US shuts down EU Carbon Tax for US Airlines
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield
i sincerely appreciate your attempt.
however,
1. Re: the IPCC fourth assessment which you state as unequivocal.
Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
2. You cite a wiki statement that says 'very likely'. very likely is not unequivocal, nor is emprical.
All you have done is quote Wikipedia.
AGW is a theory. It is not proven as fact, there is no unmolested data to support that theory. it is simply that, a theory.
There is NO data produced that demonstrates that CO2 is a driver of climate change, it is a theory and there is NO uolested data to support that theory.
Again, the EU-ETS is paper trading based on a theory that there is no data to support. You want to see what EU wide theories result in, against professional advice ? Look at the Eurozone situation and the EUrozone debt, that was a result of trading paper based on theory.
So, what data is there to support the EU-ETS in any basis ?
i sincerely appreciate your attempt.
however,
1. Re: the IPCC fourth assessment which you state as unequivocal.
Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all.
* my bold and underline
and * my bold and underline
2. You cite a wiki statement that says 'very likely'. very likely is not unequivocal, nor is emprical.
All you have done is quote Wikipedia.
AGW is a theory. It is not proven as fact, there is no unmolested data to support that theory. it is simply that, a theory.
There is NO data produced that demonstrates that CO2 is a driver of climate change, it is a theory and there is NO uolested data to support that theory.
Again, the EU-ETS is paper trading based on a theory that there is no data to support. You want to see what EU wide theories result in, against professional advice ? Look at the Eurozone situation and the EUrozone debt, that was a result of trading paper based on theory.
So, what data is there to support the EU-ETS in any basis ?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Connelly was banned temporarily from Wiki?
Soon/Ballunas' work got me interested in the entire discussion. I got banned from RealClimate, my claim to credibility, eh?
Soon/Ballunas' work got me interested in the entire discussion. I got banned from RealClimate, my claim to credibility, eh?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@green granite
Well, for sure the truth lies solely with the US weapon industry (gun control), Boeing and the US airlines, as well as other polluters, and the defense departement with their "friend" Assange. No lobbyism at all.....
Please, kill yourself (if you want to), pollute yourself, but stay away from the rest of the world.
Well, for sure the truth lies solely with the US weapon industry (gun control), Boeing and the US airlines, as well as other polluters, and the defense departement with their "friend" Assange. No lobbyism at all.....
Please, kill yourself (if you want to), pollute yourself, but stay away from the rest of the world.
Last edited by hetfield; 4th Oct 2012 at 17:03.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield....
The Global Mean differential? Have you forgotten? Because the IPCC uses
"scenarios" that START with a figure three times that of the actual GMT.
Are you done? Sad......
Because the IPCC, in using "scenarios" are "extrapolating".
Extrapolation, thy name is Hockey Stick.
No tax, please.
The Global Mean differential? Have you forgotten? Because the IPCC uses
"scenarios" that START with a figure three times that of the actual GMT.
Are you done? Sad......
Because the IPCC, in using "scenarios" are "extrapolating".
Extrapolation, thy name is Hockey Stick.
No tax, please.
Last edited by Lyman; 4th Oct 2012 at 17:09.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So again, hetfield, when your cites are shown to be fooey, you resort back to anti-US rhetoric.
WTF does the weapons industry, assange, or the USDoD have to do with the EU-ETS trading paper scheme ?
Nothing, you are trying to throw a diversion into some anti US belch fest because you have, well, nothing...
WTF does the weapons industry, assange, or the USDoD have to do with the EU-ETS trading paper scheme ?
Nothing, you are trying to throw a diversion into some anti US belch fest because you have, well, nothing...
Last edited by stuckgear; 4th Oct 2012 at 17:28.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield..
what are you smoking ?
Anyone who meets with their MP as a constituent is lobbying.
in the US, industry lobby both state and federal government, as in the EU industry lobbies both local government, national government and the EU.
lobbying itself is part of democracy. you have a company that is being damaged by a peice of ill thought out policy, you lobby for changes and provide supporting data for the basis of your cause.
you cite lobbying, for some unknown reason, yet the IPCC lobbies hard, very hard, for industry that sucks on the taxpayers teat, which without state funding would not be economically viable.
yet there is succinct difference, there is no data to support the cause that is being lobbied for, and so they lobby for funding to find cause for their lobbying and create and manipulate data to support the lobbying for funding for more lobbying...
the whole multi billion dollar industry of climate is the result on one single factor... lobbying.
the EU-ETS itself is the result of lobbying.
oh i get it..youre a conspiro-whacko ! that's wandered away from the chemtrail forums, perhaps looking for some aviation based evidence.
what are you smoking ?
