The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Quasievil]

I suggest that all conspiracy theorists from here on stop basing their theory's on a tv show they watched or an article they read on teh interweb

Im studying a book at the moment about it, I was a believer in the man made global warming scenario, now Im opposed to it completely.

But those that are believers I query how you will feel after the Copenhagen treaty is signed and you start getting $3,000 bills every year in your letter box, I also ask you how you think that money will be spent and lastly do you think it will make any difference ?

How much $$$ has NZ paid to the 1990 Kyoto protocol so Far? and why are we as a country 33% over our 1990 target? and where is the tax payers money, who has it, and how is it being used. NZ is one of the worst performers out of the Kyoto signatories and yet our beloved Helen Clarke was named UN "Champion of the Earth award" winner, not bad for a failure yet she is now in charge of a 5 billion dollar budget which includes climate change policy............I reckon thats weird

Im not trying to argue guys n girls, Im keen on a lively polite debate tho, Im reading a book at the moment which is very very interesting and yes it is obviously full of facts and Im quoting them here.
So this could be a cool debate I reckon

[Skyryder]

Well I’m not too sure where got that data from but this from the second report of the IPCC.

The first para reads

The earth's climate is changing and "human activity" -- primarily the use of oil and fossil fuels -- is to blame, according to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.albionmonitor.com/12-21-9...lwarmipcc.html


By far the majority of climatologists claim that global warming has and still is occurring and is man made.

What is this book that you speak of Quasi??





Skyryder

[SPman]

Global warming certainly is not slowed down, by the amount of crap pumped into the atmosphere. Caused, or merely exacerbated by human actions, governments should be planning on how to adapt to the different climate scenarios, instead of arguing over big business money making schemes like carbon credits, et al.
Too much sensationalism and scaremongering, too little real planning on how to adapt to worst possible scenarios. (although, people in West Australia are quietly working around increased heat, even less water, reality, that is unfolding over here.)

[davereid]

I query how you will feel after the Copenhagen treaty is signed and you start getting $3,000 bills every year in your letter box, I also ask you how you think that money will be spent and lastly do you think it will make any difference ?

This is the interesting bit I think.

Carbon taxes - and trading work by rationing carbon. Your ration card looks like a $100 note, so it effectively stops the poor accessing cheap energy.

The idea is that the higher price will cause a lowering in demand for carbon intensive products and services, with someone (I'm not quite sure who) clipping the ticket as the carbon credit whirls past, to make a fortune bigger than Bill Gates.

Its the perfect product, the carbon credit. You don't have to manufacture it, store it, or transport it. It can't be stolen or forged, but its worth billions of dollars. You can sell it, sell futures in it, and raise finance on the strength of having it.

Yey it all comes down to the idea that putting the price up will lower demand.

If we really HAVE to do something, and the tool we are going to use is increased prices, then IMHO it sould be a simple tax, with no trading. Then the Tax money could be used for REAL environmental projects.

For example, this years tax could be used exclusively for restoring wetland areas. Next years tax for another environmental project with a clearly defined outcome, and clearly defined costs.

Carbon trading has clearly defined costs and benefits.. but the environment is not considered except as a side effect.

Really, carbon trading is the biggest scam we have ever been subjected to.

[Skyryder]

Credits versus taxes
Credits were chosen by the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol as an alternative to Carbon taxes. A criticism of tax-raising schemes is that they are frequently not hypothecated, and so some or all of the taxation raised by a government may be applied inefficiently or not used to benefit the environment.
By treating emissions as a market commodity it becomes easier for business to understand and manage their activities, while economists and traders can attempt to predict future pricing using well understood market theories. Thus the main advantages of a tradable carbon credit over a carbon tax are:
• the price is more likely to be perceived as fair by those paying it, as the cost of carbon is set by the market, and not by politicians. Investors in credits have more control over their own costs.
• the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol ensure that all investment goes into genuine sustainable carbon reduction schemes, through its internationally-agreed validation process.

I got the above from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit


There’s a fair bit here on this.

I just find it ironic that in world that believes in the free market system, so many see the Carbon Trading scheme as a scam.

I don’t know enough about carbon credits or the trade thereof to have an informed opinion as to its merits one way or the other.

Skyryder

[Quasievil]

[I]

I just find it ironic that in world that believes in the free market system, so many see the Carbon Trading scheme as a scam.

Skyryder

No its not the Carbon credits that are a scam, it is the manifestation of agendas leading people to think that global warming is human created that is the scam, the mechanism being used to deal with it is money via way of Kyoto and the new Copenhagen treaty within all this is the scam.

