What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Zed]

I identified myself as being of that belief, you then refer to the group as sharing a particular belief, no name required. The generalistaion you made isn't accurate as far a I'm concerned, and in my experience to date its an unfair characterisation of the group, although I am sure you can find people who think that way--> lets just stay away from broad sweeping generalizations, they have a tendency to colour the discussion and paint people such as myself with colours that they don't wear!

[Jimbo1490]

I've prompted you to speak you mind and identify your distinct set of beliefs, which is a good thing. My post brought to your attention, perhaps for the first time(?), one of the agendas of the 'zero growth' groups. I did not dream up that agenda; they have been at it for a long time.

Under the guise of climate change, such groups are in the process of preventing the electrification of a huge swath of the poorest populations. The immediate effect of this will be that they stay poor.

Jimbo

[Zed]

That may well be, maybe it is better to refer to the groups in a more specific fashion, it sounds like a twisted logic to me... Anywhooo there is nothing twisted about the issue of population and the nature of exponential growth its quite easy to see that at some point if it remains unchecked it will be an issue. If checking that growth involves maturing 3rd world economies to the point that they don't expand then so be it, they are green fields, they have a great opportunity to adopt sustainable practices without legacy to deal with. Maybe in the end they will export technologies back to the 'old' world... who knows!

As I have said before I suspect a lot goes on under "green banners" that has nothing to do with actually being 'green' ---> paedophiles hang out in church, thugs become police, its a twisted world what can I say! Just don't lump me in with that crowd.

[Jimbo1490]

Tell me about it; at least you guys are on an island without any serious threat of illegal immigration from underdeveloped countries. There are sections of every US city now where English is decidedly the second language. I'm no xenophobe, but exponential growth is a very real issue. And it does us little good to control out own fecundity only to receive the liabilities of uncontrolled growth from neighboring poor countries through uncontrollable illegal immigration. The best way we can help those people is to help them to prosper in their own country; it's just a simple fact.



Jimbo

[Tcubed]

Glad to see this thread getting a bit more dynamic lately.

Question, given the polarization apparent;

On the one hand (humans are contributing 'significantly' to global warming) we have people swearing they are right and that the other side is believing lies perpetrated by front groups funded by big oil to promote wanton "use till it runs out.."

On the other hand (humans have nothing to do with climate change, or the earth is actually cooling or ..I'm not entirely sure what they're trying to say) we have people swearing the are right and that the other side is believing lies perpetrated in order to push through carbon taxes.

This is my question , spare me no detail ; What exactly is their carbon taxation plan ?

How would it be implemented? How might it affect us? What exactly would be taxed? Etc. Details please.

[Guillermo]

Here you have what Jim Hansen thinks about carbon taxation (and more).....

Cheers.

[mudman]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802514107642447.html

I understand that the US government will tax Oil Companies 50% of their profit to give people green credit. They will not only tax the majors, but will also tax the independants. There are at least a hundred independant "mom and pop" oil companies that operate in the GOM area alone.

The plan is to make all oil companies pay to get this green thing going. They will be taxed to pay for the green revolution. (notice in the article that the majors have 100 billion in profits, but thy spent 1.5 trillion. Yeah, trillion with a "T".) So 50 billion will be set aside (supposedly) to be given to people that buy hybrids (GM is now promoting more hybrids, the government does own them), windmills, solar panels, or what have you.

Who cares about the massive ammount of lost jobs, not to mention 1.4 trillion (just from majors) spent within the economy.

I believe that the whole global warming thing is a hoax made up by people with investments in green technology. We could argue it forever, but 97% of scientists agree is no way a real number. A few months ago when the global warming scientists had their little pow wow in houston, there was another group of scientists across the street having their own anti global warming rally. The numbers are more like 50/50.

Heres a few links on the global warming subject.

http://global-warming-alerts.blogspo...l-warming.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/11/...-warming-case/

And here is a petition if anyone is interested.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The best way we can help those people is to help them to prosper in their own country; it's just a simple fact.