Anyone who meets with their MP as a constituent is lobbying.
in the US, industry lobby both state and federal government, as in the EU industry lobbies both local government, national government and the EU.
lobbying itself is part of democracy. you have a company that is being damaged by a peice of ill thought out policy, you lobby for changes and provide supporting data for the basis of your cause.
you cite lobbying, for some unknown reason, yet the IPCC lobbies hard, very hard, for industry that sucks on the taxpayers teat, which without state funding would not be economically viable.
yet there is succinct difference, there is no data to support the cause that is being lobbied for, and so they lobby for funding to find cause for their lobbying and create and manipulate data to support the lobbying for funding for more lobbying...
the whole multi billion dollar industry of climate is the result on one single factor... lobbying.
the EU-ETS itself is the result of lobbying.
oh i get it..youre a conspiro-whacko ! that's wandered away from the chemtrail forums, perhaps looking for some aviation based evidence.
Last edited by stuckgear; 4th Oct 2012 at 17:52.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield the use of the 'at sign' is both unnecessary and pretentious.
However moving on from that, what on earth has posting an article about the abuse of wiki by one of it's editors got to do with:
Or is it your way of dealing with being wrong?
However moving on from that, what on earth has posting an article about the abuse of wiki by one of it's editors got to do with:
Originally Posted by hetfield
Well, for sure the truth lies solely with the US weapon industry (gun control), Boeing and the US airlines, as well as other polluters, and the defense departement with their "friend" Assange. No lobbyism at all.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield..
what are you smoking ?
what are you smoking ?
oh i get it..youre a conspiro-whacko ! that's wandered away from the chemtrail forums, perhaps looking for some aviation based evidence.
.I used to fly for a major EU carrier for over 30 years. Half of the time as commander. And yes, maybe I didn't have the guts to speak out like now.
But now I have children, grandchildren and I'm retired. Along with the day by day duties of my job I always had a look to the social and ecological aspects of it. This will not come to an end, I hope
.We ALL have social and ecological responsibility 'cause we will leave somewhat behind, soon.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune." Is IMHO the wrong approach....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe I didn't have the guts to speak out like now
i fail to see the relevence
We ALL have social and ecological responsibility
Again the EU-ETS is nothing to do with ecology but a fallacy of trading paper at the expense of the industry and to the detriment of economics.
But now I have children, grandchildren and I'm retired.
I'm not retired, i have a number of working years left, despite the years i have in this industry. my wife and I would like to start a family and i'd like to see my future family have some basis of an economic future, rather than experience the punitive actions taken against this industry under falsehoods, lies and deceit that only damage the economic viability of this industry.
EU economic policies have proved disasterous and such ponzi schemes as the EU-ETS will only further compound that damage and cause detriment to not only the avaition industry but other industries too, making financial futures for all look completely untenable.
While you may have some guilt issues about your past, that's for you to deal with, get therapy, dont try for absolution of your personal guilt by supporting the destruction of others peoples futures.
The EU-ETS is NOTHING to do with ecology, it is a financial instrument of trading nothing for billions at the cost to industry.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@stuck
I feel sorry you got so personally...
One day you will understand, I'm 100% sure.
Good luck
-no more comments from my side-
I feel sorry you got so personally...
One day you will understand, I'm 100% sure.
Good luck
-no more comments from my side-
Last edited by hetfield; 4th Oct 2012 at 19:31.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget for a moment the fradulent science thrown around by the IPCC saying we're doomed - how does paying a carbon tax REVERSE the apparent problem?
A poster on page 3 stated that CO2 is a pollutant. INCORRECT. CO2 is a BASIC REQUIREMENT OF LIFE.
In enough concentration, O2 will kill you. It is not considered a pollutant, but a requirement for life.
