Thread: Is there anything good about the carbon tax???????

Originally Posted by The Lepper

Who are you talking about? The UN? The bankers? The corporations? The USA? Are they pawns for some other higher power? All of them? What do they plan to do once they control the worlds economy? What are their plans to dominate us socially? What is their end goal? Get richer while the poor get poorer? How do they plan on sustaining this?

Everyone has their conspiracy theories. The extreme right say its the UN, me myself reckon it will more likely be corporate (which includes the banking sector ). If it was to be the UN it would be for dispersment of wealth, and in their theory it would be for the common good.

Lets take a quick and rather light look at the corporate world. The banking sector is controlled by something like three major finance lenders, they set the rates so to to speak. These are where our banks get the money from. These big banks are said to be controlled by two or three families that run them behind other companies two or three layers of back. Very hard to identify them. Apparently.

Now for the big corporate boys. Outside of oil, which is currently controlled by the Saudis ( little players in the big picture ), these are controlled by companies of companies that reside in the states and Europe. They control not only market share but also pricing. China at this point is the thorn in the foot. This is why china is contiinuing to develops their middle class, to act as a type of insulation, should the rest of the west go elsewhere. This is why the US is posturing at the moment.

I know it sounds like a Dan Brown novel doesn't it. Lol.

By corporations controlling food, water, media, and resources they control government and people. Have a good open look and you will see it. Everyday all around you. Or you could google it.....but who controls that ? I can hear the Twilight Zone theme song.

I know I am making light of this, but it is going to be a major issue. Not in our lifetime, but somewhere down the track. Perhaps the UN world govt. Is taking shape to stem the corporate world govt. A government war ?

Mulder, I hear you, but where are you ? LOL.

I feel so much more crazy right now.

Originally Posted by The Lepper

So you admit there is no 'two and two' to be put together in your link and you were talking crap....WTF MAN!!! Stop with this nonsense, for the love of god!... And again you tell me to go watch 5 hours worth of videos because you can't explain anything sufficiently......Dumb I think you are nothing but a troll here to spread misinformation and waste people's time.

What facts? Who are these people? Which banks are they hiding behind? Which corporations? Where is your proof faceless men hiding behind banks and corporations are behind AGW and all the world's ETS? Are they also behind the thousands of scientists and scientific organizations that agree on AGW? What about the economists that think an ETS or carbon tax is the best way to currently deal with the problem? Are these faceless men orchestrating all of these people to do their bidding so they can establish a world government? Can you prove any of this? Or are you just assuming all this to be true?

TROLL now thats a good name for you lep, why didn't i think of this before.

Unless you watch those videos i will not repond to something you cannot comprehend.

EERRhhh thousands of scientists where from, the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia or the Hadley Centre in Exeter, the IPCC bases most of its dooms day mesages on the information these institutes have provided, and just exactly who sponsers these institutes and how much have they received fro climate change.

Did Manns hockey stick diagram come from there i wonder, you know the one where he forgot to show the climate change that occured between medieval warm period 900 - 1300 or there abouts, claiming that the 20th century was the warmest.

Just too many holes lep, unplugged at that.

Economist why wouldn't an economist think the best way to combat climate change would be to throw up a new commodity on the stock exchange namely carbon credits, an economists dream dont you think.

I never really knew economists cared that much for the environment.

I've looked at all types of documentaries that delve into the conspiracy realm of world governments etc although critical thinking does not allow me to simply assume it is true. Your way of thinking actually reminds me very much of an article debunking the movie 'Thrive' which states:

the most commonly agreed-upon features of the theory (NWO, world government etc) generally hold:

1. That a group of persons, entities and business interests exert total, or at least significant, control over international relations, economics, media and technology on a global scale;
2. That this group has some sort of internal unity—i.e., that its actors are working in concert toward a common goal or goals; and
3. That either the direct goal of this group, or the effect of their goals, is to consolidate dictatorial power over all, most, or a significant portion of the world’s people.

While i dont agree with everything on the thrive movie, the explination is a good one.

