150 "top climate scientists"? That's only 1% of the number of real Climatologists at the actual, legitimate meeting. Climate change denial nuts are just a lunatic fringe and can be ignored.
We are all borne with the love for nature, the deal is some people found the way to play with others emotions and intelligence by making some big CHE CHANGS, the same guys that are ready to kill their own for money so no way in the world i will ever EVER support that BS, check out George Carlin on climate change he got the story right befor you get played
People thinking CO2 is not a contaminant, do us all a big favor, please get your breathing inside the end of a car exhaust and leave space in this world for the people that care and have consciousness for mother earth.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
Global warming does not exist only Ozone Layer Depletion exists. The blue sky protects the Earth from extreme temperatures, both hot and cold, from outer space. The Ozone Layer is thinning at an alarming rate. Forget global warming, Ozone Layer Depletion really is the end of the world.
Oil and nuclear is all we have, sorry to have to tell you but solar is unreliable and requires batteries as back up (they are not green) Oh ya and what is this =P ? Seems a bit immature.
@TheKickerboy99 Aren't we all a little immature sometimes? =P
Solar energy is entirely reliable in homesteads. In fact, I and the majority of my street have been living (bill-free) off've solar power for the last 3 years. In 2 years, we will have turned a profit (and the panels are insured for 22 more).
As for cars; there is a japanese prototype solar car that runs ENTIRELY on solar energy; as well as several electrical alternatives (cheaper than oil) that use solar refueling stations.
@TheKickerboy99 Oil is also unreliable owing to it's peak distribution, safety hazards, and consistent need to be resupplied to vehicles (once to twice a week--very commonly).
Not to mention, again, the pollutants that can be directly generated from its mass usage.
If both are equally unreliable; but one is safer, more abundant, cheaper, and requires no transport... then why would you opt with the opposite?
@jaieet Hey I'm not saying we shouldn't be going after solar and wind. Thats for sure we should. No arguments there at all. All I am saying, is that CO2 tax is a scam, based on inadequate computer models. Lets clean up the oceans, and drop this CO2 BS.
@TheKickerboy99 i agree tat we shld all deal with the problem of climate change itself rather than cooking up conferences to play the blame game, which in the end does not solve the problem n only benefits the powerful.
In fact we have so much clean oil here in Alberta it is hard to quantify. They have way more in Saskatchewan, and haven't even started there. By the time they start there, the process will be so smooth and efficient, and environmentally friendly it will be quite a financial win fall for the region. As it is where ever development occurs. If you talk to the foreign workers that this development helps they would tell you that they love drilling for oil or gas, or mining coal. Why, do you think?
@TheKickerboy99 Ah. So flammable liquid that causes pollution and outweighs the (accumulated) expenses of greener alternatives is ok if the workers like drilling for it? =P
Fact is; we're going to be relying on oil for as long as people use oil-reliant cars (probably 50 years if we made a 'change' today, at least). This 'will' get more and more expensive, and will not reach all consumers unless we lower the consumption rate.
Why would you opt against green--particularly solar--energy?
What is it with kids, did you not believe me when I said there is oil for hundreds of years in just northern alberta and saskatchewan? Or did you not read that part?
@TheKickerboy99 You make many assumptions. It is most unnerving that the large minority of what you say is directly contradicted by everyday information and evidence. Are you arguing the point? Or just arguing with me?
We DO have oil in stock; A pollutant that is rising in cost every single day. What we don't have--as I (and the media/government/oil industry) have stated before, but apparently need to spell out--is the means to distribute it. We ARE peaking, after all. =P
@TheKickerboy99 As the oil becomes harder to obtain, it becomes more difficult to distribute correctly. When it becomes 'too' difficult to distribute correctly, it forces a business to prioritise where it distributes. And when a business is at its peak distribution rate; but has so many customers that it cannot keep up; certain people go without.
Now imagine THAT on a global scale. :P
And for good measure; the tech to get oil doesn't contribute to distance or manpower; hence the expense. =P
There have been no changes in our climate that are out of normal. List one. Oil prices move all the time, for sure they manipulated for sure, but everything goes up in price look at food, drugs ect. Think how inconvenient costs will be if they get cap and trade. As for our solar neighbors, all you are is a repeater of other people. You have discovered nothing your self just repeating what you have heard, and your source is very bad.
@TheKickerboy99 That's a shame; when scientific theories aren't credible sources. Perhaps you are right; perhaps I am merely mirroring what I have heard (as you tend to in most circumstances). Perhaps the papers are false; and the stock market is wrong.
Perhaps the temperature fluctuations (Name one? The entire AGW theory revolves around 100s. =P) are entirely false precedents; and perhaps our renowned ability to monitor local and solar temperatures are entirely fake.
@TheKickerboy99 This is very lucky for your case; because now that this evidence is proven fake through the process of placing your hands carefully over your ears and aiming profanities, you win! Isn't that convenient?
...
Aaaanyway; Yes; several products are increasing in price. Not 'all', as you suggest, however. Only items in high demand, low supply, or that are difficult (or costly) to procure.
@TheKickerboy99 Milk, for example, is (or was; I'm not up to date on foreign currency affairs) incredibly expensive in the US. This, however, does not reflect on the rest of the world.
Oil, on the other hand, is rising in cost dramatically; and certain nations have made it no secret that they are straining due to their lackluster supplies and rising needs.
This is not to say the world is running out of oil (which you keep trying to defend against for some reason :P)--it is not able to keep up.
@TheKickerboy99 Of course, it is also not to say we are 'not' not running out of oil. We totally are; but we've got maybe a generation left in us yet (though good luck distributing it correctly).
It is also, as you are incredibly keen to ignore, a major pollutant; and our only option. It is ironic that you dislike the rich, but adore a single industry reigning supreme.
Not that I'm insinuating that you're paid off. It's just a very... strange view.
@jaieet In fact there are so many untapped sources of oil its just not accurate to say we are running out. They are not hard to get, and though some of them are in sensitive zones, the tech for pipelines now is so good that it takes an environmental activist with a bomb them to get them to leak. The truth is the powers "create" crisis all the time to get people to act in a certain way, sometimes it is based on facts, sometimes not. If you study both sides of history, that is what you will find.
@TheKickerboy99 Now; if the population does not rise; you would have a point. In fact--you'd be right. We would have enough (in most areas; though we are occasionally failing to distribute it everywhere, everytime).
Unfortunately, the industry cannot keep up. They've made this painfully clear through public statement and delayed supplies. As the drilling continues, you see, the oil gets further and further away. And as the oil get further away, it becomes harder to obtain.
@TheKickerboy99 Now, with that all out of the way; why are you such a fan of oil and fossil fuels? It pollutes, is unreliable, is expensive, and 'funds the rich' (I also would like to know why you believe having excess income is so wrong).
Oil in particular is also incredibly flammable; and is a severe safety risk in everyday life.
If I understand correctly, you dislike the idea of cheap (in the long term) green energy (namely solar). Why?
I really do want to know if/why you dislike green energy. Let's say, theoretically, it 'didn't' destroy the world economy to predominantly supply green energy systems; why would you not want one?
They won't debate or use numbers? :P They hold international conferences pointing at the rise and fall in temperatures.... regularly. Often, even. You can find all this information with relative ease--it's known to the public; and probably one of the first results in google.
No, no; what they won't debate about are false pretenses or lackluster arguments. For example; the Medieval warming period as a beat-all argument against predictable temp increases.
@TheKickerboy99 Oil and fossil fuels are lacking in convenient supply. Rigs/Mines/Operations are being set up in more and more remote regions; and the costs are reflecting that.
You should study economics. If you did, perhaps you could come up with an alternate solution. As of now, you are just spewing nonsense--You oppose evidence and embrace opinion with such fanaticism that it is almost scary.
I will give you a chance, though; how would a 10% tax take away our children's freedom, Kickerboy?
@jaieet As I said there is enough oil in alberta and sask alone for hundreds of years, and it gets cheaper to get all the time. As well the environmental impact, is actually better than what was there. Ever notice how sceptics always use numbers, and AGW supporters never do? Ever notice when the AGW side does use numbers someone immediately corrects them. Ever notice Al Gore has disappeared? In fact the few legit scientists on the planet that claim AGW, won't debate it?
@jaieet As I said there is enough oil in alberta and sask alone for hundreds of years, and it gets cheaper to get all the time. As well the environmental impact, is actually better than what was there. Ever notice how sceptics always use numbers, and AGW supporters never do? Ever notice when the AGW side does use numbers someone immediately corrects them. Ever notice Al Gore has disappeared? In fact the few legit scientists on the planet that claim AGW, won't debate it? Ever notice?
@TheKickerboy99 There are holes in the still developing theory; but none that defy the fact that our planet's climate is shifting very differently to that of our solar neighbours. It is true that we go through cycles; but these cycles are predictable.
The fact remains that, OFTEN, the temperature is rising irregularly, but lowering regularly with the climate. This suggests and eventual concern.
@TheKickerboy99 And your statement about oil is an outright lie. :P I seriously, seriously recommend you study economics (or browse over the stock market) and weigh up how oil prices are tallied. The sheer effort and competitiveness involved in the procurement of this resource is immense; and the costs are becoming inconvenient.
Prices are rising. They HAVE been rising. They rose over the past 12 months. Where are you getting 'cheaper' from?
One form of paid wage that the government services is 'not' good though; and that is paid wages and vacation time to it's own employees. There 'is' a limit on how much you can pay someone of a certain rank; but there is not a limit on how many people you can employ.
If you employ people to stand around and argue, it's a waste of money. Government services, however, are not. After all; you are relying on them right now to challenge me.
Global governance as they want to call it, is a communist movement. After the fall of the USSR the communists "took over" the green movement, as a means to set it up. One does not have to look back very far to see where this came, from and where it is meant to go. If your not concerned about this, and trust that 'they" will make good decisions for your children is unwise to say the least. It is about power and control, veiled in betterment of the world.
First off; Government control is a given. Without Government control, there is no government. =P To suggest that them offering rebates and paying for solar panels is somehow a move for power, though, is insanity. Even 'with' a tax induced on carbon.
Now; you are partially right; man cannot yet control the environment (very well). This is PRECISELY the reason why global warming is so 'in'. If we break it; we can't fix it. It IS scary; and IS demonstrable.
