LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksthe carbon tax does not help the public in anyway. it will take money from companies and people and will do nothing about polluters. it seam tto be in the best interest of the planet, but is it really??
perhaps global warming is a sort of scam??
July 7th, 2011, 08:08 PM
the carbon tax does not help the public in anyway. it will take money from companies and people and will do nothing about polluters. it seam tto be in the best interest of the planet, but is it really??
perhaps global warming is a sort of scam??
July 7th, 2011, 08:37 PM
This is false.Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
This is false.
It's certainly a step in the right direction.
No.
but it seams to just take money from people. there is a sientist (and i will try to get the name in the next few days.) who recieved death threats and went into hiding becouse he opposed global warming!
Uhuh. And I have a magic time machine in my bathroom. See... We can both make completely unfounded unsupported claims. It's fun!
i will get it i watched on a documentry on the history channel. but i will find the person.
carbon tax is false
Please read your source more closely, Lewis. As the article YOU LINKED clearly says, the scientist was receiving death threats because they ACCEPTED global warming, not because they opposed it.
More here on some of the lies flying around in the outback: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
oops my bad. you look itr up. you think your right? then look up the arguments that proove global warming wrong.
I already have. I've spent many years educating myself on this topic. One of the things I've found is that those "arguments that proove (sic) global warming wrong" have nearly all been debunked, or shown to be false, or to have used flawed methodologies. The arguments which show that the human impact on global climate is valid span across several different research domains, several different decades, and have enormous consistency and merit.
Will you follow your own advise and look up the arguments which demonstrate the human impact on our global climate to be true?
i will, and have been. it has not changed my mind yet.
will you look up argumnts on how it is false?
think about this. global warming holds every person responsable. there are many movments to try to stop it. this seems like a never ending war. is it real, or not.
now just about everyone believes it, and is paying for it. this all brings us back to the subject of money. where does all that money go?? the current goverment has created a whole new income, which is being used around the world. people believe it becouse they are told it is true. you know your best friends name becouse they told you it. what if everyone thought that his (or her) name is bill. he could have an entirly different name that only is parents know. his friends and the rest of his family all think his name is bill.
global warming works on the same princable. an investment to this being the truth has been made. i am not saying there was never proof for it. just that it was false, prooven wrong, and stuck with for the perpose of making money.
Lewis, seriously, will you pay attention to what people are writing. inow already said this:
I already have (looked up the arguments proving global warming wrong. I've spent many years educating myself on this topic. One of the things I've found is that those "arguments that proove (sic) global warming wrong" have nearly all been debunked, or shown to be false, or to have used flawed methodologies.
sorry, must of missed it. still, my argument still stands. give me a peice of valid info (not a site) but a particular matter in the subject, and i will counter it. i don't like it when people like inow tell me i am wrong and should let them educate me in there way of thinking.
he said this on another thread. i think it was in the one under the hypothisis page...
what was that called again??
Carbon tax is a common tax in many developed and developing countries.
It is a tool to make those companies producing more exhaust gas pay more for their goods. Thus, the companies(countries) using green techniques will be more competitive in trades.
It has no means to gain many from companies, but a tool to balance new green techniques and traditional methods. New ones like the green techniques always be weaker. That's why there is carbon tax.
This is my explanation for the tax. I'm not American, so if your problems were pointed
on the detailed actions taken by US tax collector, just forget my words, I know nothing about that.
Than seriously you shouldn't be any part of a science forum. It's not a personal matter, it's a matter of coldly looking at the information, the science and whether you like it or not accepting the most likely explanation for how things work.
You haven't made any argument. You've made hollow assertions--that it all.my argument still stands.
My own study of the matter runs several decades and it built upon my education and practical knowledge of the closely related field of meteorology. The foundation for man-made warming theory goes back over a century with the recognition the Co2 as one of the "green house" gases that blocks IR radiation. By mid 20th century scientist recognized the sharp increases in Co2 based our man's industrial production. By the 1960s an American president was warning the public. By the 1970's most scientist literature about climate change was echoing concern about our role in future warning. Lastly today, our models have not only confirmed those earlier findings but go to the point they are starting to verify even regional changes as well as gaining the numerical power to make meaningful predictions about the future at the local level. Most of what's on the web that attempts to counter the science is 1) already demolished decades ago 2) not being published as science in the literature, 3) finally tuned to play to the common public regardless of the facts and 4) nearly entirely backed by fossil fuel industry money.
--
As for how we solve the problem I'm not a big fan of carbon trading. But I'm not an economist either so don't claim to be an expect on market forcing to influence behaviors. It just seems to be direct taxing on carbon emissions combined with strong regulatory framework to measure those emissions would be far more effectively and less prone to shell games.
lewis, your point about the mone for the factories is completely invalid. Mqst manufacturing companies have mone to spare. Also the place where this would really be painful would be china were most of the factories are subsidized or owned entirely by the government, who would be getting the money.
Anyway australia has a free, open and good government. Why are you against them preying on the "helpless" manufacturing corporations?
Im not even going to start on your anti global warming claims, they are not worth my time.
if you don't wan't to hold a discussion/debate on global warmings existance- then thats your loss, not mine. a peice of future advise though, don't post on a thread f you are not willing to discuss or debate your claims or ideas with anyone.
Listen here boy, I have yet to see you do other than repeat claims which you fail to back up with any salient discussion or debate.
Really, you're the one who need's to put up or shut up.
I'll put $5.00 American on 15uliane whooping your ass in any academic challenge in which you have some hope of maybe competing. If such even exists.
