's some scientific question that turns out to be relevant to the rest of the world, and the policy makers feel they'd like some info on it before they, hypothetically, spend trillions of dollars solving it or, hypothetically, decide to do nothing and see what happens, and maybe leave a bill of even more trillions for the future.

So what's the best course of action. Pay some scientists their rather modest salaries to look into it and write a report? (Yeah scientist do love their expensive toys, but they work for peanuts 'cause they love their job.) Do a poll of anyone who thinks h/she knows something about it? Do a quick survey of blogs, talkback radio and internet forums?

Exactly.

But scientists being scientists they will always say, often quite sincerely, that what they want to study is really important and they might even be biased. So how do you stop the whole process going off the rails? Why, make the fuckers explain exactly why they conclude what they do. Put it all out in the open, let anyone review it. OK, it's a bit hard to judge the contents of a huge technical report. But here's the thing: scientists love being contrary. They love saying Smith & Jones (1994) said this but we (scientists always say "we" even when there's only one) say something else. There's nothing to raise the reputation of a budding scientist as overturning the theories of the greybeards. (Yes, the greybeards get a bit pissed off and you might find some of your papers rejected, but persistence pays off.)

When writing a paper it is good practice to abstain from using "we" - it is bloody difficult to remove, now what's the proper word, personal references... However, it is worth the exercise since the result is more professional. Neither would you put forward the names of the authors of your references in your main text. The names are without import - and easily accessible in your list of references.

Also, in 1994 that show was called "Alas Smith and Jones".

In the end, people have to make judgements about all the information being presented. So you have to judge it based on how careful & methodical the work is, is the whole thing consistent?

The sceptics and denialists have published very few scientific papers. That might be because of a huge conspiracy, but I think it's because they've got fuck all to say. Furthermore, many of the ideas being put forward in public debate don't have any (any!) support from any scientists who know their arse from their elbow. Eg Quasievil's 1.7%. Mistakes get made and never corrected: Bellamy turned 55% into 555 via a typo 5 years ago and he still hasn't admitted it.

But yeah, there's a debate so we can't do anything because we just don't know.

Stop mate, you are talking too much sense... I have to say though - it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative, which is why the denialists are exactly that - denying instead of actually contributing to the debate.

[Finn]

I think the title of this thread sums this nonsense up very well.

The more I hear "green" and "environment", the more I do to exactly the opposite to what I am expected to do such as; tip oil down the drain, don't recycle, buy petrol guzzling cars & bikes, cut down trees, etc, etc, etc.

The World is fine. Perhaps a little over populated with non producing, gimme gimme peasants but nature will sort this lot out.

[ghost]

Yep ok I missed the ? (see my greenie to you) mark it's why I usually add ??

I don't believe that there is a single contributing factor for sea level changes but the general consensus that I get from those that do or will not acknowledge, that the bulk of the scientific community agrees that global warming is 'predominately' influenced by man and his technology. Whenever there is some type of opposition like petitions or declarations, summits call them what you may………..somewhere in the background there is an industry whose financial interests are in opposition to the science that ‘clearly’ shows the influence of said industry. These tend to be the fossil fuel industries, but plastics are another to name just one.

Governments do not wily nily put in place extra costs to business in fact most western governments have embraced the free market position in the belief to reduce costs, not only to corporates but it’s citizens in their daily lives.


Don’t know about the tax but some have referred to the carbon credit. This is not a tax.

Carbon credits put a monetary value to the cost of pollution. These emissions become a cost that can be seen on the audit books along with raw materials, liabilities and assets. As yet I am unsure of how these costs are worked out or by whom but I’m looking into this.

As I understand the system it works something like this.

