I think that the plain and simple fact of the matter is. Why the **** do they have to create false information if global warming is as much of an issue as it has been made to be. They should be able to rely on the TRUTH to get them their funding, don’t you think. On top of that, for whom were they faslifying info and why wasn’t it detectable when compared to all the other people studying the same issues?
Theyre lies don’t disprove global warming. But you don’t want to stop and wonder why they lied in the first place, and why they were so confident that they wouldn’t get caught as far as statistics and data were concerned. If it were the other way around, youd understand how this fuels skepticism.
It was detectable by others who were studying the same sets of data, but there findings were kept out of the peer review journals so only one thought of science was published, as everyone is learning it was manipulated data that was published, If all the Provable manipulation of data is removed from the science than what is left? NO Global Warming........it exist's only with phony science i doubt investors will continue to invest in a scam thats had its cover blown
come on al gore.. come out and defend your scientists
CeLL wrote:
...really. so its ok cause "all scientists" do it. so whats to say that everyone else isnt lying cause they want theyre theories to be correct too. you just totally shot yourself and your beliefs in the foot. i suggest you delete or edit that.
lol yup, he's willing to beleive any lie fed to him, and supports sceintists lying to get grants
Dlur wrote:
it's pathetic, the emails show clearly what they were doing, the " we're using special language" or "it's out of context" is the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard, especially coming from a bunch of guys who call themselves scientists, and not 12 y/o kids
Whoever released all this info also released the computer codes, he really new what he was doing as the computer codes show also the exact manipulation as described in the emails, so that talking point from the media can be debunked in seconds, Death by 1000 cuts as some ppl say
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 9544 Location: London, United Kingdom
Zen wrote:
CeLL wrote:
I think that the plain and simple fact of the matter is. Why the **** do they have to create false information if global warming is as much of an issue as it has been made to be. They should be able to rely on the TRUTH to get them their funding, don’t you think. On top of that, for whom were they faslifying info and why wasn’t it detectable when compared to all the other people studying the same issues?
Theyre lies don’t disprove global warming. But you don’t want to stop and wonder why they lied in the first place, and why they were so confident that they wouldn’t get caught as far as statistics and data were concerned. If it were the other way around, youd understand how this fuels skepticism.
It was detectable by others who were studying the same sets of data, but there findings were kept out of the peer review journals so only one thought of science was published, as everyone is learning it was manipulated data that was published, If all the Provable manipulation of data is removed from the science than what is left? NO Global Warming........it exist's only with phony science i doubt investors will continue to invest in a scam thats had its cover blown
come on al gore.. come out and defend your scientists
CeLL wrote:
...really. so its ok cause "all scientists" do it. so whats to say that everyone else isnt lying cause they want theyre theories to be correct too. you just totally shot yourself and your beliefs in the foot. i suggest you delete or edit that.
lol yup, he's willing to beleive any lie fed to him, and supports sceintists lying to get grants
Dlur wrote:
it's pathetic, the emails show clearly what they were doing, the " we're using special language" or "it's out of context" is the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard, especially coming from a bunch of guys who call themselves scientists, and not 12 y/o kids
Whoever released all this info also released the computer codes, he really new what he was doing as the computer codes show also the exact manipulation as described in the emails, so that talking point from the media can be debunked in seconds, Death by 1000 cuts as some ppl say
so in your books only ONE set of scientists is doing research on global warming in the entire world and their results are used by everyone? come on please open your mind a little
and if anyone is been fed shit its you, seeing as you dont know what your on about.
so inlight of my wall fighting experiance you win, not the debate you just win as your so stupid i cannot beat you.
"Dont fight idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experiance"
good bye have fun with this seriously its gone way beyond my time and lost utter interest usually i make some kind of head way to very least open someones mind to different ideas even if both mine and theirs are wrong but you are something else.
_________________
I am not online much if you wish to get hold of me send me a private message with your email/discord and ill catch up with you.