@TheKickerboy99 I'm not sure; how much simpler 'can' you be? You seem pretty simple already =P
They are planning on taxing the hazardous burnoff and pollutants that come from fossil fuels, exhaust and so on. This IS a health threat
They also 'need' an income to maintain the state of living you are accustomed to. No money means no luxuries; no services and, ironically enough, no powerlines
One solution is to give them control over power. But that'll screw people over; any ideas?
@jaieet What hazardous burn-off are you referring to exactly? As far as I am aware they are only trying to tax CO2. Not any of the "nasty stuff", just a trace gas that promotes plant life. Where I live..there was 1500 M of ice, and then prairie, in cycles for millenia. This is the way of things. If you believe that making the rich richer, by way of a CO2 tax is the way to go then great, carry on. Just don't try to say its based on science, or any rational thought. It is pure greed, nothing more
@TheKickerboy99 Global warming? You beating that dead horse? =P
Let's start at the beginning, yes?
Co2 is hazardous in large doses; true enough. It can stop us from breathing; and massive concentrations can effect the environment. This is owing largely to the fact that, simply, a large quantity of CO2 in one area increases the odds of CO being produced in that same area (owing to the lack of oxygen available).
@jaieet Who ever told you CO2 is hazardous in large doses? What do you consider large? YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please don't reply, your making this easy.
@TheKickerboy99 Don't get me wrong; a global movement 'simply' to route out global warming? That's absolutely silly; and most politicians and government forums agree.
However; pollution IS a problem; and money IS a necessity. You're right when you say a tax is a money grab--what the heck else would it be? ( =P ) But it's entirely evident that the government NEEDS money.
Those that made this decision likely think they're making the right one on a national scale. And, down the line, it 'could' be.
@jaieet The folly in this is that a global government can control or change in anyway our climate. They can't even predict weather two weeks in advance, never mind control it. Our climate is controlled by our movement through the galaxy. For anyone to believe we can change what our future climate will be, one would have to think of these people as Gods, they are not. Trust less, question more, study our history, follow the money. You will find the AGW movement is as I have said.
@TheKickerboy99 This issue is not as 'pressing' as certain people make it out to be, but pollution is directly deadly all the time; and our reliance on fossil fuels is a contributer to this factor. In addition, we are running low. It takes GENERATIONS to institute change; mostly owing to fanatic opposition; but often to general laziness and ignorance.
Positive changes and ideas being formed now will inevitably take decades to be put effectively into action.
@TheKickerboy99 I think it also needs to be said that conspiracy theories and sketchy trails are no way to come to a sound conclusion. To claim that the 'government is in on it' is silly. The majority of the system--even our higher ups--are just average people trying to do what they 'think' is right. Pointing them out as some kind of power/money hungry entity does not work, simply, because you have NO faces to pin it on (ala; Illuminati).
@jaieet As I said before, you are too trusting that the people you elect have a say in policy. Obama made a lot of promises to get elected, he has failed to do most of them because policy sometimes sets itself. Sometimes it comes from outside the government. Electing him based on promises everyone should have known he could not keep, is akin to the same dream world you seem to live in. Search Maurice Strong, George Soros, see if you are in agreement with those guys, about the direction we need.
@TheKickerboy99 Strong and Soros? Election Promises? What does any of that have to do with pollution and tax? =P
You don't seem to understand that, if there is indeed a dream world involved in this argument, it's entirely within your own head. You speak of extreme economic failure based on a small tax, despite living through a very real recession right now. You speak of corruption in the government, but cannot name those who would personally profit from such an act.
@jaieet re: Soros and Strong, what the hell do you think they have to do with it? Oh and if you think Cap and Trade will be a small tax, you are so dumb. Where do you think this current financial crisis came from? You must live under a rock, or only get your info from a left progressive source. Either way....grow up, and grab a brain. Get with it man your ignorance of reality is scary.
@TheKickerboy99 Jobs? You mean like nano-tech and cancer research? You mean like the police force, the firefighters and the medical care institutions? Or maybe you're talking about the post office?
I'll have you know that I have depended on the help of all of these services at some stage in my life; and they have always come through for me (save the post office; which has been late on international packages occasionally).
You can't possibly be arguing that point of view, so I'll not pry;
@TheKickerboy99 You offer no solutions aside from the rich to learn to share their money around; and have a complete disdain of the idea of the rich ever getting richer (which is all but inevitable, anyways).
I have no long-term opinions of a nation or global government. A dream world? Please. :P
I'm talking about a tax increase and pollution. Why are you not?
@jaieet Who do you think supports charities? The government? Who create jobs? The government? You seem to think the government is the answer to every problem. It is not, massive governments always fail, if you learned history in school today you would know this. Look at the US right now, they have sent a message in the latest midterm election, they want to put the brakes on growth of government, as their economy can not support it.
@TheKickerboy99 Charities? You mean like the ones that fund African children with less than 40% of the income they receive due to advertising, transport, and employees? Or do you mean charities like the several million $ that were invested to rebuild the homes and communities of flood and hurricane victims? I can point to my very own home state for evidence of that one. Not even a week has gone by, and the government has invested directly into supporting these people.
@TheKickerboy99 You speak of having your eyes open; and of a clear view on the world as it is (at least, in this particular case). Why is it so difficult to have someone oppose your opinions? If my stupidity is insulting, then you best educate me (rather than spewing quizzical nonsense).
You've hinted that our recession was created by taxes. I hope I heard that incorrectly--cause that's way off. =P
Again; what 'do' Soros and Strong have to do with our pollution and tax?
"if you think Cap and Trade will be a small tax, you are so dumb. Where do you think this current financial crisis came from?"
Though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your second assumption is correct; the recession WAS caused by profit. Real estate and Oil industries in particular had a very notable effect.
You speak of profits; the Oil and power industries profit immensely simply by existing. And, as of right now, they're the average person's only choice.
@TheKickerboy99 I believe one of (the many) definitions of freedom is choice. Freedom to do what we want, when we want; or, at the least, to have a diverse range of options to choose from.
All our power comes from a single industry. The power bills are rising; the effectiveness and reliability lowering; and our 'only' other option is to shell out nearly 10s of thousands of dollars for a solar energy system; or to pay to find ways to 'reduce' power usage.
@jaieet There is enough oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan, to supply the world for hundreds of years. So I don't know what you mean about reliable, we have vast oil sources yet to be tapped. Freedom is not being controlled by a scam like AGW, freedom is knowledge. The AGW movement is set to remove you freedom, and take it from your children and theirs. If you look to the right of this page you'll find tons of people trying to free your mind, only you can do it.
It's ironic that you state this. AGW is entirely plausible and observable in every single sense of the word. The very reason it is still under major debate is owing to the fact that it is still rather 'new', as far as theories go. Our planet is not warming and cooling based entirely on solar shifts; while our solar neighbours appear to be doing just that.
They plan to observe for longer though; science is not a race =P
@jaieet You support the creation of big bureaucracy, and I know that will fail. You seem to want to give government more power to control one of YOUR necessities of life. Did you not believe Obama when he said "Energy prices will "necessarily" skyrocket under my new plan." You live in a dream world, and know zero human history. Keep drinking the cool-aid you naive fool, you are the fall of logic, and the champion of emotion.
@TheKickerboy99 In addition to this fact, the Government cannot AFFORD to maintain current projections of future constructional and institutional facilities and activities. I don't know if I support 'big bureaucracy' , as you put it, but I definitely support the idea of my power grid not shutting down and my roads being safe. Not to mention the amazing education and 'good' health care system that has managed to be supplied.
And, just in case you haven't noticed; everything is skrocketing. =P
@jaieet You are a product of our current educational system, and I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but its failing miserably. You are the perfect example of misinformation gone extreme. Have any idea how screwed up your concept of reality is? Wow its amazing. I pity you, You are doomed to be a pawn for interests you don't understand, for life.
@jaieet You are an adolescent with delusions of knowledge, and I don't know why I keep this going, other than to let you show your ignorance to every one else. As I said when we started, go live in a cave and eat grass...leave the rest of us be. Your beliefs are not based in reality, they are a for the rich to control more than they do now. When you have some observable data to show CO2 is an imminent threat let me know. Till then be a fringe nut job, just don't try to make it sound plausible.
@TheKickerboy99 Now that you've gotten all of that out of your system;
As you said earlier (I think it was you. If not, I've given you too much credit); too much CO2 constricts breathing capacity. If you really 'are' at a loss when I make such a claim, reading up on the Bohr effect might satisfy your curiousity.
It also, as is already said (why you'd deny this is beyond me =P), promotes the production of CO; which is 'directly' poisonous.
You are so stunned. AGAIN I ask you to educate your self on the difference between CO and CO2. CO2 is what your autonomic system uses to gage when it is time to breath again, plants thrive with it. CO attaches its self to your red blood cells and prevents them from carrying oxygen As for the rest of your gibberish, no comment. You really are not worth the time it takes to explain simple scientific facts.
@TheKickerboy99 Well, quite simply put, if you're not talking about the pollutants that they are planning to tax, then any and all points you make against going green are irrelevant. =P
Having no comment is as good as conceding a point. You're arguing anti-tax, yet you cannot offer ANY alternative solutions?
This is only an argument if you make it one. If you want to lobby for an anti-tax movement, then convince people of another way to solve economic and pollutant problems.
I'm not talking about your energy bill going up a bit. I'm talking about major collapses in the worlds economies. About millions of third world deaths due to the collapse of these economies. About food lines, and out of control crime rates. Corruption brings these things to you, at your home. Bureaucracy kills efficiency, power corrupts, you don't seem to believe these are traits of human civilization. The tax will destroy the world as you know it, based on a lie, that you seem to think is cool
@TheKickerboy99 Indeed; people are corrupt; so tax is a bad idea.
It's ironic that you ignore the current recession; and the point made involving just that; to point solely at a collapse in the world economies. =P
Extremes do not work in politics and government; nor in economics; they always tend to bounce back; especially when those 'pocketing money' have money they need to spend. The economy is much, much, much more versatile and subtle than you give it credit.
@TheKickerboy99 Your tendency to ignore obvious economic patterns, such as supply/demand; alternative sources (to buy from or use instead of) and government intervention is dumbfounding. You can't commit to such a... strange perspective so fanatically; 'especially' not when you are dismissively ignoring important factors (such as, yes, the speculative destruction of Mars' atmosphere. Stand-alone reason for rationality? Maybe not; But it is hardly standing alone.)
@jaieet Your so brainwashed, you don't seem to deal with the points I have made here, just typing out leftwing talking points, the usual I guess for one of you guys.