Amen to that.
We should be using all the waste anti-global-warming futile efforts and moneys in helping poor countries and undeveloped regions.

Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

We could argue it forever, but 97% of scientists agree is no way a real number.

You are correct sir as Fasteddy took the time to track down the original study that Punchinello B kept harping on about. A careful reading of that data resulted in a thorough debunking of this '97%' number turning it into nothing more than exaggeration, hype and deliberately misleading half-truth.

The questions in that study were so worded that even I would have been counted in the 97%!

What Punchinello B never bothered to tell you is that in that same study 54% of the scientists polled said that recent climate change was within historical natural variation. This puts the fraction convinced that humans are the cause of recent climate change and all that implies down into the low 40th percentile, not even a simple majority.

I expect PB to chime in anytime and tell us how the study group was too small so that we should ignore those particular results. This after over 100 thread pages of PB telling how significant the poll is.

Let everyone reading remember this episode !

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Has anyone looked at this page?

Here's the chart from that page. If someone already posted it, I guess I missed it.



Jimbo

[AmbitiousAmatur]

The global warming scare is a way for those at the top to get rich while redistributing the wealth. If Al Gore is so concerned with my carbon footprint, why is his power bill 10 times mine every month. In the UK they are proposing a carbon credit sale whereby wealthy people who can afford to travel have to pay poor people who cannot and the government takes their 30% cut off the top. Al Gore is now heavily investing in a company that makes 'Cap and Trade' tracking software and stands to make billions off of the deal if this legislation is passed. The earth has been cooling for the past 6 years and most scientist dismiss global warming, but of course you do not hear that in the mainstream media. The earth has existed for billions of years. 200 years of industrialization has not affected it enough to notice. Sometime in the fifth century B.C. there was actually a mini ice age. It is cyclical and just a way for some at the top to get rich while "helping" their poor constituants and making themselves feel all green inside at the same time.

[AmbitiousAmatur]

If this legislation is passed, companies will move American jobs to nations in which they are welcome to do business. Just as a side note, 87,000 farm jobs in the west were lost because of a minnow. That shows you just how far these people are willing to take this.

[AmbitiousAmatur]

Is the current administration using the government in 'Atlas Shrugged' as a blueprint because it almost seems that way. (ok, i'll shutup now.)

[fasteddy106]

One of the really sneaky things the IPCC does in their 2007 report is change the way they report numbers. If the number look good for their bias, they call .12 - 12%. If the number look bad for them, they leave it as .12 to give it a minimal perception. They do this with their estimate of the economic impact the AGW dogma will have on the developed nations. The impact of the warmist plans could cause a 12% shrinkage in the U.S. economy and that of other developed nations. This kind of economic devolution could cause riots and anarchy unless the posse comitatus portions of U.S. law are removed. Perhaps that is the goal, as the only efficient way to accomplish their CO2 reduction goals is at the point of a gun. Then they can accomplish the rest of their social engineering agenda. If you were to follow Bostons posts throughout the rest of the forums on various issues you will find the logic of a very dangerous man, he never fails to promote the most extreme position on any issue of social policy.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Tcubed

Glad to see this thread getting a bit more dynamic lately.

Question, given the polarization apparent;

On the one hand (humans are contributing 'significantly' to global warming) we have people swearing they are right and that the other side is believing lies perpetrated by front groups funded by big oil to promote wanton "use till it runs out.."

On the other hand (humans have nothing to do with climate change, or the earth is actually cooling or ..I'm not entirely sure what they're trying to say) we have people swearing the are right and that the other side is believing lies perpetrated in order to push through carbon taxes.

This is my question , spare me no detail ; What exactly is their carbon taxation plan ?

How would it be implemented? How might it affect us? What exactly would be taxed? Etc. Details please.

Read up on the Waxman bill, that should give you enough details to make you just a teeny bit uncomfortable.


http://www.heritage.org/news/cap-and...rming-bill.cfm


Estimates are that the bill if implemented will withdraw 2 trillion dollars from the economy. Thats a scary number.