It was pretty predictable you would come back and try to discredit this thread and say your goodbyes after you Shot yourself in the foot,
dude you've obviously taken the time to study global warming and that should be commended, i respect anyone who wants a better planet for everyone but if your shown that this whole beleif system was created around manipulation and lying than i don't know why you would continue to support it, the global warming debate will never be the same again, here is how it looks now one week after the documents relase, (alot different to one month ago)
The global warming conspirocy theroist was lost for words, his talking points were weak,
im certainly in favour of a greener planet but i wont accept being led there through deception of any kind, if the world is going to some utopian paradise it can only get there with TRUTH, Never ever from deception.
Not everyone uses the same data btw. In meteorology, there's empiricist that crunch data, and computer modelling that uses formulas to predict how the climate will change. From what I've seen about the leaked emails, it seems to be the empiricist data that are being invalidated. I'll ask my gf more about it later, but just because one group of scientist edited 1 year's worth of data to get a bigger grant doesn't mean what they're researching doesn't exist. The scientific world can be pretty hard-core. I know a nearby professor in the lab I'm in that is now rolling in millions of dollars a year from his one invention. He published Taxol about 24 hours ahead of his peers. He get's the majority of the credit and get's paid his part each month. There's more I can go into, but it seems only the data from the past year was altered to match the trend. If someone bothers reading my posts, they would understand that:
This past year has had some lower, global temperatures due to the period of solar cooling we are in, but instead of the usual mini ice-age, we only get slightly colder winter.
It was wrong of them to alter the data, but greed does take its toll. Just because that one Jewish guy lied about his story of finding his German wife and living in a concentration camp, doesn't mean the Holocaust hasn't happened.
_________________
.curve wrote:
Unless Silkroad has a hole I can stick it in, I prefer spending money on the girlfriend.
but it seems only the data from the past year was altered to match the trend. If someone bothers reading my posts, they would understand that:
Its over 10 years of manipulation, The email about The nature trick to hide the decline of tempratures was from the 1990's, i think 1996 but ill dbbl check it when i get home
what kind of consequence do you think there will be for the said scientists? Everybody relies on science pretty much everyday i imagine genuine scientists would like to hang them out to dry, as you can imagine your solar wind theory comes into question too, just as collatiral damage of how far have the lies gone? someone here mentioned transperancy in all sceintific feilds wich at least would be a good start? o.o
Joined: Nov 2008 Posts: 4441 Location: SHEEKA JOOM BA BOOM BAH!! BAM! BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!
[SD]Master_Wong wrote:
so in your books only ONE set of scientists is doing research on global warming in the entire world and their results are used by everyone? come on please open your mind a little and if anyone is been fed shit its you, seeing as you dont know what your on about.
so inlight of my wall fighting experiance you win, not the debate you just win as your so stupid i cannot beat you.
"Dont fight idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experiance"
good bye have fun with this seriously its gone way beyond my time and lost utter interest usually i make some kind of head way to very least open someones mind to different ideas even if both mine and theirs are wrong but you are something else.
its kinda a chatch 22 situation for them as the university the emails came from reported the hacking's to the police, they filed the report without full knowledge of what was taken i imagine, kinda dug there own hole with that?
Its something i couldnt understand as well seeing them admit to it straight away, i took no interest in the files themselves untill i saw them admit that they were indeed true blew me away
it says clearly that the emails are real and the scientists themselves wrote them
it's pathetic, the emails show clearly what they were doing, the " we're using special language" or "it's out of context" is the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard, especially coming from a bunch of guys who call themselves scientists, and not 12 y/o kids
if any of this wasnt true, then why would they shit their pants so badly at the thought that it's all over the internet and on TV (@Reise, please go back to school and learn to read, I said it appeared on the news, on that TV you are all hugging, and also in newspapers.. at least in my country, where no one has nothing to lose if it all proves to be true).