@TheKickerboy99 Indeed, you are correct once again. I am brainwashed, and have completely ignored all points you have attempted to make. The sheer gaping hole between our intellectual capacity is only more and more apparent as we go on - for with but two small sentences, you have unravelled a web of lies and deceit that the world would have otherwise remained blissfully ignorant of.
Did I miss anything? Apparently, your 20 year advantage on me has served only to feed you a plethora of insults =P
@jaieet Well at least your open to the possibility your brainwashed, thats a good start. The more you search for the truth, the sooner you'll find it. I'm not trying to demean you in any way, just saying, find the balance between both sides of this issue. CO2 is not the threat it has been hyped to be, the reason is global taxation of it. Creation of the worlds largest single industry, based on misleading evidence, created by computer models. Models that can't hope to simulate climate.
@TheKickerboy99 I do believe it was the suicidal man in the car who proved that concentrated Carbon kills; and the self-sufficient family that demonstrated the economic (and personal) benefits of going green.
Climate-simulating models are irrelevant--truthful or no--simply because carbon DOES degrade and pollute the immediate (industrial and, hence, populated) area.
The only valid point you seem to make is that a tax is a money grab (well, doy. =P). But you seem entirely vacant of the point.
@TheKickerboy99 You see; the world has already dug itself into a rather deep hole. Interest rates are rising, cash flow is fluctuating, businesses are being challenged and constrained and, in the centre of all this, is the government.
Now; the Federal Government loves money. Not owing of greed, as one or two nutters may assume; but owing of their need--NEED--to continue to supply the basic services and luxuries that we use on a daily basis. Roads, courts, shelters, defenses, schools...
@TheKickerboy99 Lacking an increase in income, these services will SHUT DOWN. Not only that; but the chance to supply 'new' projects and structures will drop to nill. This is a very large problem; as more people means more buildings. If the government cannot supply these new installations, new communities suffer in the short term; spreading to older communities over time until the world as 'you' know it is gone.
As costs go up and revenue goes down, what do you think your options are?
On a personal level, Green energy can net you a serious profit every month on your bills; based upon the amount of power you have produced and not used. This totals to a rather large value each year, should you have a functional system. On an industrial level, it provides a wider profit margin for companies small and large which, in effect, encourages more innovative methods.
Oil. Oil's difficult, as we don't have an alternative yet. We have hybrids, but they are costly. Maybe in 10 years.
@jaieet I want to build a battery of windmills and sell the power to the grid, but the wind doesn't blow all the time. Still it would be better than nothing. My point is that taxing CO2 is a scam, to create the largest most power industry known to man. Yet they have not shown, with empirical data, that the temp rise CO2 contributes is an imminent threat. We need to develop new power for sure, and we will, in time. Taxing CO2 will halt 3rd world development, and change the world as you know it.
@jaieet cont...The net result will be to line the pockets of the worlds elite, and make more CO2 than ever. Most of the people I talk to, agree it is a scam based on computer models, and heavy investment into the propaganda that has propelled it this far. If good people stand by and let this happen, trust me the results will be dramatic. When Obama said "Under my new plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket." he meant it. What in your life can you see that applying to?
@TheKickerboy99 Windmills are not solar panels. Solar Panels rival--and are in fact an effective substitute for--conventional energy sources. Especially under a government-funded initiative.
Now, as far as taxing is concerned; it will raise power bills, naturally, in the short term. But it will 'also' encourage alternative means to maximise profit, minimise use and to, eventually, refine our methods of energy consumption. Our reliance on fossil fuel has been scorned for an entire generation now;
And with very good reason; being that it does nothing but harm our immediate environment. Nuclear energy was our first solution to this problem. It succeeded, but brought with it many inherent risks.
The economic and social factors tied in with alternative fuel sources are more important down the line than any one person can truly know.
The tax, though it may 'slightly' raise our monthly power bills, will not destroy a nation. It will, in fact, reduce business interest IN that product.
@TheKickerboy99 But back to the tax... It could be a scam. Very possibly, one or two men are in on it, started a lobby, and coerced a few friends into thinking it was a 'good' move.
Alternatively, it could be a move to beat the recession via a money grab; which would, in effect, end up 'saving' you money once you forced your way out of it.
Maybe the government is genuinely worried about the direction the climate is headed in. Co2 contributes. Theories involving Mars' destruction relate heavily.
Ok my short sited young fellow, does it ever get to -40*C there? I've spent years in your country ever been to mine? Two of my kids are older than you. The real conspiracy theorists are you, that think anyone that doesn't buy junk science is out to destroy the world. Sure pollution is bad, just not CO2. Have an honest look at the thousands of scientists that refute it, are they in your conspiracy too? listen when your young, question everything, especially the UN. Follow the money to the source.
We started at Global cooling, then it was Petrol, then Ozone in Photocopiers and CFC gasses, now its Co2's. The Greenhouse model said Europe would have warmer winters+cloudy, damp summers, now they say Europe will have colder winters+ hot summers.
The rules keep changing, every time a problem is addressed a new problem appears that was not an issue previously
Is it any wonder that those old enough to remember these ever changing Climate 'rules' are sceptical?
This RussiaToday has become pure propaganda for the religion of the anti-science anti-technology global-warming-denying industry. They have really bought into their fanatic anti-environmental ideology.
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels was 15 to 20 million years ago when global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"Aradhna Tripati,UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences.
There is 2 types, ones who have done no research, and just believe whats on TV and what Al Gore says.
And those who have done research, and know there is no definitive proof its occurring.
And yet seek to profit from its promotion and trading in carbon and keeping their job and getting more funding.I feel sad for the first one because they are like disabled people.But the second are criminal fraudsters and should be sent to jail for deception.
@IdunCareLesSn00b Greenhouse gases damage our ozone which is, in essence, the ONLY thing stopping our eyes from exploding due to a space vacuum :P
Whether we have the sheer effect that some people claim we do is irrelevant. You're arguing a pro-litter point of view. It is not healthy for our planet; and it DOES hurt us long term. That's it - all of it. 100 years down the track it'll make a difference.
If you don't care about people around then; that's your problem. Nothing wrong with going green
@jaieet There is 0 evidence greenhouse gases, or even chlorofluorocarbons, damage anything.It is a pure belief, with some theories supporting it, some not supporting it.To make draconian laws and institute global communism, just because of a belief by a few, just in case, to make the planet prettier, is nonsense.There is no such thing as going green, it is a made up ideology and religious belief my mentally insane people.
@IdunCareLesSn00b What do you mean? Greenhouse gases are poisonous by definition. Air pollution is a VERY serious issue. The fact that they keep our planet warm is also an issue of concern down the track. Mainstream, global warming is accepted. There are people who disagree that it is an immediate concern; and they could very well be right.
Though the fact remains that greenhouse emissions are harmful. Using less is mentally insane?
@TheKickerboy99 Breathe in exhaust for 2 hours; then come back and tell me how you feel. :P
It poisons us. It poisons animals. Concentrated, the burnoff can kill plants. It 'does' warm our planet; though the sheer effect 'our' emissions have is debatable.
To argue an anti conservative point of view is completely insane. In every single sense of the word. =P
@jaieet If they wanted to tax co I would be totally for it, but not co2. Its the build up of co2 in your lungs that tells your autonomic system to take another breath. What you said is nonsense. I am guessing you don't know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. All life on earth needs carbon dioxide, it is the life giving gas. Further it is a trace gas with almost no greenhouse effect, when compared to water vapour. Did you not take biology in high school?
@TheKickerboy99 "I would be ok with taxing co2, yeah, whatever, but YOU'RE WRONG!' :P
If I'm talking about poison and burn off, it's really not all that difficult to understand what I'm implying. You, my good sir, are arguing h20 against saltwater. *rolls eyes*
Are you saying we shouldn't play conservatively to save money and protect the environment in general because certain greenhouse gases can have positive effects?
@TheKickerboy99 Which point? The part where I didn't know the difference? Or the point that centred around biology class in high school?
Maybe I didn't miss the point at all. Maybe, in effect, the point you were making doesn't exist at all; because it was irrelevant to the poisonous chemicals the entirety of the 'going green' argument centres around. :P
@TheKickerboy99 Haha; what? I'll have you know that Australia uses not even half the energy or burnoff that The US or Canada does. Maybe 'you' should put down the laptop.
You aren't skeptical just because you disagree with the government's opinion, dude. Often, in the case of some conspiracy nutters, you're completely deluded. You might, in fact, be gullible for attacking a money-saving stance. :P
You've taken poisonous burnoff and somehow made it personal. Way to go. =P
@jaieet You and your age group have been manipulated by fear. A strong emotion, used many times through history to take populations to war, and whatever else the elite agenda is. Don't be a puppet. Search Maurice Strong, George Soros, these guys are not looking out for the world, and definitely not for jaleet, but seem to have your support. Watch Henrik Svensmark's 5 part vid on here, that may help open your eyes a bit. Good luck.
@TheKickerboy99 Again; what 'are' you talking about? Those who don't buy science are out to destroy the world? :P Please.
You're arguing a completely moot point. You're saying 'yes, THAT form of gas is unhealthy, but THIS one is not; don't trust your government'.
....
Are you listening to yourself?
If pollution is unhealthy, then you strive to find ways to cut back. Solar energy--a (long term) more cost effective, HEALTHIER version of power, is one of many ways to achieve this.
@jaieet Have any idea how the solar panels are made? Of course you don't. You are a complete waste of my time, your comments are naive, and your intellect is absent. You are young, and don't even know, the how little you know. Please stop with the uneducated comments, maybe get the facts first. By the way my government just voted against cap and trade, so I do trust some of them, just not the far left progressives.
@TheKickerboy99 A dismissive wave of the hand and everything's alright again. Which is lucky, cause for a second there I thought you were going to say that solar panels were bad for the environment on account of their low-impact material make. :P
I'm completely aware of what and what I am not aware of. It's ironic that you talk of gullibility and naiveness; because you're argument is almost entirely opinion. You can't 'wish' away volcano produce, and you can't ignore pollution till it goes green
@TheKickerboy99 Ignoring one fact in favour of another is silly. How you could even remotely try to 'begin' an argument against nearly-free energy and low environmental impact is beyond me.
The only major reason not to go entirely green is because of the political, economic and social impact. Jobs, cash flow, etc, etc. You're arguing that we need Co2? Co2 is produced regularly, regardless.