$5.00 American, any time, any where, any test! You hear me boy?
you think your in an action movie or somthing?? you sound like a desprate drunk, who is trying to have an academic fight-so to speak, with a 14 year old. i doubt your overall intelligence is very high at all, or mabye just your commen sense??
do you get personal with everything you do? don't call me boy and get a bloody life.
i guess what i am trying to say is- on your bloody bike!
you dound like you like 15uliane quite alot. i am not sure if 15uliane is a man or woman, but i don't think it really matters to your type.
(that was not directed towards you 15uliane, even if i think you should be on your bike aswell.)
Boy.
Who is being childish now, GiantEvil? There is no need for that tone. Lewis might not know what he is talking about, but he has been civil at least thus far.
giantevils comments could go the other way just as fast, only in this case im not the one making the stupid arguments, or not accepting arguments people have made that are backed up by proved science.
global warming is not a scam, in fact one of our nieghbors in the solar system has felt its effects. Venus' atmosphere is almost entirely greenhouse gases, and it happens to be 900 degrees celsius on the surface. Not the usual argument, and it might have some innacuracies, but I'm pretty sure it is sound in theory.
Lewis you are clearly one of those people that argues just for the sake of arguing. Why do you need to try and prove an established theory wrong, when there is SO MUCH ACCEPTED EVIDENCE that supports it?
And 15uliane Venus is an example of the greenhouse effect to the extreme but I am not positive if there is any evidence that Venus at any point had Earth-like conditions. It is the same heating process, but if there is no proof that Venus started out like Earth today and then degenerated, the evidence doesn't really work.[/quote]
[/quote] Not the same but close enough. We're pretty sure the out gassing on Earth and Venus were pretty similar early in their history. Venus was closer to the sun however, and even with a 30% weaker sun than now, warm enough to either have no oceans or not much of one. In either case the Co2 in the atmosphere remained allowing a run-away greenhouse effect to boil off what was left of the oceans, much of the hydrogen to escape and get to something like we see today. If most of earth's Co2 hadn't dissolved into the oceans than become part of our geology Earth's atmosphere wouldn't be too dissimilar to Venus as would have likely caused a run-away green house.It is the same heating process, but if there is no proof that Venus started out like Earth today and then degenerated, the evidence doesn't really work.
Other than that though the comparison is a rather bad one. Even if we tap and release all the fossil fuels its still only a tiny fraction of the total carbon trapped in the Earth's surface. We are in no danger of precipitating a run away green house effect--or at least not until the sun becomes much warmer and expands in a billion years or so.
Go back and read Lewis's post's in this thread. I considered myself to use restraint.
Now, back on topic. There is also rising sea levels and their impacts.
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/
Venus does have a green house effect but it is due to totally differing circumstances as Lynx_Fox has stated.
If both Venus and the Earth started the same, ie with considerable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it was conditions on the Earth which reduced this accumulation. Obviously this did not happen for Venus and will never happen.
The Earth on the other hand, will happily return to present condition after depopulation, the decrease of greenhouse gas emissions and reforestation of the globe. It will never have a runaway greenhouse.
Incidentaly, the oxygen content of the atmosphere is about 20%. It would only need to get above 25% for all life to cease to exist. Oxygen is a strong oxidizer and will hinder and kill cell function, to say nothing of the unstoppable fires. I think we should reduce oxygen emissions or at least implement a cap-and-trade system for oxygen ( I'm just being a provocative ass now, so don't get too upset ).
I brought up venus because it proves greenhouse gasses cause the greenhouse effects in a pretty nonrefutable way. Unless lewis is going to say we don't emit co2, methane etc. he can't really disprove his? Not that he can disprove global warming anyway.
It is already established that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is an accepted idea and process. Without it, Earth would be too cold for humans or other life. The greenhouse effect is not what is being debated (if you can call it that... :wink: )
More specific to the question posed in the thread title:
http://theconversation.edu.au/frank-...t-deliver-2255
Two years ago Australian climate policy looked dead. Now we are on the verge of legislation that puts a carbon price through much of the Australian economy, alongside new schemes to support renewable energy, improve energy efficiency and increase carbon sequestration on the land.
Although the carbon pricing scheme has its warts, the negotiations between Labor, the Greens and the Independents have also produced some genuinely positive outcomes. The package will not bring big reductions in emissions in the short term, but it can be the first step on the long road to a lower-carbon economy.
That long-term ambition is reflected in government now committing to an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, up from 60% previously. Fresh from the government’s lockup, here is a look at the key features, and an early assessment of how they stack up against the yardstick of good policy.
For those who are genuine in their concern that this is little more than a scam, the items shared below where I ended my quote at the link above are somewhat helpful in illuminating what's happening. Enjoy.
man makes CO2-but i still do not see how that will effect the ozone layer. we know that it does-but how does it do it?? and how can you be sure of this???
Decades and decades and decades of work from very smart people following basic principles of physics and chemistry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribu...eenhouse_gases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...eenhouse_gases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...27s_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
It is often stated that ozone depletion and global warming are separate issues, but they are not - they are linked by the effect of CO2 on the stratosphere. As the lower atmosphere warms due to man-made emissions of CO2, conversely the stratosphere cools and this has an effect on the chemical reactions affecting the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere.
However this is not the main concern about CO2 - it is just one of many effects, and may be one of the less significant ones. We should be more concerned about shifting climate patterns, loss of crop-growing land, sea level rise and ocean acidification.
The best scientific evidence says that all of the above is very likely true. There is no certainty, but it is extremely foolish and selfish to gamble our children's future for our own short-term comforts.and how can you be sure of this???
| « disscutions and debates on obama and gillards pollicies | Embracing cultures that don't approve of one's own culture » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
