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

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by dumbanddumber, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. slipperyfish

    slipperyfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My apologies. I guess I needed the view of you rolling your eyes.
     
  2. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lol I guess you did :psychoitc:
     
  3. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Give it time Dom, to get the snowball happening.

    I wonder if you'll still be chirping when the snowball passes your place.
     
  4. aussiefree2ride

    aussiefree2ride New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The carbon tax isn`t a conspiracy story, it`s real. You mightn`t think it so funny as time progresses, and people get hurt. It`s only other people`s money, right?
     
  5. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :D

    Telling me to watch 5 hours worth of videos when you can’t even answer my most basic questions is a complete cop out. If you are legit then please link me to the parts that are relevant. That at least is reasonable. Honestly I couldn’t watch them even if I wanted to as I’m in Laos and the internet here is really slow.

    Is this a joke? You asked where these thousands of scientists came from... Are you aware that the CRU is only comprised of about 30 people?

    Even if you were right (and I’m not about to go down that track) it wouldn’t matter because the CRU only make up a very small amount of the world’s scientists. Or are you going to completely destroy your integrity and insist that this is the case for all scientists supportive of the AGW theory?

    I’m not about to delve into this. It would be pointless.


    We aren’t even discussing the ETS in this tangent so it’s sadly ironic you say it is me who can’t process more than one bit of information.

    Again, link me to the relevant parts and I will be more than happy to.


    I never said ‘all economists’. Twisting my words is also rather pathetic. Ironic, isn’t it? Apparently you’ve never heard of the Stern Review either: “The Stern Review's main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

    http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf

    Plenty of economists also think the CT is the best option as well: "A RECENT survey of Australian economists has revealed around 60 per cent believe the carbon tax package is a good economic policy and 25 per cent disagree."

    http://citynews.com.au/2011/news/economists-agree-on-carbon/

    Maybe someday I’ll watch Thrive again but that thrivedebunked website severely damaged it’s credibility. I’d take anything from that movie with a grain of salt. It's actually really funny you are citing it as evidence. It really shows how weak your argument is and how desperate you are for evidence.

    Link the relevant parts. Be reasonable.
     
  6. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My responses are slow because there is only internet for 4 hours a day where I am and it's prone to dropping out.

    Which part of the IPCC 4th assessment report do you find to be a doomsday scenario? I was never that concerned after reading it. Media coverage can sound alarming but generally I’ve found most scientists to be actually be very reasonable on the matter. It’s just sad that people only seem to see the 1 or 2 with the most radical positions that are focused on by the media. Especially on such a highly politicized issue where people will begin to strongly take sides. This could explain your fixation with alarmism, conspiracies, CRU and your subsequent generalizations about science and scientists in general.

    The carbon tax. I’ve already explained to you the logic of it and how it works. What did you not understand?

    Here is another article that basically reiterates everything you’ve already been told: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy

    “Why would we expect economists to support a carbon tax? It's very close to the economic ideal. Global warming is a phenomenon associated with emissions of greenhouse gases over and above natural cycles—largely those resulting from the burning of carbon fuels humans have dug up out of the ground. We expect normal economic activity to maximise social good because each individual balances costs and benefits when making economic decisions. Carbon emissions represent a negative externality. When an individual takes an economic action with some fossil-fuel energy content—whether running a petrol-powered lawnmower, turning on a light, or buying bunch of grapes—that person balances their personal benefits against the costs of the action. The cost to them of the climate change resulting from the carbon content of that decisions, however, is effectively zero and is rationally ignored. The decision to ignore carbon content, when aggregated over the whole of humanity, generates huge carbon dioxide emissions and rising global temperatures.

    The economic solution is to tax the externality so that the social cost of carbon is reflected in the individual consumer's decision. The carbon tax is an elegant solution to a complicated problem, which allows the everyday business of consumer decision making to do the work of emission reduction. It's by no means the only economically sensible policy response to the threat of climate change, but it is the one we'd expect economists to embrace.”


    By changing people’s behaviour so that they avoid the drop you keep talking about. That is literally the point. If you refuse to change your behaviour then you should definitely expect a drop in your standard of living.

    Although to be fair, you are ranting again as none of this has anything to do with the quote you were responding to.

    Again, link me to the relevant parts. The burden of proof is on you to prove it isn’t an assumption and palming off a response to a simple question to watch 5 hours of videos just makes your position and understanding look incredibly weak. Also, if you disagree with the quote from the thrivedebunked website please go over there and let them know.