Though, enlighten me, which one of my 'facts' are so incredibly absent of educated intelligence? :P
@jaieet I was referring to how they do not supply enough power to make them effective replacements for other forms of energy. Nuclear is a good alternative, but fossil fuels are the only ticket right now I'm afraid. I guess my main point is that taxing carbon is just a scam, based on your fears, created by greedy people with junk science. The sky is not falling chicken little, we are all going to be ok.
@TheKickerboy99 A solar panel the size of Victoria would supply the entire world with energy;
Solar panels can be easily fitted to newly built (and already existing homes) at a fraction of the cost they could 5 years ago. And this is set to drop even further in 5 more.
Nuclear energy is highly dangerous if not maintained with PERFECT precision. Heating water should not put lives at risk.
@TheKickerboy99 Fossil fuels and Nuclear energy come at the possible cost of human life and health. The immediate environment also suffers. To dismiss it as fear mongering is complete and utter nonsense.
Your tax argument would have merit; if it were not for the fact that the fossil fuel industry had been opposing such alternative sources for so long 'based' upon their immediate profit margin.
They are trillion dollar industries that hurt the environment. Similar to the tobacco industry.
@jaieet You seem to keep spouting all of the greenpeace talking points, but reality does not fit with them. Oil companies don't care if there is a CO2 tax, or if their are solar panels. The world needs fossil fuels. If they are taxed you pay more, the oil companies don't loose at all. Like it or not taxing CO2 will only hurt the poor of the world, and make the rich much richer. Your arguments are based on the lies you have been fed, keep on eating it up.
@TheKickerboy99 Indeed. I have been fed lies, and now it is impossible for me to rationalise between reality and idyllic fiction. Hydrogen batteries as a replacement for oil; and the solar rebate are indisputable proof of the inability to make a profit (or provide more effective alternatives) to the current sources of power we rely on.
@TheKickerboy99 I've never made an effort to learn about Greenpeace; so I can't comment on that. What I 'can' say, however, is that if you expect one energy source to simply... 'beat' our another - if you think the oil or carbon industry has to 'lose' to provide green energy - you are entirely missing the small picture.
@TheKickerboy99 The people who refute it are completely irrelevant. Short sighted-nothing, my most wisened elder, a nation that is not Dependant on a predominantly poisonous form of energy is a 'stronger' nation.
It is also noteworthy that Co2 is produced in bulk BY the Earth. Remember the counter-arguments used when Global Warming was first cropping up involving volcano production? Yeah--that.
@TheKickerboy99 The people who refute it are completely irrelevant. Short sighted-nothing, my most wisened elder, a nation that is not Dependant on a predominantly poisonous form of energy is a 'stronger' nation.
It is also noteworthy that Co2 is produced in bulk BY the Earth. Remember the counter-arguments used when Global Warming was first cropping up involving volcano production? Yeah--that.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
How many decent teachers has anyone had in any schools? I rest my case. Keep eating GMO monster foods and watch your houses blow away in the next storms, it's the only way to grow.
Why is RT interviewing Tony Harris? He's not a scientist, he's a PR man with ties to fossil fuel companies. Consider the source. He's a paid shill who would say anything depending on who is paying him. RT should know better.
"Tom Harris was then a senior associate with HPG, which was a "registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association (web) and the Canadian Gas Association."
Beware people. An Inconvenient Truth is the leading propaganda film for the socialist wealth distribution scheme that is coming to all countries if Al Gore and David Suzuki, the two high priests of this global warming/climate change religion, get their wishes. You must resist. Thank God for the CRU email hack. Don't let your politicians sign any treaties. Resist the global warming SCAM!!!
150 random scientists (only?)- without any credibility in their specific fields... are reason enough! There are more scientists who don't believe smoking causes cancer than this!
Also Tom Harris- is not a scientist! He's a mechanical engineer or something like that.
Oh and the irony of the title is awesome! Since most atheists prefer science- and most deniers are religious nuts!
He is the executive director, get your facts straight; and while you are at it please tell me spotted Al Gore's degree, hardly a scientist, however he is certainly making a large chunk of change off climate change and telling children they know more than the parents to boot.
My facts are fine, thanks... He IS a mechanical engineer., as well as exec. director of his coalition.
Also, Al Gore is an idiot. Sorry, but nice try... and what does he have to with this video?
And children knowing more than their parents? that's silly!! That's like saying regular folk know more than scientists in whatever field they study! regartdless of the results!
@sypin Exactly! Looks like Tom Harris was a long-term smoker. He looks sick.
Have (not just can) any of these so-called "top 150 climatologists" done ANY MATH? Added up all the variables that NASA has with the computer models has?
Those who know this GW charade is a fraud, all you have to do is explain to people that besides the nut job Al Gore being involved (the Al Gore who helped bring us the economically & environmentally destructive NAFTA, GATT, & WTO)
just tell people they have a Railroad Engineer in charge of the IPCC
How many IPCC members are also Lionel train collectors, or are model railroaders like their chief Choo Choo Charlie?
When you get assholes like George Soros , David De Rothschild , Barak Obama , Al Gore , Rahm Emmanuel...all together at the Copenhagen lie fest , what do you have ? A bunch of fantastic human beings ? Or a bunch of intelligent , scheming , mass murdering swine that need to be exterminated asap ?
How can you cure a disease without treating the disease. The Global warming Gurus their robotoid Cultists&Phony Environmental organizations are not addressing the #1 factor for Environmental degradation, Wildlife declines, & GHG production. (look it up yourselves if you do not know) so how can it work? It can't and they are lairs
Maybe if we can stop this scheme the GW Cultists will pull a Heaven's Gate & kill themselves. According to the #1 factor they will then be helping the environment
Hmm most of the fires here in Australia were apparently lit by people. I saw a load of charities raising money but didn't see anyone receive any of that money.
"Climate Change Skeptics" is a ridiculous misleading phrase, it wraps all the scientists that dont buy into this whole Scam as some sort of disbelievers on the Changing Climate. where as the "Real Climate Change" is a political one and nearly all scientents that are not goverment funded are very Skeptical about the political climate on the Issue. "You can not change the earths climate by allowing bankers and politicians to collect a Tax. This the most ridiculous thing Ive ever heard of".
If there is a way 2 make money off of this regardless of how u feel, people will do it. I am not 2 sure it is more about climate change or just a new way 2 make money. I couldnt give a shit. In 20 - 30 yrs I will kick the bucket & let someone else worry about it. Meanwhile, I am not trading in my gas guzling 4 WD, I will cont doing what I always have & the UN & earth can kiss my ass.
"Global" warming ???? ..... Let's think now. .... "Global" means ..... hmmmmmm..... (thinking still...... ) "Global !!!!!!".... As in world wide???? Nah!.... It can not be what they really mean as one pole is getting colder than the other ..... Ok .... Let's try "Warming" as in the hot air gases released when their little brains over heat ad they speak their global lies!!!!! P.S. I didn't vote for the socialist anti American poor excuse for a American man!!!!!!!!!!
There is evidence of sea level rise here in our pacific, my own island is sinking slowly and year by year and christmas by christmas I feel far from home... i hear climate changes happening, what is causing it?..no idea at all...heard its caused by industrialised countries polluting so much of our atmosphere? there is no doubt climate change is serious and everyone must unite to do something about it instead of seeking power and wealth etc..
Over many years we have all been lied to by our Govts. Not just our Govts but by Religous Leaders. We have been taught things that are not in Scripture & many have swallowed many lies by these false prophets. If you are a truth seeker please visit the web site which is displayed in our user name & take the time to read some of the articles.You will be shocked. THERE IS A GREAT AUDIO FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO. You WILL COME AWAY ASKING MANY QUESTIONS. REAL SHOCKING.
PRESIDENT JOHN F KENEDY WARNED US IN HIS SKULL AND BONES SPEECH. AND I QUOTE "" And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment...
the studies on climate change don't go that far back to really know for sure if its a normal cycle or not There is a lot of money to be made by this. People like Al Gore who says a lot of crap but uses more energy than anyone else should make you think alittle. Also maybe we should be looking at how we polute air and water more than temp. change there are a lot of chemical plants still dumping drums into the water and burying them in metal drums in the ground.
This has been flagged as spam show
150 "top climate scientists"? That's only 1% of the number of real Climatologists at the actual, legitimate meeting. Climate change denial nuts are just a lunatic fringe and can be ignored.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
Another Religion, Global Warming, the Church of Climatology, is going well-earnedly down the gutter... to freedom!
87solarsky 1 month ago
We are all borne with the love for nature, the deal is some people found the way to play with others emotions and intelligence by making some big CHE CHANGS, the same guys that are ready to kill their own for money so no way in the world i will ever EVER support that BS, check out George Carlin on climate change he got the story right befor you get played
califranky 3 months ago
People thinking CO2 is not a contaminant, do us all a big favor, please get your breathing inside the end of a car exhaust and leave space in this world for the people that care and have consciousness for mother earth.
CarlosDiaz34 3 months ago
@Guyzseriously exactly!
HaphazardCrappola 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
Global warming does not exist only Ozone Layer Depletion exists. The blue sky protects the Earth from extreme temperatures, both hot and cold, from outer space. The Ozone Layer is thinning at an alarming rate. Forget global warming, Ozone Layer Depletion really is the end of the world.
vladimir1341 11 months ago
Oil and nuclear is all we have, sorry to have to tell you but solar is unreliable and requires batteries as back up (they are not green) Oh ya and what is this =P ? Seems a bit immature.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Aren't we all a little immature sometimes? =P
Solar energy is entirely reliable in homesteads. In fact, I and the majority of my street have been living (bill-free) off've solar power for the last 3 years. In 2 years, we will have turned a profit (and the panels are insured for 22 more).
As for cars; there is a japanese prototype solar car that runs ENTIRELY on solar energy; as well as several electrical alternatives (cheaper than oil) that use solar refueling stations.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Oil is also unreliable owing to it's peak distribution, safety hazards, and consistent need to be resupplied to vehicles (once to twice a week--very commonly).
Not to mention, again, the pollutants that can be directly generated from its mass usage.
If both are equally unreliable; but one is safer, more abundant, cheaper, and requires no transport... then why would you opt with the opposite?