It has come to my attention that you are a knuckle-dragging moron. Allow me to elaborate…
It doesn't matter which scientists said what or which set of data was manipulated. If you think that's the issue, you are missing the entire point of this situation. For science to take place, there must be transparency of data and research to allow other individual research groups a chance to scrutinize data and draw their own conclusions, and possibly challenging the source of the data if inconsistencies are discovered. This is the issue here; research of this caliber should have been available to individual researchers around the world. Science that is based on classified or undisclosed information should be disregarded.
The only thing you're doing is arguing from ignorance while pandering to the tin-foil hatters. We can stay here and draw an analysis on all these innocuous emails and argue whether or not they were intended to mislead, or we could not be complete morons and realize that we'd only be speculating the context of the emails. Stop pretending like this is the only legitimate climate research group in the world, whose downfall will disprove climate change. Various other small independent research groups are researching this every day. To argue that because certain companies are profiting from this, then the whole premise must be false and a nefarious plan to get more money, is just plain ignorant. Healthy skepticism is always welcome and I wouldn't be pretentious as to say all research opposing climate change is pseudoscience, but ignoring facts and figures that have been researched by various groups throughout the years because you don't like it does not make it false.
Also, stop being a presumptuous prick and assuming everyone gets their news from TV, and if they do, it must be wrong. The only thing you're doing is regurgitating crap that you see on other websites. You're giving yourself too much credit if you think your little rantings and getting news from the Internet are signs of free-thinking and intellect.
QFT. A majority of people love to abuse instances, such as this, to justify their own self-serving goals. Sadly,whatever sham they have uncovered is usually their only "evidence" which makes for a terribly weak case. It seems people forget that changes that occur globally are almost always very gradual. Yes, periods of warming and cooling are a natural part of Earth's climate cycle, but if any of you deniers had even a basic understanding, of practically any science at all, you would understand that regardless of how skewed one group's numbers are that a release of Co2, Methane, and heat can only accelerate any natural process already going on. And, I'm sure if any naysayer were to look at the average annual temperature from around the start of the Industrial Revolution or earlier to today, they would see a distinct upward growth in temperature; it's also worthy to note the fact that one should notice a rise in temperature during "booms" in production(the wars especially). But, hey what am I thinking? Clearly, every recorded temperature from as far back as possible was faked leading up to this single moment in which the government can finally cash in!
lol maybe some perspective is needed here on just how crooked the lies actually are, and whose influence the manipulation of data actually effects,
"The IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) does not prepare scientific data in relation to Climate Change. It is a UN body that reviews available scientific data in order to provide meaningful information to policy makers.
The IPCC “…reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”
Yet they are the ones, Manipulating data when it is clearly not there job to have any involvement at all with findings of data, they denied freedom of information acts to scientists all over the world who wanted to see were there findings actually came from, as we can see, they themselves made it up
I understand that you don't wish to come to the realization that a large quantity of what you are mindlessly repeating as fudged evidence is cherry picked(taking a quote completely out of context to use it for your side). Unfortunately for you, this makes your entire stance and, well, all of your posts completely baseless. Also a note on climate change. Climate change is called climate change because it's not only a gradual warming of a certain area but a cooling of another. All systems work within certain parameters, and when you go too far one way it messes things up: ice caps melt and the salinity of the water diminishes which in turn changes the currents of the oceans, the current change alters weather patterns and strength, so forth and so on. Did you pay attention in general science or chemistry? Practically all misconceptions and conspiracy theories regarding modern science are bred from ignorance. As someone else said, healthy skepticism is great and is a key factor in any scientific field, but playing a game of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" anytime evidence contrary to what you think is presented happens to be quite silly. The best thing someone can do is research stuff for his or herself; preferably, from several reputable sources and from more than one scientist. The only way one can truly take a side in anything is if he or she is properly educated in the topic at hand. Otherwise, you have merely been baited by one side or the other into doing their grunt work, usually spreading information or misinformation for the other. Sadly, this is one of the two sided instances where the movement attempts to spread information and the counter-movement/conspiracy theorists/the like spread misinformation. Take a guess at which side you are on. You are more than welcome to reply. In fact, I almost wonder how often you will repeat the same thing over and over again.