Some quotes from very prominent people that also were aware of the NWO
http://www.politicalforum.com/austra...osphere-3.html

Believers in a “Global Domination Agenda” are probably the most intractable and unyielding of all conspiracy theorists. Many debunkers simply throw up their hands when confronted with a believer in this theory, because it’s virtually impossible to convince them that this conspiracy theory is illogical and completely unsupported by evidence.....

Are you sure you're not talking about global warming alarmists here, who just will not allow discussion on the issue because as we all know the science is settled.

At its core, the “Global Domination Agenda” conspiracy theory is an assumption. Conspiracy believers simply assume that points 1, 2, and 3 are true. Once they make this assumption, virtually anything they see they will interpret as “evidence” supporting the truth of points 1, 2 and 3. Basically, they think it’s true because it’s true. The circular and self-reinforcing nature of the assumption admits no outside stimulus that can either support or refute the points of the assumption.

Can you prove it's an assumption only?

Are we not living points 1 2 and 3 whos owns everything in Australia? Its not our government actually we sold it of for half price, once our dollar was floated they walzted in here and bought everything for half price.

Virtually everything they see are these your words, there is extremists but they exist in all disciplines, what about the global warming doomsdayers that just cant be told?

What about the Milton Freidman school of economics and the terrible things they did to the south American countries when trying to implement their theories, are these also conspiracy theories?

Man thats a great description of global warming alarmists to say the least, are you sure their not apart of this conpiracy too?

How do we know that a group of persons, entities and business interests exert total, or at least significant, control over international relations, economics, media and technology on a global scale? Because they do, and if you don’t agree, you’re a blind brainwashed sheeple. How do we know that this group has some sort of internal unity—i.e., that its actors are working in concert toward a common goal or goals? Because they are, and if you don’t agree, you haven’t done your research. How do we know that that either the direct goal of this group, or the effect of their goals, is to consolidate dictatorial power over all, most, or a significant portion of the world’s people? Because it is. Wake up!

Some of the first things that spring to mind are,

G20, G8, etc, then we have UNEP climate summits-policy, hunger summits-policy etc. etc.

What are these guys doing again, talking about the weather in their countries i assume or maybe their last holiday.

I think they are called globalists aren't they, when i wasn't interested in such things and saw people demonstrating on the tv about these meetings i used to think WTF, i guess thats what your saying right now.

But just tell me one thing how many monopolies exist in Australia, retailers / distributers, media, banks, oil etc etc, you dont even have to go overseas, why exactly are all governments around the globe allowing this? how are we going to get competition in the free markets when this is happening.

Do we really have free markets today, i'll let you make up your own mind about that one.

I never said we were being fully compensated. I just find it moronic that you call a tax where we are being compensated {to some extent} financial slavery because it fits in with your AGW global domination conspiracy but other taxes where we aren't being compensated at all are just normal taxes and aren't financial slavery or part of your world government agenda.

The big difference love is that the GST goes directly to our government which then in turn injects it into our economy and our society.

The carbon tax will send billions of Australian dollars to overseas institutions, in other words we're throwing money away, i guess this could be a from of financial slavery especially when the government says that it WONT do this then gets elected and does do it.

It would be a little different if we all voted for this, but never mind at the next elections the Australian electrolate will vote on this very issue.

LOL. Seems like the quote I put above was right. You are already completely convinced of this so there is no point arguing with you. This link is related to the Thrive movie but it has a good section on people such as you and your NWO conspiracy.

http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/...enda-debunked/

Although, out of curiousity, who are the many world leaders that have identified with it and what was the context in which it was mentioned? Was it specifically about a global government being enforced via carbon taxes and AGW being headed by bankers and corporations? Or was it a remark taken completely out of context such as Bush's speech way back in 1991?

Like i said i dont agree with everything on the thrive movie, but the second half is based on facts, well worth a watch especially the start if your're a treky fan.

Yes, of course I do and FINALLY you start to understand! I'm all for getting away from messing up our planet by mining it's minerals, creating devastating oil spills, ruining entire ecosystems, wiping out whole species of animals, killing huge portions of forests and generally interrupting the balance of nature for the greed of corporations that have far too much money invested in mining, foresting etc to even consider a green alternative where they would eventually become obsolete. Unfortunately you see it the opposite way round with the green alternative being the demon that will destroy our planet.

