Happy Face 29 Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 You do realise there is no proof apart from computer modelling (prigro) for global warming? This is a new tax for the elite by stealth. Wake up slaves. Why aren't they using it to the full extent it's warranted then? Every climate change measure introduced has been a half measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012. Indeed, none of the mainstream media are covering this important story. A Google News search of the terms Antarctic, sea ice and record turns up not a single article on the Antarctic sea ice record. Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low." http://www.forbes.co...another-record/ Edited February 6, 2013 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Climate change is natural and had been going on for a billions years. How much carbon back tax is that for the EU, UN, World bank Nazi's? I expect a graph Nicos. A graph damn you! I miss Wolfy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal. Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures. “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email. “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Why aren't they using it to the full extent it's warranted then? Every climate change measure introduced has been a half measure. It's actually too expensive to lay out the full protocols (they're talking 1trillion$ per -1F). They'll do some shit they can put taxes on and then forget about it. The UN has funding issues it's becoming really expensive as is the Eu and of course the new planned planet wide regulatory bodies they want to put in place (global govt by stealth) will all cost money. Say hello to carbon tax. It's so patently transparent. For sustainability read population reduction. Edited February 6, 2013 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Oh Parky, you are mental, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_AU/au/insights/ca42b7c6ab0e1310VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htm The same folk, different scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Forbes and Deloitte? Yeah, they'll definitely give it to you straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6432 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 It's actually too expensive to lay out the full protocols (they're talking 1trillion$ per -1F). They'll do some shit they can put taxes on and then forget about it. The UN has funding issues it's becoming really expensive as is the Eu and of course the new planned planet wide regulatory bodies they want to put in place (global govt by stealth) will all cost money. Say hello to carbon tax. It's so patently transparent. For sustainability read population reduction. Gotcha this huge multinational scam, designed to milk every penny from the taxpayer, which thousands of universities around the world are in on and thousands of companies, hundreds of thousands of individuals, dozens of succesive governments....it's all too expensive to put in place properly to actually earn the money it's designed to. As conspiracies go it lacks even the most basic logical thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17744 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Gotcha this huge multinational scam, designed to milk every penny from the taxpayer, which thousands of universities around the world are in on and thousands of companies, hundreds of thousands of individuals, dozens of succesive governments....it's all too expensive to put in place properly to actually earn the money it's designed to. As conspiracies go it lacks even the most basic logical thought. I've got an idea, why not directly tax oil instead, Much simpler. Oh.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I've got an idea, why not directly tax oil instead, Much simpler. Oh.......... You're in the ball park. Elaborate on that and think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Gotcha this huge multinational scam, designed to milk every penny from the taxpayer, which thousands of universities around the world are in on and thousands of companies, hundreds of thousands of individuals, dozens of succesive governments....it's all too expensive to put in place properly to actually earn the money it's designed to. As conspiracies go it lacks even the most basic logical thought. Ha...YOu seem to carry this cute notion that science and academia work in some kind of holy bubble that they aren't reliant on prestige, grants and political pressure. I suspect that many involved sense there is money to be made. You know as well as I do the intervention will stop at the gates of corporate interest, they will only go so far (far enough to levy the new taxes) but as soon as corporate profits are in danger the line will be drawn. Like all scams it will be selective and a hall of mirrors. Small and medium business and the tax payer will be hit the hardest - same old story eh? Al Gore charges 300,000 $ for one of his talks btw...That's how sincere he is about getting the message out. How many months left before the planet explodes in a ball of heat? Edited February 6, 2013 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17744 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 You're in the ball park. Elaborate on that and think about it. Given fossil fuels, and especially oil, are indisputably finite and easily taxable, I'd like you to elaborate please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Given fossil fuels, and especially oil, are indisputably finite and easily taxable, I'd like you to elaborate please. The government imposed taxes on most of the fossil fuels used by homes, offices, vehicles and farms, based on each fuel’s carbon dioxide emissions, a move that immediately drove up prices for oil, natural gas and kerosene. Household trash is weighed at the curb, and residents are billed for anything that is not being recycled. The three-year-old carbon tax has raised nearly one billion euros ($1.3 billion) over all, including 400 million euros in 2012. That provided the Irish government with 25 percent of the 1.6 billion euros in new tax revenue it needed to narrow its budget gap this year and avert a rise in income tax rates. Not everyone is happy. The prices of basic commodities like gasoline and heating oil have risen 5 to 10 percent. This is particularly hard on the