The cases used by the scare mongers are without doubt factually floored at a astonishing level, the arguments about the global warming being caused by humans are simply stupid.

the book is AIR CON by Ian Wishart, very good but very heavy reading !

[jonbuoy]

So who will be right? Chicken little or the ostriches? Guess we find out in 20 years. Humans can´t possible affect the planet?? Umm we did manage to make a big hole in the Ozone layer in a short space of time, wipe out a shocking number of animal and plant species, and a couple of nuclear accidents have made a few places uninhabitable for hundreds of years. And regardless of climate change we need to cut back on fossil fuel burning so the dregs last a bit longer. It doesn´t really matter what we think, smarter and better informed people make the decisions.

[wbks]

Im studying a book at the moment about it, I was a believer in the man made global warming scenario, now Im opposed to it completely.

But those that are believers I query how you will feel after the Copenhagen treaty is signed and you start getting $3,000 bills every year in your letter box, I also ask you how you think that money will be spent and lastly do you think it will make any difference ?

How much $$$ has NZ paid to the 1990 Kyoto protocol so Far? and why are we as a country 33% over our 1990 target? and where is the tax payers money, who has it, and how is it being used. NZ is one of the worst performers out of the Kyoto signatories and yet our beloved Helen Clarke was named UN "Champion of the Earth award" winner, not bad for a failure yet she is now in charge of a 5 billion dollar budget which includes climate change policy............I reckon thats weird

Im not trying to argue guys n girls, Im keen on a lively polite debate tho, Im reading a book at the moment which is very very interesting and yes it is obviously full of facts and Im quoting them here.
So this could be a cool debate I reckon

I wasn't making a crack at anyone either, I just think it sounds funny when people talk about an elaborate cover up that for example involves hundreds of powerful politicians etc and yet they think that after the accused have gone to all the effort of bribing and silencing people they are going to let them air a show or publish a book that actually unveils it all. See what I'm getting at? Of course, then you could be right and the "powers that be" are perfectly comfortable in the fact that the belief is now mainstream and anyone that doesn't believe in it is recognized as a conspiracy theorist or of being ignorant, so the doubt takes care of itself.

[Quasievil]

It doesn´t really matter what we think, smarter and better informed people make the decisions.

Yes thats true, I hope that people open there minds a tad and block out a bit of media and government crap and figure it out from a bit of reading and study.
Its easy to follow the crowd aint it.

[Naki Rat]

the book is AIR CON by Ian Wishart, very good but very heavy reading !

Having read 'Eve's Bite' and 'Absolute Power' by Ian Wishart I know that he researchs his books well and anything he writes is above reproach. I plan to get Air Con and expect it will be a pretty heavy read but well worth the effort

[peasea]

Global warming certainly is not slowed down, by the amount of crap pumped into the atmosphere. Caused, or merely exacerbated by human actions, governments should be planning on how to adapt to the different climate scenarios, instead of arguing over big business money making schemes like carbon credits, et al.
Too much sensationalism and scaremongering, too little real planning on how to adapt to worst possible scenarios. (although, people in West Australia are quietly working around increased heat, even less water, reality, that is unfolding over here.)

I would have to question you're being on KB SPman. You are making far too much sense. Global warming/cooling comes and goes (ice ages et al) and no amount of taxation will prevent it. There is also a set amount of fresh water on the planet, some places have too much, some too little. It's down to us to distribute it for all to survive.

However, all of us surviving might not be such a good thing.

[Indiana_Jones]

So let me get this right, taxing people more money will save the world.

righto.....

-Indy

[davereid]

I just find it ironic that in world that believes in the free market system, so many see the Carbon Trading scheme as a scam.

There is no doubt it is a scam, and its very much under political control. The trading of credits is very much free market. But the supply of credits is determined by "experts" appointed politically.

New Zealand is a perfect example. The production of food, particularly dairy and meat is seen as a carbon bad guy.

The main reason for it being a bad guy, is the fact that our good-guy is not counted.

That is to say, the endless fast growing grasslands that our animals eat are not counted by the carbon bean counters.

They can't count the animals grassland (good) input, yet they are keen as can be to penalise the output.

Something just doesnt add up when normal environmentally well managed, and essentially very important things like food production are the bad guys...

[Blatman]

I wouldn't base my convictions on anything that Ian Wishart wrote, I mean c'mon he's a far right Christian who runs a conspiracy theory magazine (Inverstigate) that quotes the Old Testament to explain truths to readers.
The moon landings never happened and I suppose Elvis told him that?

[peasea]

So let me get this right, taxing people more money will save the world.

righto.....

-Indy

That's what they'd have us think, unless of course you're a free thinker and don't drink water laced with flouride. Or is that a conspiracy too?