What gives you the impression that i dont care about such things, maybe i care about them more than you do, because i can see through a ponzy scheme based on a lie that will not clean up one bit of manmade pollution.

Huh? This is why it is shifting to an ETS where there is a cap on how much pollution is produced. The existing generators aren't immortal either. Did you honestly think they were going to scrap their generators straight away? They were always going to let them run their useful course but the point is that this time when they die they will be replaced by less-polluting ones, thus achieving the desired effect of pumping out less pollution.

There's also a cap on the EU's ETS they haven't done so well, unless you wantus to live in darkness after the sun goes down.

This is a disputed subject as far as I know and there are definitely some folks in the Environment and Conservation section that wouldn't agree with you or Al Gore here. In fact, I never knew you subscribed so heavily to what Al Gore said. I personally disregarded him on this issue years ago.

When it comes to environment i do sit up and listen, and i'm glad we agree about that fat pig Gore.

And also, aren't you contradicting yourself? If you are afraid of a runaway greenhouse effect then why on Earth are you against taking some sort of action right now? Sure it could be better, but be realistic, this is what we have and if you truly are worried about a 'tipping point' then you should be up in arms supporting the carbon tax and saying it's not enough we need more. You can't complain about a runaway greenhouse effect and then turn around and scrap any attempt at mitigating it. This is cognitive dissonance.

The carbon tax will not cut it and AGW is a lie.

Do we need to cut our pollution yes there are better ways than a carbon tax.

For example weren't you the one that posted China has a cleaner fossil fuel generator than we do, based on cleaner or treated coal.

It didn't take a carbon tax to achieve that did it.

Aussies have always been inovators and inventors we dont need to join some EU ETS or send out billions of dollars from a carbon tax.

Australia can clean up her pollution with out this nonsense at grass roots level, not on the world markets.

Originally Posted by The Lepper

Who are you talking about? The UN? The bankers? The corporations? The USA? Are they pawns for some other higher power? All of them? What do they plan to do once they control the worlds economy? What are their plans to dominate us socially? What is their end goal? Get richer while the poor get poorer? How do they plan on sustaining this?

For starters they recon the worlds population should not exceed 500 million.

I think we're headed for a few more wars and some more faimine dont you?

They are also buying up all the food producing lands, man i could go on and on but i have to go lep.

Wake up to yourself, if your worried about the environment and your kids or grankids.

Then i think the destination of the world economically and socially are just as important for your kids and grankids.

Unless you cherish the idea of fuedalism foryourself your kids and your grandkids.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

TROLL now thats a good name for you lep, why didn't i think of this before.

How on earth am I trolling? I'm asking you direct, on topic questions relevant to your posts. A troll isn't someone who disagrees with you. A troll is somebody who makes off-topic, inflammatory remarks designed to anger the other person or waste their time.

Unless you watch those videos i will not repond to something you cannot comprehend.

So you can't answer any of my questions and instead tell me to watch five hours worth of videos? You gotta be kidding....If your videos knew the answers to these questions and you had watched them then why can't you answer in a concise manner? The only logical conclusion is that you can't. If you cannot answer these questions that are crucial to your conspiracy theory then you are simply talking BS.

EERRhhh thousands of scientists where from, the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia or the Hadley Centre in Exeter, the IPCC bases most of its dooms day mesages on the information these institutes have provided, and just exactly who sponsers these institutes and how much have they received fro climate change.

Again you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge. Why not just google these things? Save yourself the embarrassment...Also, you are the one bringing conspiracy into it, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show who "sponsers these institutes and how much have they received fro climate change."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/30.../1686.full.pdf

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/...limate-concern

"Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming."

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

http://journalistsresource.org/studi...limate-change/

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

Also see how many scientific organizations are of the same opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations

Did Manns hockey stick diagram come from there i wonder, you know the one where he forgot to show the climate change that occured between medieval warm period 900 - 1300 or there abouts, claiming that the 20th century was the warmest.