A business whose factory is emitting 500.000 tons of greenhouse gas (carbon etc) and it has been granted (legislated) so that it can legally emit 400,000 tons. Now the factory either reduces its emissions to the legislated level of 400,000 or it can go even further and reduce this to say 300,000 tons. Now it has three choices. It can purchase carbon credits to offset the excess from the legal 400,000 up to 500,000. It can reduce it’s emissions down to the legal 400,000 or it can reduce down to 300,000 and then resell the 100,000 carbon credits. In essence carbon credits give a monetary value and as such create a market where a company can sell it’s credits by way of reducing emissions. In other words carbon credits give corpertes and incentive to reduce atmospheric pollution. Now like most things I’m sure some one will do scam on this but in essence, if I am correct in how the Carbon credit system works, I do not have a problem with it. That does not mean to say that I won’t in the future as I am still a bit uncertain on many of it's ideas, it’s just as things now stand any incentive that reduces atmospheric pollution for whatever reason I’ll go for it.

Skyryder

Ta for the greenie, Im all for reducing pollution, waste, effluent (dont start me on 1080), but treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (fark, cut all the trees down, there gonna kill us all) and setting an artificial value on them for the purpose of trading is an extremly flawed scheme. Ar'nt we suffering at the moment because of speculative valuing off $. The whole idea seems flawed and an unreasonable burden on our economy for no real gain.

What if the Global Warming / Cooling cycle of earth (sea level rising falling) is largely effected by solar activity, of what value would carbon tax be seen in ten years?

[Quasievil]

So, let's see if I got this right. You're suggesting that when mankind started burning fossil fuels in big quantities in around 1850, all that CO2 vanished somehow or other and at the same time CO2 was released into the atmosphere in large amounts by a natural process that hadn't occurred previously in the last 800,000 years and the C13/C12 isotope ratio decreased in the way expected if the CO2 did come from fossil fuels, to values that also haven't been seen before.

Yeah, I'll put that theory forward at a scientific conference and see if the science is settled.

Over to you, Dr Evil.

Again? Ive already answered that.

Hey in a nutshell you guys cannot prove that Co2 is manmade........you can blab on about all soughts of crap but you cant proof the essence of your claim, which in turn is the very same claim carried (by the loonies) to the Copenhagen agreement.

We dont have to prove anything , you do, youre asking for our money we arent. and your asking for it under the guise of manmade Co2 is causing global warming , thats it that is all there is to debate

If your theory (and I mean theory) was rock solid there would not be an argument.

[ghost]

Again? Ive already answered that.

Hey in a nutshell you guys cannot prove that Co2 is manmade........you can blab on about all soughts of crap but you cant proof the essence of your claim, which in turn is the very same claim carried (by the loonies) to the Copenhagen agreement.

We dont have to prove anything , you do, youre asking for our money we arent. and your asking for it under the guise of manmade Co2 is causing global warming , thats it that is all there is to debate

If your theory (and I mean theory) was rock solid there would not be an argument.

What he said.

its the tree's man... its the tree's

[Quasievil]

What if the Global Warming / Cooling cycle of earth (sea level rising falling) is largely effected by solar activity, of what value would carbon tax be seen in ten years?

We wouldnt get it back Im sure

I Propose a new tax, its called Solar Depletion tax (SDT), anyone that uses the suns energy is thereby depleting this natural resourse and they should pay for it to discourage its use, on the basis that I can prove that taking heat from the sun is causing global cooling. here are some peliminary guidelines

1/ Anyone with a solar panel must now pay the SDT (solar depletion tax)
2/ Sunbathers must pay the SDT (nudists pay extra)
3/ Outdoor cafes pay SDT, using umbrellas reduces the SDT payed
4/ If you use the sun to dry your washing you pay SDT
5/ Farmers using the sun to grow grass pay SDT
6/ Outdoor events pay a standard per head SDT (refund 50% if it rains)

the list is still under construction, but my science absolutely proves that the sun has an effect on the global temperatures and mankind drawing this resource is having a effect on our planet if we dont act NOW we will freeze to death, maybe not us but our childrens children will !!

(all we need now is a famous movie maker and a has been dipshit politician, pay off a few scientists get some scare tatics a few news items and we are away, Dont worry Mr Keys sign NIWA over to me and I can guarantee 1 billion dollars of revenue for you per year , Oh and Mr Keys can you just pop over to conpenhagen to sign this bit of paper to for us eh ? there is a good lapdog)

NOW PROVE IM WRONG !!