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet Hey I'm not saying we shouldn't be going after solar and wind. Thats for sure we should. No arguments there at all. All I am saying, is that CO2 tax is a scam, based on inadequate computer models. Lets clean up the oceans, and drop this CO2 BS.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 i agree tat we shld all deal with the problem of climate change itself rather than cooking up conferences to play the blame game, which in the end does not solve the problem n only benefits the powerful.
chickiebiddy 1 year ago
@chickiebiddy Thinking we have any control over the Earths climate is the folly of our time, we do not, the Sun does.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago 3
You did not read my reply.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Then restate/requote it for me; and please answer my question.
jaieet 1 year ago
In fact we have so much clean oil here in Alberta it is hard to quantify. They have way more in Saskatchewan, and haven't even started there. By the time they start there, the process will be so smooth and efficient, and environmentally friendly it will be quite a financial win fall for the region. As it is where ever development occurs. If you talk to the foreign workers that this development helps they would tell you that they love drilling for oil or gas, or mining coal. Why, do you think?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Ah. So flammable liquid that causes pollution and outweighs the (accumulated) expenses of greener alternatives is ok if the workers like drilling for it? =P
Fact is; we're going to be relying on oil for as long as people use oil-reliant cars (probably 50 years if we made a 'change' today, at least). This 'will' get more and more expensive, and will not reach all consumers unless we lower the consumption rate.
Why would you opt against green--particularly solar--energy?
jaieet 1 year ago
What is it with kids, did you not believe me when I said there is oil for hundreds of years in just northern alberta and saskatchewan? Or did you not read that part?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 You make many assumptions. It is most unnerving that the large minority of what you say is directly contradicted by everyday information and evidence. Are you arguing the point? Or just arguing with me?
We DO have oil in stock; A pollutant that is rising in cost every single day. What we don't have--as I (and the media/government/oil industry) have stated before, but apparently need to spell out--is the means to distribute it. We ARE peaking, after all. =P
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 As the oil becomes harder to obtain, it becomes more difficult to distribute correctly. When it becomes 'too' difficult to distribute correctly, it forces a business to prioritise where it distributes. And when a business is at its peak distribution rate; but has so many customers that it cannot keep up; certain people go without.
Now imagine THAT on a global scale. :P
And for good measure; the tech to get oil doesn't contribute to distance or manpower; hence the expense. =P
jaieet 1 year ago
There have been no changes in our climate that are out of normal. List one. Oil prices move all the time, for sure they manipulated for sure, but everything goes up in price look at food, drugs ect. Think how inconvenient costs will be if they get cap and trade. As for our solar neighbors, all you are is a repeater of other people. You have discovered nothing your self just repeating what you have heard, and your source is very bad.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 That's a shame; when scientific theories aren't credible sources. Perhaps you are right; perhaps I am merely mirroring what I have heard (as you tend to in most circumstances). Perhaps the papers are false; and the stock market is wrong.
Perhaps the temperature fluctuations (Name one? The entire AGW theory revolves around 100s. =P) are entirely false precedents; and perhaps our renowned ability to monitor local and solar temperatures are entirely fake.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 This is very lucky for your case; because now that this evidence is proven fake through the process of placing your hands carefully over your ears and aiming profanities, you win! Isn't that convenient?
...
Aaaanyway; Yes; several products are increasing in price. Not 'all', as you suggest, however. Only items in high demand, low supply, or that are difficult (or costly) to procure.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Milk, for example, is (or was; I'm not up to date on foreign currency affairs) incredibly expensive in the US. This, however, does not reflect on the rest of the world.
Oil, on the other hand, is rising in cost dramatically; and certain nations have made it no secret that they are straining due to their lackluster supplies and rising needs.
This is not to say the world is running out of oil (which you keep trying to defend against for some reason :P)--it is not able to keep up.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Of course, it is also not to say we are 'not' not running out of oil. We totally are; but we've got maybe a generation left in us yet (though good luck distributing it correctly).
It is also, as you are incredibly keen to ignore, a major pollutant; and our only option. It is ironic that you dislike the rich, but adore a single industry reigning supreme.
Not that I'm insinuating that you're paid off. It's just a very... strange view.
Explain.
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet In fact there are so many untapped sources of oil its just not accurate to say we are running out. They are not hard to get, and though some of them are in sensitive zones, the tech for pipelines now is so good that it takes an environmental activist with a bomb them to get them to leak. The truth is the powers "create" crisis all the time to get people to act in a certain way, sometimes it is based on facts, sometimes not. If you study both sides of history, that is what you will find.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Now; if the population does not rise; you would have a point. In fact--you'd be right. We would have enough (in most areas; though we are occasionally failing to distribute it everywhere, everytime).
Unfortunately, the industry cannot keep up. They've made this painfully clear through public statement and delayed supplies. As the drilling continues, you see, the oil gets further and further away. And as the oil get further away, it becomes harder to obtain.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Now, with that all out of the way; why are you such a fan of oil and fossil fuels? It pollutes, is unreliable, is expensive, and 'funds the rich' (I also would like to know why you believe having excess income is so wrong).
Oil in particular is also incredibly flammable; and is a severe safety risk in everyday life.
If I understand correctly, you dislike the idea of cheap (in the long term) green energy (namely solar). Why?
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 "Please" don't ignore my question. =P
I really do want to know if/why you dislike green energy. Let's say, theoretically, it 'didn't' destroy the world economy to predominantly supply green energy systems; why would you not want one?
jaieet 1 year ago
They won't debate or use numbers? :P They hold international conferences pointing at the rise and fall in temperatures.... regularly. Often, even. You can find all this information with relative ease--it's known to the public; and probably one of the first results in google.
No, no; what they won't debate about are false pretenses or lackluster arguments. For example; the Medieval warming period as a beat-all argument against predictable temp increases.
The theory is available for view.
jaieet 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Where is the evidence of AGW? There isn't any. If there were it would be done already.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Oil and fossil fuels are lacking in convenient supply. Rigs/Mines/Operations are being set up in more and more remote regions; and the costs are reflecting that.
You should study economics. If you did, perhaps you could come up with an alternate solution. As of now, you are just spewing nonsense--You oppose evidence and embrace opinion with such fanaticism that it is almost scary.
I will give you a chance, though; how would a 10% tax take away our children's freedom, Kickerboy?
jaieet 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@jaieet As I said there is enough oil in alberta and sask alone for hundreds of years, and it gets cheaper to get all the time. As well the environmental impact, is actually better than what was there. Ever notice how sceptics always use numbers, and AGW supporters never do? Ever notice when the AGW side does use numbers someone immediately corrects them. Ever notice Al Gore has disappeared? In fact the few legit scientists on the planet that claim AGW, won't debate it?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@jaieet As I said there is enough oil in alberta and sask alone for hundreds of years, and it gets cheaper to get all the time. As well the environmental impact, is actually better than what was there. Ever notice how sceptics always use numbers, and AGW supporters never do? Ever notice when the AGW side does use numbers someone immediately corrects them. Ever notice Al Gore has disappeared? In fact the few legit scientists on the planet that claim AGW, won't debate it? Ever notice?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 There are holes in the still developing theory; but none that defy the fact that our planet's climate is shifting very differently to that of our solar neighbours. It is true that we go through cycles; but these cycles are predictable.
The fact remains that, OFTEN, the temperature is rising irregularly, but lowering regularly with the climate. This suggests and eventual concern.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 And your statement about oil is an outright lie. :P I seriously, seriously recommend you study economics (or browse over the stock market) and weigh up how oil prices are tallied. The sheer effort and competitiveness involved in the procurement of this resource is immense; and the costs are becoming inconvenient.
Prices are rising. They HAVE been rising. They rose over the past 12 months. Where are you getting 'cheaper' from?
Honestly. =P
jaieet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You didn't answer any of my questions.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
One form of paid wage that the government services is 'not' good though; and that is paid wages and vacation time to it's own employees. There 'is' a limit on how much you can pay someone of a certain rank; but there is not a limit on how many people you can employ.
If you employ people to stand around and argue, it's a waste of money. Government services, however, are not. After all; you are relying on them right now to challenge me.
jaieet 1 year ago
Global governance as they want to call it, is a communist movement. After the fall of the USSR the communists "took over" the green movement, as a means to set it up. One does not have to look back very far to see where this came, from and where it is meant to go. If your not concerned about this, and trust that 'they" will make good decisions for your children is unwise to say the least. It is about power and control, veiled in betterment of the world.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Wow; that's a mouthful.
First off; Government control is a given. Without Government control, there is no government. =P To suggest that them offering rebates and paying for solar panels is somehow a move for power, though, is insanity. Even 'with' a tax induced on carbon.
Now; you are partially right; man cannot yet control the environment (very well). This is PRECISELY the reason why global warming is so 'in'. If we break it; we can't fix it. It IS scary; and IS demonstrable.
jaieet 1 year ago
Well your last comment did it for me .... you are an idiot.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
The argument is that there is no threat from CO2, and the tax is a scam. How much simpler do I need to be?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I'm not sure; how much simpler 'can' you be? You seem pretty simple already =P
They are planning on taxing the hazardous burnoff and pollutants that come from fossil fuels, exhaust and so on. This IS a health threat
They also 'need' an income to maintain the state of living you are accustomed to. No money means no luxuries; no services and, ironically enough, no powerlines
One solution is to give them control over power. But that'll screw people over; any ideas?
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet What hazardous burn-off are you referring to exactly? As far as I am aware they are only trying to tax CO2. Not any of the "nasty stuff", just a trace gas that promotes plant life. Where I live..there was 1500 M of ice, and then prairie, in cycles for millenia. This is the way of things. If you believe that making the rich richer, by way of a CO2 tax is the way to go then great, carry on. Just don't try to say its based on science, or any rational thought. It is pure greed, nothing more
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Global warming? You beating that dead horse? =P
Let's start at the beginning, yes?
Co2 is hazardous in large doses; true enough. It can stop us from breathing; and massive concentrations can effect the environment. This is owing largely to the fact that, simply, a large quantity of CO2 in one area increases the odds of CO being produced in that same area (owing to the lack of oxygen available).
This pollutes the area; and kills wildlife.
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet How does CO2 stop us from breathing? Explain the autonomic nervous system to me please....You know nothing, stop trying to pretend you do.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@jaieet Who ever told you CO2 is hazardous in large doses? What do you consider large? YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please don't reply, your making this easy.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Don't get me wrong; a global movement 'simply' to route out global warming? That's absolutely silly; and most politicians and government forums agree.
However; pollution IS a problem; and money IS a necessity. You're right when you say a tax is a money grab--what the heck else would it be? ( =P ) But it's entirely evident that the government NEEDS money.
Those that made this decision likely think they're making the right one on a national scale. And, down the line, it 'could' be.