Just too many holes lep, unplugged at that.

Economist why wouldn't an economist think the best way to combat climate change would be to throw up a new commodity on the stock exchange namely carbon credits, an economists dream dont you think.

I never really knew economists cared that much for the environment.

Huh? We are discussing your conspiracy theory here. Don't tell me you are lost already? Let me remind you of the context and what you are implying. You said: "The fact that these same faceless people that are hiding behind banks and corporations which are behind the AGW and CO2 emissions trading schemes all over the world proves that its a scam based on a lie. " Which explicitly means 'faceless men hiding behind banks and corporations' are dictating what these economists and scientists think, publish and do. The problem is you provided no evidence whatsoever and just assumed this to be true. This is nonsensical and, to be frank, idiotic. Do you have evidence for this or not? If not, accept you are talking crap and lets not waste our time on something so asinine.

Also, economists care for the economy, and many believe that taking no action against climate change will be more harmful for our economy in the future than if we take immediate action which may harm our economy now but will be beneficial in the long run.

While i dont agree with everything on the thrive movie, the explination is a good one.

Some quotes from very prominent people that also were aware of the NWO
http://www.politicalforum.com/austra...osphere-3.html

Uhhh, half of those quotes don't even mention an NWO. Banks ripping us off =/= a world government. One of the quotes even admits it's a conspiracy! Critical thinking also does not allow me to blindly follow a brief quote without being given the full context of when it was said either....The only one's that really mention a world government come from David Rockefeller and one guy at a Bildeberg conference. Are you seriously suggesting these two people are influencing all these scientists, scientific organizations and economists to bring about a one world government or that this is somehow evidence of 'faceless men' acting behind the scenes of banks and corporations to manipulate scientists and economists in the same way? Because lets be serious, that is just plain ridiculous and idiotic. Do you have evidence of their influence in all these different areas and thousands of different people? If you cannot provide proof then again it is just unsubstantiated conspiracy theory which does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Basically, provide evidence of these peoples (or 'faceless men') influence in all the scientists, economists and scientific organizations in the world or (*)(*)(*)(*) because I really don't think you understand how ridiculous you sound.

Are you sure you're not talking about global warming alarmists here, who just will not allow discussion on the issue because as we all know the science is settled.

No, the quote clearly was talking about people like you who subscribe to the world domination agenda. I didn't write it either, it was a quote...Also, I don't subscribe to climate alarmism. Ironically you were the one in the other thread who was using the doomsday scenario to justify your own argument

Can you prove it's an assumption only?

That's not how this works. You made the claim and so the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Are we not living points 1 2 and 3 whos owns everything in Australia? Its not our government actually we sold it of for half price, once our dollar was floated they walzted in here and bought everything for half price.

Don't you see how you are proving exactly what that quote said. You are literally the perfect example of it: "Once they make this assumption, virtually anything they see they will interpret as “evidence” supporting the truth of points 1, 2 and 3."

Who owns everything in Australia? Are you talking about the Murdoch media? Are they also orchestrating what scientists, scientific organizations and economists think? Wtf are you talking about!

This is why arguing with you people is pointless. You are convinced you are right and no amount of rationality will change your mind.

Some of the first things that spring to mind are,

G20, G8, etc, then we have UNEP climate summits-policy, hunger summits-policy etc. etc.

What are these guys doing again, talking about the weather in their countries i assume or maybe their last holiday.

I think they are called globalists aren't they, when i wasn't interested in such things and saw people demonstrating on the tv about these meetings i used to think WTF, i guess thats what your saying right now.

But just tell me one thing how many monopolies exist in Australia, retailers / distributers, media, banks, oil etc etc, you dont even have to go overseas, why exactly are all governments around the globe allowing this? how are we going to get competition in the free markets when this is happening.

Do we really have free markets today, i'll let you make up your own mind about that one.

