Enjoying the Carbon Scam?

**Badjelly** · 5th August 2011, 09:52

Originally Posted by Quasievil

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** · 5th August 2011, 16:11

Originally Posted by Quasievil

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** · 5th August 2011, 16:13

Originally Posted by Badjelly

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** · 5th August 2011, 16:17

Originally Posted by Usarka

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** · 5th August 2011, 16:36

Originally Posted by Usarka

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

. And they could explain it without "man-made" they just aint getting paid too

**Winston001** · 5th August 2011, 17:37

Originally Posted by 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 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** · 5th August 2011, 17:59

Originally Posted by Winston001

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** · 5th August 2011, 18:01

Originally Posted by Usarka

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** · 5th August 2011, 18:06

Originally Posted by avgas

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

**Scuba_Steve** · 5th August 2011, 18:56

Originally Posted by oneofsix

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

& saying "engineering" "Affirmative" ... I learnt that from C&C

**carver** · 5th August 2011, 22:12

Originally Posted by 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?

i do if i save a buck doing it!

**jonbuoy** · 6th August 2011, 00:33

Originally Posted by Quasievil

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** · 6th August 2011, 08:33

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

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????