poor, although the government has provided subsidies for low-income families to better insulate homes, for example. And industries complain that the higher prices have made it harder for them to compete outside Ireland" http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all Because the new tax is designed to imapact us, the people and not corporations. Infact corporations will get grants and tax breaks if they impement green protocols. If corporations ability to be competitive is in danger they pass the costs onto us via either Govt subsidies (we pay) or tax breaks (we pay as tax has to be got someplace else). Notice I talk about corporations and not companies. They aren't interested in small or medium sized companies...As the middle class are being attacked so are companies of that size. The corporations remain untoched and have the ability to pick off the small competiton to their dominance. This tax is part of the tools of a war against indepedance of the middle class (the working class have been wrung dry) and smaller independant firms and organisations - any kind of free thinking infact. The are in the game of rationalising the supply chain in favour of dominant corporations, think Monsanto or Shell or drugs manufacturers. The smaller the supply chain the easier to control the future, to manage pricing, supply and demand and finally to bring countries to their knees who go against their new shiny hatching plans. It might sound like hyperbole but I believe we will be the last truly free generation. Carbon tax will interfere with all our lives and more importantly our behaviour. Finally everything will have to be justifyied (air travel, eating meat, buying entertainment, size of property and so on...). Our behaviour modifyied to their will. They want to move toward a society with only two classes the elite scientific ruling class and the rest of us. As Lennin and Stalin showed it is possible to completely wipe out the middle class, the free thinkers, the only group with the education and ability to replace those in charge. The battle for the future isn't in the future it's in our heads it's supra-conscious it's almost mystical it balances and manifests reality - the battle for our minds IS the the battle for the future. A being without independant thought has no future. Edited February 6, 2013 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17744 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Parky, you've obviously put some effort into that post, but what can I say, other than it's bonkers. There's no "they" for starters a and blatantly no climate change conspiracy. The hypothesis may be wrong - I doubt it like - but the idea is a global conspiracy is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Well you did ask why they don't just tax oil and I explained it. Tax is for the little people (see Monaco/Lux/Camen Islands) the the dozens of uk firms paying 2/3% tax and registered in far off places. I would imagine being a lefty you'd understand all that. That's how THEY operate. If as you imply you think the corporate and media barons along with the war machine aren't organising the planet for profit and control...What can I say? Carbon Tax is for us...WE will end up paying it (as the above article explains) and it will be added to food (meat has a horrendous footprint) and all the other stuff they can cook up. Edited February 6, 2013 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Ha...YOu seem to carry this cute notion that science and academia work in some kind of holy bubble that they aren't reliant on prestige, grants and political pressure. I suspect that many involved sense there is money to be made. I'm not going to comment on the overall arc of the debate here, except to endorse this point. I work in academic publishing, and believe me, universities follow the money. As governments begin to invest more in particular projects, it has become harder for universities to remain impartial. If the only way to get funding is to take government projects (with government/corporate interests at heart), then you'll take it. On the wider note of the debate (flying in the face of my initial statement) - I don't think there's an overarching 'thinking' conspiracy; but I think the system is set up to protect the individual interests of those who know how to play the system. They all just play it the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Parky predicted the financial crisis in 2005, back then he sounded crazy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm not going to comment on the overall arc of the debate here, except to endorse this point. I work in academic publishing, and believe me, universities follow the money. As governments begin to invest more in particular projects, it has become harder for universities to remain impartial. If the only way to get funding is to take government projects (with government/corporate interests at heart), then you'll take it. On the wider note of the debate (flying in the face of my initial statement) - I don't think there's an overarching 'thinking' conspiracy; but I think the system is set up to protect the individual interests of those who know how to play the system. They all just play it the same way. The last para is very well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17744 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Parky predicted the financial crisis in 2005, back then he sounded crazy too. Iirc his "prediction" was just a smidgen more apocalyptic than the reality. Plus if you employ such a scatter gun approach you're bound to be proven right eventually. Entertaining stuff though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Iirc his "prediction" was just a smidgen more apocalyptic than the reality. Plus if you employ such a scatter gun approach you're bound to be proven right eventually. Entertaining stuff though. I know you're not religious but that is a particularly uncharitable view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011" A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html Edited July 19, 2015 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2406 Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Seems like a ridiculous prediction to make in the first place. They're like a lot of Jehovah's Witness predicting Armageddon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now