I understand that you don't wish to come to the realization that a large quantity of what you are mindlessly repeating as fudged evidence is cherry picked(taking a quote completely out of context to use it for your side).
how is this for cherry picking?
Spoiler!
From: Kevin Trenberth To: Michael Mann Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers Phil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Tom Wigley To: Phil Jones Subject: 1940s
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"
your explanation of climate change sounds so much like a natural earth system, just packaged differently and sold back to you with a tick from NIKE, Yea its always cooler to buy a story from companies that rely on expoliting humans for there sucsess, they would never exploit the minds of white folk for a dollar would they?
Last edited by Zen on Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I understand that you don't wish to come to the realization that a large quantity of what you are mindlessly repeating as fudged evidence is cherry picked(taking a quote completely out of context to use it for your side).
how is this for cherry picking?
Spoiler!
From: Kevin Trenberth To: Michael Mann Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers Phil
your explanation of climate change sounds so much like a natural earth system, just packaged differently and sold back to you with a tick from NIKE, Yea its always cooler to buy a story from companies that rely on expoliting humans for there sucsess, they would never exploit the minds of white folk for a dollar would they?
god i couldn't stay out of this...your stupidity isn't that annoying it's just the fact that your practically bragging about being a moron this was posted earlier but http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/ ... index.html read it, moron Also....what the hell does NIKE have to do with this? if anything they're the ones paying those horrible carbon taxes and whatever you keep rambling about not profiting off or it.... im going to try to stay out of this thread again but ive realized that i cant promise that because i feel almost obligated to hate your blatant stupidity which, at this point, i am pretty much convinced is just you smacking you face on your keyboard. (by the way you still haven't responded to one of my posts on the first or second page i'm really interested to see what you have to say about it so if you're going to keep rambling you might as well humor me)
Also....what the hell does NIKE have to do with this?
Oh you didn't know that international companies will be exempt from any carbon emission taxes under the Kyoto protocol? they can come and pollute as much as they like in your country *if they loose a competitive edge in the international market via a carbon emission's scheme set in your country than they don't have to pay any taxes for it
lol but you were sold the story that they will be the ones footing the bill...
Zen, I have already read through those several times, but thank you for doing exactly what I expected you to. Apparently,you lack the ability to ever comprehend and apply what you have learned. Several of us have already answered the mystery behind the first email;though, it would seem you would much rather be oblivious to our answers than anything else. The second and third email happen to be a few scientists/researchers/what have you discussing equations and variables while trying to understand exactly what goes on behind the scenes to make such divergences happen. The author of one of the emails was even asked about the "trick" that some people say skewed the evidence, and he openly refers to the "trick" and explains why it is necessary and how it works. I'm not entirely sure why I ever expect to leave one of these "debates" having felt like I had helped someone understand what is going on because it never happens. So here, sir, your tin-foil hat and cardboard box. You may be on your way now.
Also....what the hell does NIKE have to do with this?
Oh you didn't know that international companies will be exempt from any carbon emission taxes under the Kyoto protocol? they can come and pollute as much as they like in your country *if they loose a competitive edge in the international market via a carbon emission's scheme set in your country than they don't have to pay any taxes for it
lol but you were sold the story that they will be the ones footing the bill...
"National emission targets exclude international aviation and shipping."
last time i checked NIKE isnt an international delivery service but who knows maybe i was sold the story that they made shoes. Oh by the way.... way to exemplify your cherry picking feel free to respond to any of my other points
you might wana look a bit deeper in how to apply for a exemption it clearly states what i said previously it has passed into law here last week, i guarentee the global warming krew were not happy to learn of this loophole
Aetherius it doesnt matter that the scientist is trying explain his use of the words, under the freedom of information act they Refused to show there work relating to the hockey stick graph and his graph along with the source codes have been forced out, He cannot remake this hockeystick curve without manipulating the tempratures, and lets see what happens if he attemps to do so, i could care less for his explanation as these are multi million dollar research grants they need to protect, lets see him re-create the hockey stick graph wihout hiding any decline or using any tricks Oh thats right he can't, its been Cooling since he made the graph
I don't fully get the point of this argument here. If global warming is fake, which it isn't, then why would we stop doing what we are doing today to make a better tomorrow? Each invention that is made to enhance our technology for a greener future is better than what we would gain from using our old methods.