I'm not here to defend the thrivedebunked website or to go too far off track discussing free markets and Australian monopolies. This has already taken up two posts and I’m more interested in seeing if you can substantiate any of your claims. If you want to argue about the thrivedebunked article, take it up with them and link me to it. I'd love to watch the exchange. I simply put up those quotes as they reflect your character and other conspiracists of your ilk rather accurately and raise certain logical inconsistencies that conspiracy theorists like yourself often have trouble with.

The big difference love is that the GST goes directly to our government which then in turn injects it into our economy and our society.

The carbon tax is also being used in a way that will benefit our economy and society. Do I need to start quoting the Stern Review? Do you think sticking with fossil fuels and taking no action to change our behaviour is beneficial? Also, unlike the GST, and I’m now repeating myself for the umpteenth time, the carbon tax’s primary objective is NOT to raise revenue but to change people’s behaviour. Do you think we can continue the way we are now and be totally fine in the future?

The problem is we have people like you who perceive it all as a huge conspiracy to enslave us under a world government and who call this genuine effort and need to move away from fossil fuels and change our behaviour things like the buzz word ‘financial slavery’.

The carbon tax will send billions of Australian dollars to overseas institutions, in other words we're throwing money away, i guess this could be a from of financial slavery especially when the government says that it WONT do this then gets elected and does do it.

You agree climate change is a global problem that needs to be tackled globally, yet you think giving poor nations the means to act on this problem is throwing money away.....More cognitive dissonance.

And like ziggy said, the government never promised they wouldn't negotiate terms in the case of a hung parliament. If it wasn’t a hung parliament I’d be angry too, but I’m a realist and negotiations had to be done to form government. I’m not going to whine and moan incessantly about it.

Also, the Green Climate Fund was in the works BEFORE the 2010 elections.

Like i said i dont agree with everything on the thrive movie, but the second half is based on facts, well worth a watch especially the start if your're a treky fan.

It got people thinking which I quite like, but after watching any movie like that I go on the internet and see if it holds up to criticism. I suggest you start doing the same. Thrive failed quite a bit.
http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/site-index/

What gives you the impression that i dont care about such things, maybe i care about them more than you do, because i can see through a ponzy scheme based on a lie that will not clean up one bit of manmade pollution.

So you think every single one of those scientists and scientific organizations that agree about AGW are lying...Let me ask you something. Why on earth should we listen to you over thousands of scientists and some of the most prestigious organizations in the world?

This is why you are a fool. You are absolutely convinced you are right. I'm not absolutely convinced either way as there is still debate going on amongst the experts. For a laymen (especially one such as yourself who admittedly draws conclusions from ignorance), to assume you know the truth 100% is just absurd and basically destroys any credibility you might have had.

There's also a cap on the EU's ETS they haven't done so well, unless you wantus to live in darkness after the sun goes down.

Corruption has plagued the EU. Yes. Does this mean that all ETS' will be plagued by corruption? No. Once corrupt is it impossible to decorrupt? No. If anything we should be able to learn from the EU’s mistakes. Again I think it is far too early to condemn this effort.

[QUOTE=dumbanddumber;1061395724]When it comes to environment i do sit up and listen, and i'm glad we agree about that fat pig Gore.[/quote

Huh? Clearly you don't as you didn't even realize that the majority of scientists and organizations are in agreement that we are having an impact on our climate.

The carbon tax will not cut it and AGW is a lie.

Then why on earth did you say: "Again didn't Al Gore conveniently tell us that we are at the knifes edge and unless we take emediate action will pass the point of no return with CO2 emissions tipping the Earth's atmospheric balance into a run away greenhouse effect. " ...Why is it impossible for you to be consistent? Are you schizophrenic or something?

Do we need to cut our pollution yes there are better ways than a carbon tax.

Why would you care if you think AGW is a lie? Or were you lying about that and you do subscribe to the runaway greenhouse effect theory? You are either a troll or just incredibly stupid. You might even be ptif's alt account.

For example weren't you the one that posted China has a cleaner fossil fuel generator than we do, based on cleaner or treated coal.

It didn't take a carbon tax to achieve that did it.

