|
Don't step into the Lobbyism trap. i asked you to provide empirical evidence of global warming. and for empirical evidence that it is driven by CO2. and for empirical evidence that it is human driven. pick one, more than one, or all three. if you cannot, then you are spouting nothing more than, well, hot air, along with your anti-US rhetoric. |
anti-US rhetoric. If you want to..... |
If you have the chance, e.g. if you fly long range (outside US) , switch on the local TV , open your ears, open your eyes and you will learn a lot. If you want to..... The EU-ETS is a unicorn tax. |
I'm afraid your gear is stucked.
|
oh brilliant !
an alias lame.. that's about a half a step up from yo' momma... shame you cant provide empirical evidence of global warming. or empirical evidence that it is driven by CO2. or empirical evidence that it is human driven. anything... something.... to support your unicorn tax.. No? oh come on, you're so fervent in your 'beliefs', you must have something credible ? No ? |
Don't know if your gear is stuck but seems to be stuck in the right place.
Con I doubt you have enough time for a sensible response from that source. |
Con I doubt you have enough time for a sensible response from that source. This says it all. switch on the local TV |
Guys, guys - play nice. You've all forgotten again. It's all about the people - too many bleedin' people. Billions and billions of the blighters, all breeding at just about maximum smoke and no-one - not the greens, not the economists, not the politicians, not the clergy, certainly not the clergy, of any water - none of em', want to breathe a word about there being too many people.
Fix that and you fix AGW - and a lot of other ills too. |
Christ, this is even worse than the thread in jet blast. Congrats!:D
|
Yep. lets all pay this tax,Europe economy is not getting better nor here in the USA.
Give the stock market more money on this trading one, what a joke. Just Changed the oil in both Harleys today, the old thinking about putting it where i dont want the grass to grow. like we did years ago and the economy was good and no problems then. Sorry I wont be hugging a tree just to make some rich. But I do save money on roundup grass killer by doing it this way. |
:( i'm ashamed to be a european citizen. Wondering what the effect will be of this tax. Embargo against europe?? I advice all non european companies: do not bend and do not pay!!
|
the danger is stick35 is that the EUrocrats will, under their hubris, start a trade war between the EU and pretty much the rest of the world, a trade war it simply cannot win and even entering will be far more damaging to not only this industry, but to every single person in the EU, that it will be for anyone else outside the EU. Under the currect EU debt crisis much less than a trade war, but a trade vibration could cause significant problems.
the EU-ETS is stupidity and hubris on a grand scale. |
And despite repeated requests to support your hysteria you still cannot provide:
empirical evidence of global warming. or empirical evidence that it is driven by CO2. or empirical evidence that it is human driven. i'll tell you why hetfield, because there is NONE. So you shriek and get all hysterical, citing even the US actions in Vietnam and Korea as some kind of justification for the EU-ETS. It really is telling when those who rail against 'big business', 'the 1%' and other conspiro-whacko themes cannot provide any one single piece of evidence to support a huge ponzi scheme of nothing but 'trading paper'. so are you going to put up or shut up ? Provide some empircal evidence...... just one piece.. go on.. just one little piece... No ? |
On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:
|
Now show the exact rise in that period, insert the six percent quantity involved, and explain why IPCC don't...
|
Don't bet your house on it.
Hetfield.
FYI Wikipedia www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Note:- "that anyone can edit" |
4IPCC was a fairy tale prior to exposure on Wiki....
Hetfield, do you even know the actual number? |
I know, the US have a problem when it comes to wiki....
|
I know, the US have a problem when it comes to wiki.... The RealClimate.org team consisted of Schmidt, Mike Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Ray Bradley, Amy Clement, Rasmus Benestad and Caspar Ammann. Solomon revealed that Connolley, one man in the nine-member team who is a U.K. scientist, a software engineer and Green Party activist, took control of Wikipedia’s entries to see that any trace of the true climate history would be erased. Beginning in February 2003, Connolley rewrote Wikipedia entries on global warming, the greenhouse effect, the instrumental temperature record, the urban heat island, on climate models and on global cooling, according to the report. In February, he began editing the Little Ice Age. By August, he began to rewrite history without the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned to the hockey-stick chart. “He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band,” Solomon explains. “Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.” Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries. “When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand,” Solomon wrote. “When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.” |
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. 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. 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 ? |
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? |
@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..... :ugh::ugh::ugh: Please, kill yourself (if you want to), pollute yourself, but stay away from the rest of the world. |
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. |
So again, hetfield, when your cites are shown to be fooey, you resort back to anti-US rhetoric.
:confused: WTF does the weapons industry, assange, or the USDoD have to do with the EU-ETS trading paper scheme ? :confused: Nothing, you are trying to throw a diversion into some anti US belch fest because you have, well, nothing... :suspect: |
@stuckgear
Lobbyism |
Yes, no doubt, IPCC.
|
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. |
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:
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.
|
hetfield.. 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.... |
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. |
@stuck
I feel sorry you got so personally... One day you will understand, I'm 100% sure. Good luck:ok: -no more comments from my side- |
hetfield, I'm still waiting an explanation for your extraordinary attack on me.
|
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 :} |
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... |
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. |
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 |
yep, been through it here:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-airlines.html and a few other threads too.. |
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.
|
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.