Why would we not want more efficient cars? Why would we not want more sustainable energy sources that can greatly increase our productivity and reduce our wastes?
I seriously fail to see how people can be so ignorant and reluctant to change. It really is stupid if you ask me. It makes me wonder about the people who are around me. Do you honestly believe that the 14 mpg car is a great thing that you would refuse to adapt to new technology that can make vehicles go up to 50+ mpg?
In the long run, your argument is invalid no matter what. I do not agree with what you think about global warming being fake. Physical evidence that you can not see is enough proof to show that our climate is changing. You cannot deny this.
I don't fully get the point of this argument here. If global warming is fake, which it isn't, then why would we stop doing what we are doing today to make a better tomorrow? Each invention that is made to enhance our technology for a greener future is better than what we would gain from using our old methods.
You can use New Zealand as a example if you like as they passed a ETS into law last week, Just a glimpse into one area of life here for say a farmer, this means by July next year Farmers are going to be taxed for cows farting, small businesses have to pay $25 per tonne of c02, the cost of petrol is increasing and same with electricity costs in your home, SO already that Farmer is raising the cost of Milk and Meat products as every aspect of there farming from the cow farting to the electricity for milking the cow, also the increase in gas for the tanker to collect the milk has increased,
Is that Really going to save the planet? by taxing everything we do? Really? what percentage of the tax is going to save the planet? what technology are they using to off set carbon?, currently we will pay government owned forests for the off setting of carbon, Thats possibly the model other countries are going to adopt, its a rediculous scam And we were told here that the main polluters of c02 would be the ones paying the bill, we the people wouldnt pay for there pollution was how it was packaged and sold, Total polictical BS
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 9544 Location: London, United Kingdom
Zen wrote:
rumpleKillskin wrote:
I don't fully get the point of this argument here. If global warming is fake, which it isn't, then why would we stop doing what we are doing today to make a better tomorrow? Each invention that is made to enhance our technology for a greener future is better than what we would gain from using our old methods.
You can use New Zealand as a example if you like as they passed a ETS into law last week, Just a glimpse into one area of life here for say a farmer, this means by July next year Farmers are going to be taxed for cows farting, small businesses have to pay $25 per tonne of c02, the cost of petrol is increasing and same with electricity costs in your home, SO already that Farmer is raising the cost of Milk and Meat products as every aspect of there farming from the cow farting to the electricity for milking the cow, also the increase in gas for the tanker to collect the milk has increased,
Is that Really going to save the planet? by taxing everything we do? Really? what percentage of the tax is going to save the planet? what technology are they using to off set carbon?, currently we will pay government owned forests for the off setting of carbon, Thats possibly the model other countries are going to adopt, its a rediculous scam And we were told here that the main polluters of c02 would be the ones paying the bill, we the people wouldnt pay for there pollution was how it was packaged and sold, Total polictical BS
on topic mate this is about global warming not tax, tax applied to anything your government wants and nothing you can do about it, death to drinks they got it covered just adding that as im reading this i want it on topic
_________________
I am not online much if you wish to get hold of me send me a private message with your email/discord and ill catch up with you.
