Enjoying the Carbon Scam?

[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.........

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]

[Quasievil]

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/mo...oreerrors.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-ch...sensus-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

[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-ch...sensus-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.

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