No it didn't, but China are the second richest country and the highest emitters of CO2 in the world. They recognized the position they were in and their obligation and started to act. A carbon tax/ ETS is what we have. The alternative is Abbott's plan which is even worse. Stop living in the clouds and come back to planet Earth. We aren't China.

Aussies have always been inovators and inventors we dont need to join some EU ETS or send out billions of dollars from a carbon tax.

Australia can clean up her pollution with out this nonsense at grass roots level, not on the world markets.

Then get out on the streets, start a political party and do something about it! But first decide whether or not AGW is a lie or if a runaway greenhouse effect is a real threat that needs to be dealt with. Otherwise you will be the laughing stock of your town...Much like this forum.

Originally Posted by The Lepper

How on earth am I trolling? I'm asking you direct, on topic questions relevant to your posts. A troll isn't someone who disagrees with you. A troll is somebody who makes off-topic, inflammatory remarks designed to anger the other person or waste their time.

The phonetics suits the picture that i conjure up in my mind about you.

So you can't answer any of my questions and instead tell me to watch five hours worth of videos? You gotta be kidding....If your videos knew the answers to these questions and you had watched them then why can't you answer in a concise manner? The only logical conclusion is that you can't. If you cannot answer these questions that are crucial to your conspiracy theory then you are simply talking BS.

I'm not your history teacher, you want the knowledge its their in front of you do your homework or (*)(*)(*)(*).

Until then you are ignorant of the facts that i'm pointing out so i will always just say "refer to the videos" for the answer.

Again you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge. Why not just google these things? Save yourself the embarrassment...Also, you are the one bringing conspiracy into it, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show who "sponsers these institutes and how much have they received fro climate change."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/30.../1686.full.pdf

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/...limate-concern

"Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming."

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

http://journalistsresource.org/studi...limate-change/

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

Also see how many scientific organizations are of the same opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations

Who is embarrassing themselves you or me?

Climategate emails explained
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles...ate-emails.pdf

There's also a climategate ii but you can google that one.

You listen to some pigs calling themselves scientists that are receiving huge grants to prove that AGW is real, the problem is these pigs are not presenting us with all the facts, they are actually distorting them to prove their case and get their millions.

The climategate emails prove that these scientists are more worried about lining their pockets than saving the Earth from manmade pollution, and will go to any lengths to obtain the grants which by the emails that were leaked then get shared around and placed in their personal accounts.

Scientists or highway cowboys? Their word is sh!t!

And then on top of all that they dare to call any other scientists not in their clicka who doesn't agree with them about AGW mad and luny, HA WTF these are the pigs you are supporting.

Your case still has too many holes that need plugging i'm afraid.

I've done my research about who sponsors these pigs, you want to find out, google it its really not that hard.

And mister Michale Mann's graph of the hockey stick was so erronous the IPCC had it removed from the AR4 paper, again these are the pigs you are listening to and defending.

The 20th century was the warmest on record?
He conveniently forgotto mention the medieval warming period
What a wanker why blatently lie?
Is it to receive millions of dollars in research.



And why did the IPCC switch graphs, the top one is a more correct picture, at least it goes back a few centuries.



If we go back a few millions years? Gosh CO2 levels at 7000ppm compared to todays 390ppm.

WTF is the empirical evidence that CO2 causes a runaway greenhouse effect.

The only evidence is in the IPCC's computer models which cant even get tomorrows weather right.

Huh? We are discussing your conspiracy theory here. Don't tell me you are lost already? Let me remind you of the context and what you are implying. You said: "The fact that these same faceless people that are hiding behind banks and corporations which are behind the AGW and CO2 emissions trading schemes all over the world proves that its a scam based on a lie. " Which explicitly means 'faceless men hiding behind banks and corporations' are dictating what these economists and scientists think, publish and do. The problem is you provided no evidence whatsoever and just assumed this to be true. This is nonsensical and, to be frank, idiotic. Do you have evidence for this or not? If not, accept you are talking crap and lets not waste our time on something so asinine.

I'm discussing anything and everything that is the carbon tax ETS, i think you are the one getting lost, can't your brain process more that one bit of information at once?