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet The folly in this is that a global government can control or change in anyway our climate. They can't even predict weather two weeks in advance, never mind control it. Our climate is controlled by our movement through the galaxy. For anyone to believe we can change what our future climate will be, one would have to think of these people as Gods, they are not. Trust less, question more, study our history, follow the money. You will find the AGW movement is as I have said.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 This issue is not as 'pressing' as certain people make it out to be, but pollution is directly deadly all the time; and our reliance on fossil fuels is a contributer to this factor. In addition, we are running low. It takes GENERATIONS to institute change; mostly owing to fanatic opposition; but often to general laziness and ignorance.
Positive changes and ideas being formed now will inevitably take decades to be put effectively into action.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I think it also needs to be said that conspiracy theories and sketchy trails are no way to come to a sound conclusion. To claim that the 'government is in on it' is silly. The majority of the system--even our higher ups--are just average people trying to do what they 'think' is right. Pointing them out as some kind of power/money hungry entity does not work, simply, because you have NO faces to pin it on (ala; Illuminati).
It is just chasing damp air.
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet As I said before, you are too trusting that the people you elect have a say in policy. Obama made a lot of promises to get elected, he has failed to do most of them because policy sometimes sets itself. Sometimes it comes from outside the government. Electing him based on promises everyone should have known he could not keep, is akin to the same dream world you seem to live in. Search Maurice Strong, George Soros, see if you are in agreement with those guys, about the direction we need.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Strong and Soros? Election Promises? What does any of that have to do with pollution and tax? =P
You don't seem to understand that, if there is indeed a dream world involved in this argument, it's entirely within your own head. You speak of extreme economic failure based on a small tax, despite living through a very real recession right now. You speak of corruption in the government, but cannot name those who would personally profit from such an act.
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet re: Soros and Strong, what the hell do you think they have to do with it? Oh and if you think Cap and Trade will be a small tax, you are so dumb. Where do you think this current financial crisis came from? You must live under a rock, or only get your info from a left progressive source. Either way....grow up, and grab a brain. Get with it man your ignorance of reality is scary.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Jobs? You mean like nano-tech and cancer research? You mean like the police force, the firefighters and the medical care institutions? Or maybe you're talking about the post office?
I'll have you know that I have depended on the help of all of these services at some stage in my life; and they have always come through for me (save the post office; which has been late on international packages occasionally).
You can't possibly be arguing that point of view, so I'll not pry;
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 You offer no solutions aside from the rich to learn to share their money around; and have a complete disdain of the idea of the rich ever getting richer (which is all but inevitable, anyways).
I have no long-term opinions of a nation or global government. A dream world? Please. :P
I'm talking about a tax increase and pollution. Why are you not?
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet Who do you think supports charities? The government? Who create jobs? The government? You seem to think the government is the answer to every problem. It is not, massive governments always fail, if you learned history in school today you would know this. Look at the US right now, they have sent a message in the latest midterm election, they want to put the brakes on growth of government, as their economy can not support it.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Charities? You mean like the ones that fund African children with less than 40% of the income they receive due to advertising, transport, and employees? Or do you mean charities like the several million $ that were invested to rebuild the homes and communities of flood and hurricane victims? I can point to my very own home state for evidence of that one. Not even a week has gone by, and the government has invested directly into supporting these people.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 You speak of having your eyes open; and of a clear view on the world as it is (at least, in this particular case). Why is it so difficult to have someone oppose your opinions? If my stupidity is insulting, then you best educate me (rather than spewing quizzical nonsense).
You've hinted that our recession was created by taxes. I hope I heard that incorrectly--cause that's way off. =P
Again; what 'do' Soros and Strong have to do with our pollution and tax?
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet No, I said our recession was created by people who are in positions to profit from it.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Did you? :P
"if you think Cap and Trade will be a small tax, you are so dumb. Where do you think this current financial crisis came from?"
Though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your second assumption is correct; the recession WAS caused by profit. Real estate and Oil industries in particular had a very notable effect.
You speak of profits; the Oil and power industries profit immensely simply by existing. And, as of right now, they're the average person's only choice.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I believe one of (the many) definitions of freedom is choice. Freedom to do what we want, when we want; or, at the least, to have a diverse range of options to choose from.
All our power comes from a single industry. The power bills are rising; the effectiveness and reliability lowering; and our 'only' other option is to shell out nearly 10s of thousands of dollars for a solar energy system; or to pay to find ways to 'reduce' power usage.
Sounds a bit suss, no?
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet There is enough oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan, to supply the world for hundreds of years. So I don't know what you mean about reliable, we have vast oil sources yet to be tapped. Freedom is not being controlled by a scam like AGW, freedom is knowledge. The AGW movement is set to remove you freedom, and take it from your children and theirs. If you look to the right of this page you'll find tons of people trying to free your mind, only you can do it.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Freedom is knowledge? That's a new one =P
It's ironic that you state this. AGW is entirely plausible and observable in every single sense of the word. The very reason it is still under major debate is owing to the fact that it is still rather 'new', as far as theories go. Our planet is not warming and cooling based entirely on solar shifts; while our solar neighbours appear to be doing just that.
They plan to observe for longer though; science is not a race =P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet You support the creation of big bureaucracy, and I know that will fail. You seem to want to give government more power to control one of YOUR necessities of life. Did you not believe Obama when he said "Energy prices will "necessarily" skyrocket under my new plan." You live in a dream world, and know zero human history. Keep drinking the cool-aid you naive fool, you are the fall of logic, and the champion of emotion.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 In addition to this fact, the Government cannot AFFORD to maintain current projections of future constructional and institutional facilities and activities. I don't know if I support 'big bureaucracy' , as you put it, but I definitely support the idea of my power grid not shutting down and my roads being safe. Not to mention the amazing education and 'good' health care system that has managed to be supplied.
And, just in case you haven't noticed; everything is skrocketing. =P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet You are a product of our current educational system, and I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but its failing miserably. You are the perfect example of misinformation gone extreme. Have any idea how screwed up your concept of reality is? Wow its amazing. I pity you, You are doomed to be a pawn for interests you don't understand, for life.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@jaieet You are an adolescent with delusions of knowledge, and I don't know why I keep this going, other than to let you show your ignorance to every one else. As I said when we started, go live in a cave and eat grass...leave the rest of us be. Your beliefs are not based in reality, they are a for the rich to control more than they do now. When you have some observable data to show CO2 is an imminent threat let me know. Till then be a fringe nut job, just don't try to make it sound plausible.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Now that you've gotten all of that out of your system;
As you said earlier (I think it was you. If not, I've given you too much credit); too much CO2 constricts breathing capacity. If you really 'are' at a loss when I make such a claim, reading up on the Bohr effect might satisfy your curiousity.
It also, as is already said (why you'd deny this is beyond me =P), promotes the production of CO; which is 'directly' poisonous.
Global warming is irrelevant to this fact :P
jaieet 1 year ago
You are so stunned. AGAIN I ask you to educate your self on the difference between CO and CO2. CO2 is what your autonomic system uses to gage when it is time to breath again, plants thrive with it. CO attaches its self to your red blood cells and prevents them from carrying oxygen As for the rest of your gibberish, no comment. You really are not worth the time it takes to explain simple scientific facts.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Well, quite simply put, if you're not talking about the pollutants that they are planning to tax, then any and all points you make against going green are irrelevant. =P
Having no comment is as good as conceding a point. You're arguing anti-tax, yet you cannot offer ANY alternative solutions?
This is only an argument if you make it one. If you want to lobby for an anti-tax movement, then convince people of another way to solve economic and pollutant problems.
jaieet 1 year ago
Weiiiiiiird title.
SpellboundSolution 1 year ago
I'm not talking about your energy bill going up a bit. I'm talking about major collapses in the worlds economies. About millions of third world deaths due to the collapse of these economies. About food lines, and out of control crime rates. Corruption brings these things to you, at your home. Bureaucracy kills efficiency, power corrupts, you don't seem to believe these are traits of human civilization. The tax will destroy the world as you know it, based on a lie, that you seem to think is cool
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Indeed; people are corrupt; so tax is a bad idea.
It's ironic that you ignore the current recession; and the point made involving just that; to point solely at a collapse in the world economies. =P
Extremes do not work in politics and government; nor in economics; they always tend to bounce back; especially when those 'pocketing money' have money they need to spend. The economy is much, much, much more versatile and subtle than you give it credit.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Your tendency to ignore obvious economic patterns, such as supply/demand; alternative sources (to buy from or use instead of) and government intervention is dumbfounding. You can't commit to such a... strange perspective so fanatically; 'especially' not when you are dismissively ignoring important factors (such as, yes, the speculative destruction of Mars' atmosphere. Stand-alone reason for rationality? Maybe not; But it is hardly standing alone.)
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet Your so brainwashed, you don't seem to deal with the points I have made here, just typing out leftwing talking points, the usual I guess for one of you guys.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Indeed, you are correct once again. I am brainwashed, and have completely ignored all points you have attempted to make. The sheer gaping hole between our intellectual capacity is only more and more apparent as we go on - for with but two small sentences, you have unravelled a web of lies and deceit that the world would have otherwise remained blissfully ignorant of.
Did I miss anything? Apparently, your 20 year advantage on me has served only to feed you a plethora of insults =P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet Well at least your open to the possibility your brainwashed, thats a good start. The more you search for the truth, the sooner you'll find it. I'm not trying to demean you in any way, just saying, find the balance between both sides of this issue. CO2 is not the threat it has been hyped to be, the reason is global taxation of it. Creation of the worlds largest single industry, based on misleading evidence, created by computer models. Models that can't hope to simulate climate.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I do believe it was the suicidal man in the car who proved that concentrated Carbon kills; and the self-sufficient family that demonstrated the economic (and personal) benefits of going green.
Climate-simulating models are irrelevant--truthful or no--simply because carbon DOES degrade and pollute the immediate (industrial and, hence, populated) area.
The only valid point you seem to make is that a tax is a money grab (well, doy. =P). But you seem entirely vacant of the point.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 You see; the world has already dug itself into a rather deep hole. Interest rates are rising, cash flow is fluctuating, businesses are being challenged and constrained and, in the centre of all this, is the government.
Now; the Federal Government loves money. Not owing of greed, as one or two nutters may assume; but owing of their need--NEED--to continue to supply the basic services and luxuries that we use on a daily basis. Roads, courts, shelters, defenses, schools...
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Lacking an increase in income, these services will SHUT DOWN. Not only that; but the chance to supply 'new' projects and structures will drop to nill. This is a very large problem; as more people means more buildings. If the government cannot supply these new installations, new communities suffer in the short term; spreading to older communities over time until the world as 'you' know it is gone.