Also, it has been more than adequately demonstrated that with increases in CO2, there is a WIDER DIVERSITY OF LIFE. THE BIOSPHERE BENEFITS FROM IT.
Did you know that with the predicted future warming, they predict an INCREASE IN FOOD OUTPUT OF 20%???? All this at a time when they claim we have insufficient food for the planet, it is kindly giving us a 1/5 TH INCREASE. Farm land that is currently unusable for farming will be warm enough to grow MORE FOOD.
Those that defend MMGW are either fools, or in it for the money (Al Gore).
On a final note, staunch defenders of the MMGW religion should read this: Dihydrogen monoxide hoax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A poster on page 3 stated that CO2 is a pollutant. INCORRECT. CO2 is a BASIC REQUIREMENT OF LIFE.
In enough concentration, O2 will kill you. It is not considered a pollutant, but a requirement for life.
Also, it has been more than adequately demonstrated that with increases in CO2, there is a WIDER DIVERSITY OF LIFE. THE BIOSPHERE BENEFITS FROM IT.
Did you know that with the predicted future warming, they predict an INCREASE IN FOOD OUTPUT OF 20%???? All this at a time when they claim we have insufficient food for the planet, it is kindly giving us a 1/5 TH INCREASE. Farm land that is currently unusable for farming will be warm enough to grow MORE FOOD.
Those that defend MMGW are either fools, or in it for the money (Al Gore).
On a final note, staunch defenders of the MMGW religion should read this: Dihydrogen monoxide hoax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 5th Oct 2012 at 17:10.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or we can look at it another way...
IF the greenhouse theorists are correct, then I would ask how much reduction of CO2 output is required to reverse global warming? My gut feel is that the amount of reduction required by their theory is well above any threshold we as a civilization are willing to accept.
The reasons are simple: The amount of CO2 reduction to satisfy the greenhouse theorists is significant enough to require a decrease in the world population -- NOT simply a decrease in the rate of growth. This is unacceptable economically, as the world economy is currently reliant on continuing growth to survive.
So, any CO2 tax or carbon offset scheme is ONLY another government-imposed revenue stream that will ONLY temporarily benefit government treasuries and/or a relatively few investors who already have too much money to throw around.
So, I suppose, the only remaining question is which will come first: the collapse of the world economy or the collapse of our ecosystem. I suspect the former, and by a significant margin...
IF the greenhouse theorists are correct, then I would ask how much reduction of CO2 output is required to reverse global warming? My gut feel is that the amount of reduction required by their theory is well above any threshold we as a civilization are willing to accept.
The reasons are simple: The amount of CO2 reduction to satisfy the greenhouse theorists is significant enough to require a decrease in the world population -- NOT simply a decrease in the rate of growth. This is unacceptable economically, as the world economy is currently reliant on continuing growth to survive.
So, any CO2 tax or carbon offset scheme is ONLY another government-imposed revenue stream that will ONLY temporarily benefit government treasuries and/or a relatively few investors who already have too much money to throw around.
So, I suppose, the only remaining question is which will come first: the collapse of the world economy or the collapse of our ecosystem. I suspect the former, and by a significant margin...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just as aside to that ECAM actions, those tomato growing 'sheds' that many people will see climbing into and out of airports around the globe, use, to promote the growth of the plants..... CO2 generators.
oh and by the way CO2 generators, used in industrial scale agriculture are not subject to tax carbon tax as polluters.
oh and by the way CO2 generators, used in industrial scale agriculture are not subject to tax carbon tax as polluters.
Last edited by stuckgear; 5th Oct 2012 at 20:16.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: irelan
Age: 40
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU carbon tax on airlines
So airlines are fighting for there lives and are being made to pay extra for
carbon taxes.
But for what it does not seem to make a blind bit of difference. have a read
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
carbon taxes.
But for what it does not seem to make a blind bit of difference. have a read
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep, been through it here:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-airlines.html
and a few other threads too..
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-airlines.html
and a few other threads too..
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The author of the Mail online article,David Rose, obviously knows nothing about power stations since the caption to the picture of the cooling towers states "smoke billowing out of a power station"! More misinformation on the subject.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The author of the Mail online article,David Rose, obviously knows nothing about power stations since the caption to the picture of the cooling towers states "smoke billowing out of a power station"! More misinformation on the subject