Once again i remind you that the videos are at you disposal to obtain the necesary information, i'm not a history teacher, all i can say is do the research and then come back with some meaningful discussion.

The evidence is in the videos watch them or buy the books and read them.

Not talking crap "its in the videos", and you are wating my time like i said from now on questions like this will have the following response " watch the videos".

Also, economists care for the economy, and many believe that taking no action against climate change will be more harmful for our economy in the future than if we take immediate action which may harm our economy now but will be beneficial in the long run.

Now thats a phurphy if i've ever heard one.

The carbon tax will put Australia at a disadvantage in global trade, i'm sure all economists support it, pathetic defence dude, not worth the time to explain it, i suggest you find out how trading commodities works.

Uhhh, half of those quotes don't even mention an NWO. Banks ripping us off =/= a world government. One of the quotes even admits it's a conspiracy! Critical thinking also does not allow me to blindly follow a brief quote without being given the full context of when it was said either....The only one's that really mention a world government come from David Rockefeller and one guy at a Bildeberg conference. Are you seriously suggesting these two people are influencing all these scientists, scientific organizations and economists to bring about a one world government or that this is somehow evidence of 'faceless men' acting behind the scenes of banks and corporations to manipulate scientists and economists in the same way? Because lets be serious, that is just plain ridiculous and idiotic. Do you have evidence of their influence in all these different areas and thousands of different people? If you cannot provide proof then again it is just unsubstantiated conspiracy theory which does not deserve to be taken seriously.

"Watch the videos"

And the second half of the movie "thrive"

Thrive the movie
http://youtu.be/lEV5AFFcZ-s

Basically, provide evidence of these peoples (or 'faceless men') influence in all the scientists, economists and scientific organizations in the world or (*)(*)(*)(*) because I really don't think you understand how ridiculous you sound.

Excatly (*)(*)(*)(*) and "watch the videos".



.

No, the quote clearly was talking about people like you who subscribe to the world domination agenda. I didn't write it either, it was a quote...Also, I don't subscribe to climate alarmism. Ironically you were the one in the other thread who was using the doomsday scenario to justify your own argument

What was Al Gore telling us, what is the IPCC telling us that unless we take action we are doomed, and what is this action to suck money out of the peoples of the earth while big polluters get compenated for buying carbon credits by the government and they pass on this cost to the consumer through energy bills?

How is this going to curbe CO2 emissions the only ones that will feel the pain is you and me and our standard of living.

Great strategy - but for who? cetainely not for curbing pollution! but isn't that what the carbon tax is about?

That's not how this works. You made the claim and so the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Who is running the GCF isn't it the world bank and the UN? who ownes the world bank and the UN, "watch the videos"

Don't you see how you are proving exactly what that quote said. You are literally the perfect example of it: "Once they make this assumption, virtually anything they see they will interpret as “evidence” supporting the truth of points 1, 2 and 3."

Ignorance is bliss my friend, you live in your make belive world and i will live in mine BUT "watch the videos" FFS.

Who owns everything in Australia? Are you talking about the Murdoch media? Are they also orchestrating what scientists, scientific organizations and economists think? Wtf are you talking about!

Well if you cannot comprehend the world you live in this discussion is finished.

This is why arguing with you people is pointless. You are convinced you are right and no amount of rationality will change your mind.

And what about you?

Is this the pot calling the kettle black!

Originally Posted by The Lepper

I'm not here to defend the thrivedebunked website or to go too far off track discussing free markets and Australian monopolies. This has already taken up two posts and I’m more interested in seeing if you can substantiate any of your claims. If you want to argue about the thrivedebunked article, take it up with them and link me to it. I'd love to watch the exchange. I simply put up those quotes as they reflect your character and other conspiracists of your ilk rather accurately and raise certain logical inconsistencies that conspiracy theorists like yourself often have trouble with.

Where exactly in the quote have i mentioned the motion picture thrive?

Besides you brought it up (THRIVE - video), i refered you to two videos,

a. The money masters
b. The Shock doctrine

You pulled Thrive out of your backside and now your telling me its debunked?

Try to keep this conversation betwen me and you and not you and your mind.