As costs go up and revenue goes down, what do you think your options are?
jaieet 1 year ago
On a personal level, Green energy can net you a serious profit every month on your bills; based upon the amount of power you have produced and not used. This totals to a rather large value each year, should you have a functional system. On an industrial level, it provides a wider profit margin for companies small and large which, in effect, encourages more innovative methods.
Oil. Oil's difficult, as we don't have an alternative yet. We have hybrids, but they are costly. Maybe in 10 years.
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet I want to build a battery of windmills and sell the power to the grid, but the wind doesn't blow all the time. Still it would be better than nothing. My point is that taxing CO2 is a scam, to create the largest most power industry known to man. Yet they have not shown, with empirical data, that the temp rise CO2 contributes is an imminent threat. We need to develop new power for sure, and we will, in time. Taxing CO2 will halt 3rd world development, and change the world as you know it.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@jaieet cont...The net result will be to line the pockets of the worlds elite, and make more CO2 than ever. Most of the people I talk to, agree it is a scam based on computer models, and heavy investment into the propaganda that has propelled it this far. If good people stand by and let this happen, trust me the results will be dramatic. When Obama said "Under my new plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket." he meant it. What in your life can you see that applying to?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Windmills are not solar panels. Solar Panels rival--and are in fact an effective substitute for--conventional energy sources. Especially under a government-funded initiative.
Now, as far as taxing is concerned; it will raise power bills, naturally, in the short term. But it will 'also' encourage alternative means to maximise profit, minimise use and to, eventually, refine our methods of energy consumption. Our reliance on fossil fuel has been scorned for an entire generation now;
jaieet 1 year ago
And with very good reason; being that it does nothing but harm our immediate environment. Nuclear energy was our first solution to this problem. It succeeded, but brought with it many inherent risks.
The economic and social factors tied in with alternative fuel sources are more important down the line than any one person can truly know.
The tax, though it may 'slightly' raise our monthly power bills, will not destroy a nation. It will, in fact, reduce business interest IN that product.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 But back to the tax... It could be a scam. Very possibly, one or two men are in on it, started a lobby, and coerced a few friends into thinking it was a 'good' move.
Alternatively, it could be a move to beat the recession via a money grab; which would, in effect, end up 'saving' you money once you forced your way out of it.
Maybe the government is genuinely worried about the direction the climate is headed in. Co2 contributes. Theories involving Mars' destruction relate heavily.
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet Boy, talk about missing the implications. Theories involving Mars, thats a great policy making source.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Ok my short sited young fellow, does it ever get to -40*C there? I've spent years in your country ever been to mine? Two of my kids are older than you. The real conspiracy theorists are you, that think anyone that doesn't buy junk science is out to destroy the world. Sure pollution is bad, just not CO2. Have an honest look at the thousands of scientists that refute it, are they in your conspiracy too? listen when your young, question everything, especially the UN. Follow the money to the source.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
We started at Global cooling, then it was Petrol, then Ozone in Photocopiers and CFC gasses, now its Co2's. The Greenhouse model said Europe would have warmer winters+cloudy, damp summers, now they say Europe will have colder winters+ hot summers.
The rules keep changing, every time a problem is addressed a new problem appears that was not an issue previously
Is it any wonder that those old enough to remember these ever changing Climate 'rules' are sceptical?
Why keep changing the Goal posts?
dortyhoor 1 year ago
Human-caused global warming is REAL. It is science.
Therefore, it's got NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!
RELIGION is religion. Believing in made-up fantasy crap like "god" and Jesus is religion!
deskset24 1 year ago
This RussiaToday has become pure propaganda for the religion of the anti-science anti-technology global-warming-denying industry. They have really bought into their fanatic anti-environmental ideology.
deskset24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels was 15 to 20 million years ago when global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"Aradhna Tripati,UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
There is 2 types, ones who have done no research, and just believe whats on TV and what Al Gore says.
And those who have done research, and know there is no definitive proof its occurring.
And yet seek to profit from its promotion and trading in carbon and keeping their job and getting more funding.I feel sad for the first one because they are like disabled people.But the second are criminal fraudsters and should be sent to jail for deception.
IdunCareLesSn00b 1 year ago
@IdunCareLesSn00b Greenhouse gases damage our ozone which is, in essence, the ONLY thing stopping our eyes from exploding due to a space vacuum :P
Whether we have the sheer effect that some people claim we do is irrelevant. You're arguing a pro-litter point of view. It is not healthy for our planet; and it DOES hurt us long term. That's it - all of it. 100 years down the track it'll make a difference.
If you don't care about people around then; that's your problem. Nothing wrong with going green
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet There is 0 evidence greenhouse gases, or even chlorofluorocarbons, damage anything.It is a pure belief, with some theories supporting it, some not supporting it.To make draconian laws and institute global communism, just because of a belief by a few, just in case, to make the planet prettier, is nonsense.There is no such thing as going green, it is a made up ideology and religious belief my mentally insane people.
IdunCareLesSn00b 1 year ago
@IdunCareLesSn00b What do you mean? Greenhouse gases are poisonous by definition. Air pollution is a VERY serious issue. The fact that they keep our planet warm is also an issue of concern down the track. Mainstream, global warming is accepted. There are people who disagree that it is an immediate concern; and they could very well be right.
Though the fact remains that greenhouse emissions are harmful. Using less is mentally insane?
Really? :P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet
More co2 is a good thing, means plants grow faster, co2's greenhouse effect is almost nothing compared to clouds (water vapour) AGW is scam.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Breathe in exhaust for 2 hours; then come back and tell me how you feel. :P
It poisons us. It poisons animals. Concentrated, the burnoff can kill plants. It 'does' warm our planet; though the sheer effect 'our' emissions have is debatable.
To argue an anti conservative point of view is completely insane. In every single sense of the word. =P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet If they wanted to tax co I would be totally for it, but not co2. Its the build up of co2 in your lungs that tells your autonomic system to take another breath. What you said is nonsense. I am guessing you don't know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. All life on earth needs carbon dioxide, it is the life giving gas. Further it is a trace gas with almost no greenhouse effect, when compared to water vapour. Did you not take biology in high school?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 "I would be ok with taxing co2, yeah, whatever, but YOU'RE WRONG!' :P
If I'm talking about poison and burn off, it's really not all that difficult to understand what I'm implying. You, my good sir, are arguing h20 against saltwater. *rolls eyes*
Are you saying we shouldn't play conservatively to save money and protect the environment in general because certain greenhouse gases can have positive effects?
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet Read it again, you missed the point.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Which point? The part where I didn't know the difference? Or the point that centred around biology class in high school?
Maybe I didn't miss the point at all. Maybe, in effect, the point you were making doesn't exist at all; because it was irrelevant to the poisonous chemicals the entirety of the 'going green' argument centres around. :P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet Great then put down your laptop, and go live in a cave, and eat grass.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@jaieet Refer to the top two comments, they are directed at you.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Haha; what? I'll have you know that Australia uses not even half the energy or burnoff that The US or Canada does. Maybe 'you' should put down the laptop.
You aren't skeptical just because you disagree with the government's opinion, dude. Often, in the case of some conspiracy nutters, you're completely deluded. You might, in fact, be gullible for attacking a money-saving stance. :P
You've taken poisonous burnoff and somehow made it personal. Way to go. =P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet You and your age group have been manipulated by fear. A strong emotion, used many times through history to take populations to war, and whatever else the elite agenda is. Don't be a puppet. Search Maurice Strong, George Soros, these guys are not looking out for the world, and definitely not for jaleet, but seem to have your support. Watch Henrik Svensmark's 5 part vid on here, that may help open your eyes a bit. Good luck.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Again; what 'are' you talking about? Those who don't buy science are out to destroy the world? :P Please.
You're arguing a completely moot point. You're saying 'yes, THAT form of gas is unhealthy, but THIS one is not; don't trust your government'.
....
Are you listening to yourself?
If pollution is unhealthy, then you strive to find ways to cut back. Solar energy--a (long term) more cost effective, HEALTHIER version of power, is one of many ways to achieve this.
jaieet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jaieet ok your not worth my time, have a nice life.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@jaieet Have any idea how the solar panels are made? Of course you don't. You are a complete waste of my time, your comments are naive, and your intellect is absent. You are young, and don't even know, the how little you know. Please stop with the uneducated comments, maybe get the facts first. By the way my government just voted against cap and trade, so I do trust some of them, just not the far left progressives.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 A dismissive wave of the hand and everything's alright again. Which is lucky, cause for a second there I thought you were going to say that solar panels were bad for the environment on account of their low-impact material make. :P
I'm completely aware of what and what I am not aware of. It's ironic that you talk of gullibility and naiveness; because you're argument is almost entirely opinion. You can't 'wish' away volcano produce, and you can't ignore pollution till it goes green
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Ignoring one fact in favour of another is silly. How you could even remotely try to 'begin' an argument against nearly-free energy and low environmental impact is beyond me.
The only major reason not to go entirely green is because of the political, economic and social impact. Jobs, cash flow, etc, etc. You're arguing that we need Co2? Co2 is produced regularly, regardless.
Though, enlighten me, which one of my 'facts' are so incredibly absent of educated intelligence? :P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet I was referring to how they do not supply enough power to make them effective replacements for other forms of energy. Nuclear is a good alternative, but fossil fuels are the only ticket right now I'm afraid. I guess my main point is that taxing carbon is just a scam, based on your fears, created by greedy people with junk science. The sky is not falling chicken little, we are all going to be ok.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 A solar panel the size of Victoria would supply the entire world with energy;
Solar panels can be easily fitted to newly built (and already existing homes) at a fraction of the cost they could 5 years ago. And this is set to drop even further in 5 more.
Nuclear energy is highly dangerous if not maintained with PERFECT precision. Heating water should not put lives at risk.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Fossil fuels and Nuclear energy come at the possible cost of human life and health. The immediate environment also suffers. To dismiss it as fear mongering is complete and utter nonsense.
Your tax argument would have merit; if it were not for the fact that the fossil fuel industry had been opposing such alternative sources for so long 'based' upon their immediate profit margin.
They are trillion dollar industries that hurt the environment. Similar to the tobacco industry.