Incase you don't know ETS is Emissions Trading Scheme, Obama calls it Cap and Trade, If there were no Tax on carbon LOL politicians would bin the bill and global warming research would have as much funding as herpes, Probally less
its very much on topic, its the whole reason i cant stand this hoax
Son, I am sorry to say that I have grown quite tired of beating my head against a wall. Especially, since it seems you are just a kid throwing a tantrum because of taxes. Here's a tissue and time-out is that way. ----->
you might wana look a bit deeper in how to apply for a exemption it clearly states what i said previously it has passed into law here last week, i guarentee the global warming krew were not happy to learn of this loophole
Aetherius it doesnt matter that the scientist is trying explain his use of the words, under the freedom of information act they Refused to show there work relating to the hockey stick graph and his graph along with the source codes have been forced out, He cannot remake this hockeystick curve without manipulating the tempratures, and lets see what happens if he attemps to do so, i could care less for his explanation as these are multi million dollar research grants they need to protect, lets see him re-create the hockey stick graph wihout hiding any decline or using any tricks Oh thats right he can't, its been Cooling since he made the graph
i assume youre referring to me with that first statement and lets compare shall we? You: they can come and pollute as much as they like in your country *if they loose a competitive edge in the international market via a carbon emission's scheme set in your country than they don't have to pay any taxes for it
my quote: "National emission targets exclude international aviation and shipping."
The kyoto protocol calls for a bunch of countries to collectively reduce their carbon emissions so they all aim for an individual target. They control their emissions by offering economic incentives because it's not like a country can just nicely ask its citizens to stop and they will. When i say economic incentives i mean 'not getting taxed'. If countries go over their 'emissions allowance' (bear in mind each country decided and agreed to their allowance because they saw it as a goal worth achieving)they must pay a fine of sorts. These 'fines' are paid to things like projects that will lower emissions in non- Annex I countries (ill let you look that one up because im pretty sure you havent looked anything up yet). Getting back to the point i was going to make... international shipping and aviation cannot be affected by the kyoto protocol because those emissions cannot be pinned to any one country. Also, if youre thinking some companies will jump from country to country depending on which has the lower emissions taxes (i.e. which is doing better at reaching it's goal) youre just completely naive. There are many other things that have more precidence in a large company's decision to move to another country, mostly cheap labor. NIKE isnt going to hop back to america because chinas emissions taxes suck...Thats a drop in the bucket compared to the shit tons theyre saving on cheap labor.
tl;dr youre still a moron, do some non-biased research, quit spewing your crap all over the internet...for the love of god you might actually confuse people into thinking youre right..and nobody wants a pandemic of the stupid virus
I don't fully get the point of this argument here. If global warming is fake, which it isn't, then why would we stop doing what we are doing today to make a better tomorrow? Each invention that is made to enhance our technology for a greener future is better than what we would gain from using our old methods.
You can use New Zealand as a example if you like as they passed a ETS into law last week, Just a glimpse into one area of life here for say a farmer, this means by July next year Farmers are going to be taxed for cows farting, small businesses have to pay $25 per tonne of c02, the cost of petrol is increasing and same with electricity costs in your home, SO already that Farmer is raising the cost of Milk and Meat products as every aspect of there farming from the cow farting to the electricity for milking the cow, also the increase in gas for the tanker to collect the milk has increased,
Is that Really going to save the planet? by taxing everything we do? Really? what percentage of the tax is going to save the planet? what technology are they using to off set carbon?, currently we will pay government owned forests for the off setting of carbon, Thats possibly the model other countries are going to adopt, its a rediculous scam And we were told here that the main polluters of c02 would be the ones paying the bill, we the people wouldnt pay for there pollution was how it was packaged and sold, Total polictical BS
Will taxing everything we do fix the planet? Of course not. That is why I didn't talk about taxation. Last time I checked I wrote about the technology that is being created that is making our lives better. You can try to find holes in my argument. But when you try to respond to me, respond to the premise of my post please.
Nice rumple that's exactly the mindset needed to believe AGW, Ignore the facts and talk about what if?
News from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) They are now claiming to have lost all the data that the theory of Global warming was built from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece They LOST THE SCIENCE????????? Caught red handed more like it
Spoiler!
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