The carbon tax is also being used in a way that will benefit our economy and society. Do I need to start quoting the Stern Review? Do you think sticking with fossil fuels and taking no action to change our behaviour is beneficial? Also, unlike the GST, and I’m now repeating myself for the umpteenth time, the carbon tax’s primary objective is NOT to raise revenue but to change people’s behaviour. Do you think we can continue the way we are now and be totally fine in the future?

I dont care which review you state.

Fact are GST revenue goes directly back to our government, Carbon tax revenue goes to the big polluters and to us and to overseas instituitions.

You can scream until you go cherry red doesnt change FACTS.

The problem is we have people like you who perceive it all as a huge conspiracy to enslave us under a world government and who call this genuine effort and need to move away from fossil fuels and change our behaviour things like the buzz word ‘financial slavery’.

Well lets see we will send out billions of Australian dollars to overseas instituitions that have no interest in curbing greenhouse gases they will be worried about farming carbon credits and the health of the carbon credit market.

You call this a genuine effort - why do i bother, your're such a brainwashed individual i think there is no hope for you.

I dont ever recall throwing away money and our wealth for peanuts in return.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this.

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

IPCC Chairperson & Official
Ottmar Edenhofer

You agree climate change is a global problem that needs to be tackled globally, yet you think giving poor nations the means to act on this problem is throwing money away.....More cognitive dissonance.

How will poorer nations act on climate change?

The majority of the people live in medieval times and squalor they dont contribute to AGW unless we are going to start taking into account their cows and pigs etc.

What do they produce in terms of AGW CO2 emissions?

If you give it to a poor country, the dicator of that country will i'm sure except it, but what will he do with?

Probablt buy a few more machine guns to kill his own people with wen they revolt or maybe some of his neighbours.

Stop talking RUBBISH, its hardley worth a response.

Just look at your beloved Green Climate Fund, corporations are lining up to stick their dirty little hands in the $100 billion dollar a year funds the carbon tax/ETS will create.

You really talk sh!t sometimes.

And like ziggy said, the government never promised they wouldn't negotiate terms in the case of a hung parliament. If it wasn’t a hung parliament I’d be angry too, but I’m a realist and negotiations had to be done to form government. I’m not going to whine and moan incessantly about it.

All the more reason to bury those homosexual comminists called the greens at the next election.

Al

so, the Green Climate Fund was in the works BEFORE the 2010 elections.

No doubt these people plan 50 to 100 years ahead of time, maybe it was conjured up in the 18th century?

It got people thinking which I quite like, but after watching any movie like that I go on the internet and see if it holds up to criticism. I suggest you start doing the same. Thrive failed quite a bit.
http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/site-index/

While i'm sceptical about the Mulder and Scully bits at the start, start watching it at around the 60 minute mark, you cannot say that is fiction, cause we all (those that have looked) know it to be fact.

Here i'll make it easy for you go to the 60 minute mark and watch it for 15 minutes.

So you think every single one of those scientists and scientific organizations that agree about AGW are lying...Let me ask you something. Why on earth should we listen to you over thousands of scientists and some of the most prestigious organizations in the world?

Climategate shows us what type of scientists they are, nuff said.

This is why you are a fool. You are absolutely convinced you are right. I'm not absolutely convinced either way as there is still debate going on amongst the experts. For a laymen (especially one such as yourself who admittedly draws conclusions from ignorance), to assume you know the truth 100% is just absurd and basically destroys any credibility you might have had.

I know i'm right because if the science was settled the scientists woul have come out and taken all comers with their theory and practice.

They would have given it to all scientists who doubt to work it out for them selves thats science not some parametric computer model that has been the basis of the carbon tax and its financial slavery imposed upon us.

Corruption has plagued the EU. Yes. Does this mean that all ETS' will be plagued by corruption? No. Once corrupt is it impossible to decorrupt? No. If anything we should be able to learn from the EU’s mistakes. Again I think it is far too early to condemn this effort.

Thats the problem lep corruption plagues most governments in most countries.

Laws should be passed for these indivudals to be held accountable just like in the business world.