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet You seem to keep spouting all of the greenpeace talking points, but reality does not fit with them. Oil companies don't care if there is a CO2 tax, or if their are solar panels. The world needs fossil fuels. If they are taxed you pay more, the oil companies don't loose at all. Like it or not taxing CO2 will only hurt the poor of the world, and make the rich much richer. Your arguments are based on the lies you have been fed, keep on eating it up.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 Indeed. I have been fed lies, and now it is impossible for me to rationalise between reality and idyllic fiction. Hydrogen batteries as a replacement for oil; and the solar rebate are indisputable proof of the inability to make a profit (or provide more effective alternatives) to the current sources of power we rely on.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 I've never made an effort to learn about Greenpeace; so I can't comment on that. What I 'can' say, however, is that if you expect one energy source to simply... 'beat' our another - if you think the oil or carbon industry has to 'lose' to provide green energy - you are entirely missing the small picture.
jaieet 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 The people who refute it are completely irrelevant. Short sighted-nothing, my most wisened elder, a nation that is not Dependant on a predominantly poisonous form of energy is a 'stronger' nation.
It is also noteworthy that Co2 is produced in bulk BY the Earth. Remember the counter-arguments used when Global Warming was first cropping up involving volcano production? Yeah--that.
Manipulation by fear? I'm manipulated by fact. :P
jaieet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKickerboy99 The people who refute it are completely irrelevant. Short sighted-nothing, my most wisened elder, a nation that is not Dependant on a predominantly poisonous form of energy is a 'stronger' nation.
It is also noteworthy that Co2 is produced in bulk BY the Earth. Remember the counter-arguments used when Global Warming was first cropping up involving volcano production? Yeah--that.
Manipulation by fear? I'm manipulated by fact. :P
jaieet 1 year ago
@jaieet CO2 grows more plants, they are green......no?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
In the end, it doesn't matter whether it comes from humans or not, something has to done about it.
gergsar 1 year ago
How many decent teachers has anyone had in any schools? I rest my case. Keep eating GMO monster foods and watch your houses blow away in the next storms, it's the only way to grow.
Jai666666666 1 year ago
Why is RT interviewing Tony Harris? He's not a scientist, he's a PR man with ties to fossil fuel companies. Consider the source. He's a paid shill who would say anything depending on who is paying him. RT should know better.
"Tom Harris was then a senior associate with HPG, which was a "registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association (web) and the Canadian Gas Association."
from Sourcewatch(.)org
quinnmcguee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Beware people. An Inconvenient Truth is the leading propaganda film for the socialist wealth distribution scheme that is coming to all countries if Al Gore and David Suzuki, the two high priests of this global warming/climate change religion, get their wishes. You must resist. Thank God for the CRU email hack. Don't let your politicians sign any treaties. Resist the global warming SCAM!!!
harbar3000 1 year ago
That was funny!
150 random scientists (only?)- without any credibility in their specific fields... are reason enough! There are more scientists who don't believe smoking causes cancer than this!
Also Tom Harris- is not a scientist! He's a mechanical engineer or something like that.
Oh and the irony of the title is awesome! Since most atheists prefer science- and most deniers are religious nuts!
sypin 1 year ago
@sypin :
He is the executive director, get your facts straight; and while you are at it please tell me spotted Al Gore's degree, hardly a scientist, however he is certainly making a large chunk of change off climate change and telling children they know more than the parents to boot.
ScarlettKnights 1 year ago
My facts are fine, thanks... He IS a mechanical engineer., as well as exec. director of his coalition.
Also, Al Gore is an idiot. Sorry, but nice try... and what does he have to with this video?
And children knowing more than their parents? that's silly!! That's like saying regular folk know more than scientists in whatever field they study! regartdless of the results!
lol at such nonsense!
sypin 1 year ago
@sypin Exactly! Looks like Tom Harris was a long-term smoker. He looks sick.
Have (not just can) any of these so-called "top 150 climatologists" done ANY MATH? Added up all the variables that NASA has with the computer models has?
duck24x 1 year ago
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes.
There comes a time when it's decent and proper to admit a shameful deception has taken place. You Howard Dean and ManBearPig are wrong.
...and so the scam of AGW begins to unravel! The religion of AGW is fake!
hellotommy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch my video
It's about Climate change, earth catastrophe = Earth shift. Continental Drift: One huge continent became 2 continents, then 5 (or 6) and then?
The missing link -----> Two Continents.
watch?v=j7I_eFoIk64
fridaysabtu 1 year ago
Gore=Mugabe. I like that. That sounds scarily true.
lmtlsss 1 year ago
You scientists are brilliant. Keep the bastards honest! Well done indeed.
lmtlsss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tom Harris and Ian Plimer both lack credibility.
tinyurl com / 2cy6kz
tinyurl com / ygutjb8
Does RussiaToday ever use credible scientists when doing reports on climate change?
acidgawd999 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Those who know this GW charade is a fraud, all you have to do is explain to people that besides the nut job Al Gore being involved (the Al Gore who helped bring us the economically & environmentally destructive NAFTA, GATT, & WTO)
just tell people they have a Railroad Engineer in charge of the IPCC
How many IPCC members are also Lionel train collectors, or are model railroaders like their chief Choo Choo Charlie?
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Comment removed
redfoxonstilts 2 years ago
NASA will send neil armstrong back not to the fake moon studio but the sun to adjust the temp,he said its ok they will go at night.
bigfist255 2 years ago 3
nice one ;)
redfoxonstilts 2 years ago
When you get assholes like George Soros , David De Rothschild , Barak Obama , Al Gore , Rahm Emmanuel...all together at the Copenhagen lie fest , what do you have ? A bunch of fantastic human beings ? Or a bunch of intelligent , scheming , mass murdering swine that need to be exterminated asap ?
MonkeyMagic88 2 years ago 7
Ohhh so the sun has direct influence in the climate??? how strange..... (NOT)
alkatifa04 2 years ago
How can you cure a disease without treating the disease. The Global warming Gurus their robotoid Cultists&Phony Environmental organizations are not addressing the #1 factor for Environmental degradation, Wildlife declines, & GHG production. (look it up yourselves if you do not know) so how can it work? It can't and they are lairs
Maybe if we can stop this scheme the GW Cultists will pull a Heaven's Gate & kill themselves. According to the #1 factor they will then be helping the environment
Thisawareness 2 years ago
These evil globalist politicians are creating a false threat to impose their political objectives.
TheBNPrenaissance 2 years ago 7
@TheBNPrenaissance Yeah so did Bush. Guess who is most evil.
nilo2209 2 years ago
what objectives?
redfoxonstilts 2 years ago
Anyone who beleives in Al Gore and these 3rd world Mugabe type criminals are just plain idiots!
Stunr99 2 years ago 3
Hmm most of the fires here in Australia were apparently lit by people. I saw a load of charities raising money but didn't see anyone receive any of that money.
copenhagenNWO 2 years ago
all tempature change on the planet is caused by the sunlight or lack of sunlight.THEY JUST WANT A WORLD TAX SYSTEM.
ovadafone 2 years ago 4
@ovadafone: Yeah, and the MOONLANDING WAS A HOAX!11!!1
xtraa 2 years ago
ya that big huge ball of fire 1000 times bigger than the earth has nothing to do with it .wake up its about the money!
ovadafone 2 years ago 6
The sun's actually 1.3 million times the size of the earth (by volume) but I do agree about the money bit. :)
capricious71 2 years ago
@xtraa I wouldn't be surprised if the moon bombing was a hoax too.
copenhagenNWO 2 years ago
"Climate Change Skeptics" is a ridiculous misleading phrase, it wraps all the scientists that dont buy into this whole Scam as some sort of disbelievers on the Changing Climate. where as the "Real Climate Change" is a political one and nearly all scientents that are not goverment funded are very Skeptical about the political climate on the Issue. "You can not change the earths climate by allowing bankers and politicians to collect a Tax. This the most ridiculous thing Ive ever heard of".
TheTempestSpark 2 years ago 2
The opposite of being skeptical is being gullible.
But we seem to be living in a world where skepticism is bad and gullibility is good, not the other way around.
gschjetne 2 years ago 27
If there is a way 2 make money off of this regardless of how u feel, people will do it. I am not 2 sure it is more about climate change or just a new way 2 make money. I couldnt give a shit. In 20 - 30 yrs I will kick the bucket & let someone else worry about it. Meanwhile, I am not trading in my gas guzling 4 WD, I will cont doing what I always have & the UN & earth can kiss my ass.
democratichypocrit 2 years ago
"Global" warming ???? ..... Let's think now. .... "Global" means ..... hmmmmmm..... (thinking still...... ) "Global !!!!!!".... As in world wide???? Nah!.... It can not be what they really mean as one pole is getting colder than the other ..... Ok .... Let's try "Warming" as in the hot air gases released when their little brains over heat ad they speak their global lies!!!!! P.S. I didn't vote for the socialist anti American poor excuse for a American man!!!!!!!!!!
blessedjohn 2 years ago 3
There is evidence of sea level rise here in our pacific, my own island is sinking slowly and year by year and christmas by christmas I feel far from home... i hear climate changes happening, what is causing it?..no idea at all...heard its caused by industrialised countries polluting so much of our atmosphere? there is no doubt climate change is serious and everyone must unite to do something about it instead of seeking power and wealth etc..
Ramdiverpng09 2 years ago
Over many years we have all been lied to by our Govts. Not just our Govts but by Religous Leaders. We have been taught things that are not in Scripture & many have swallowed many lies by these false prophets. If you are a truth seeker please visit the web site which is displayed in our user name & take the time to read some of the articles.You will be shocked. THERE IS A GREAT AUDIO FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO. You WILL COME AWAY ASKING MANY QUESTIONS. REAL SHOCKING.
Blessings as you seek truth
Ben
2besavedcom 2 years ago
So what the fuck are you trying to sell? You or someone like you trying to make some money are ya?
democratichypocrit 2 years ago
PRESIDENT JOHN F KENEDY WARNED US IN HIS SKULL AND BONES SPEECH. AND I QUOTE "" And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment...
THIS SPEECH SAYS IT ALL
spopajr 2 years ago 3
Church of ClimatologY and Pope Al Gore..
Stop The COP15.. Save Lifes...
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago
the studies on climate change don't go that far back to really know for sure if its a normal cycle or not There is a lot of money to be made by this. People like Al Gore who says a lot of crap but uses more energy than anyone else should make you think alittle. Also maybe we should be looking at how we polute air and water more than temp. change there are a lot of chemical plants still dumping drums into the water and burying them in metal drums in the ground.
dorite13 2 years ago 3