    Haha, yes, in my world you actually need to provide evidence for your claims and at least have grasped the most basic elements of what you are discussing if you want to debate. Failing to answer straight-forward questions means you are wasting time…Which is lucky actually because I’m on an island in the Mekong river and it’s pouring rain so I have plenty of time to kill.

    I comprehend facts, not conspiracy theories (especially ones with gaping holes in them like your AGW world domination conspiracy) and certainly not from people like you who can’t adequately explain anything about them. Wisen up your game and people might start to take note of you and not disregard you as a fool.

    LOL. Pay attention man. Why do I always have to walk you through our exchanges step by step? It’s like talking to a child. I said:"Your way of thinking actually reminds me very much of an article debunking the movie 'Thrive' which states *cue thrivedebunked.com article on NWO*"…

    Purely because it was related to your world government conspiracy theory.

    And…

    You didn’t mention Thrive but were responding to a quote taken from the thrivedebunked website! I also made it explicitly clear it was from a website debunking Thrive and wasn’t from the movie itself. Literally the only explanation for you not understanding this is that you didn’t read my post… which explains why you always manage to get so hopelessly lost in these conversations.
     
  7. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was my bad bringing the GST into it as the taxes have fundamentally different objectives/purposes. I apologize, but Ironically the only person screaming about them is you :D

    Evidence or ****. These are bold claims that require citations. Only a fool would swallow that with absolutely no evidence to back it up. What’s hilariously ironic is you call me brainwashed while expecting me to simply assume you are right when you provide absolutely nothing to substantiate your claims. You are either trolling or just very, very stupid.

    As far as I know they will act in whatever way they choose. Although it also seems to depend highly on the implementation of the GCF. According to wiki and three different sources: “making impact assessments of the projects that are being considered for funding, doing frequent follow-ups on their performances and working with licenses is also recommended in literature.”

    I do hope they follow the recommendations.

    Of course they contribute. Everybody contributes.

    If you can find out which developing countries are going to see money from the GCF it would be great if you could quantify their CO2 emissions. I looked but couldn’t find anything listing the countries although we could start here to get an idea:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country#List_of_developing_economies
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

    So you can imagine they produce quite a bit.

    :D

    Ironically the only one talking rubbish here is you. You honestly make this too easy for me. All you've done here is expose your ignorance of the GCF. Here, I will spoon-feed you yet again:

    "The GCF will support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties....

    The assets of the GCF will be administered by a trustee only for the purpose of, and in accordance with, the relevant decisions of the GCF Board."


    http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/green_climate_fund/items/5869.php

    Where did you get the idea they were just going to hand over the money to dictators (not that all developing countries even have a dictator in the first place) without a second thought? Are you for real or are you trolling? Because clearly you haven't bothered to learn anything about the subject before trying to discuss it.

    Please, don’t bring your bigotry and more abysmal spelling into this thread. I don’t have time for ignorant bigots and it makes you sound like a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

    So now your whole argument is boiling down to a huge ‘maybe’ of which you again have absolutely no evidence for? This isn’t even an argument, it’s just one big assumption :D This is too funny. Ever heard of Occam’s razor? You should apply it here.

    I’ll check it out when I get somewhere with decent internet. In the meantime I highly advise you to go to thrivedebunked to see how the information holds up to criticism.

    So you are judging every single scientist and scientific organization in the world based on a handful from a single university on charges of which they were cleared six different times? Even if you are right and climategate was a sham you still could not make this assumption. It just isn’t logical to assume this to be true for all scientists. It’s idiotic and not even worthy of discussion.

    LOL. You are so arrogant you even say “I know I’m right” and so stupid you then make a completely asinine statement. Science is never settled for scientists (ones with integrity anyway). How do you still not understand that you are listening to politicized statements? Part of what makes a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. It must be capable of being proven false. Therefore science can never be completely 'settled'. Although as I have shown there certainly is a consensus amongst scientists and scientific organizations. Do you still dispute this fact?

    I agree they should be held accountable. I don’t agree that every government or ETS is and always will be corrupt or that this is a valid reason to do nothing as this is just not logical and shows a defeatist attitude. I’d rather we still try and do things instead of just going “screw it, all these guys are corrupt anyway”. Keep pushing for those laws by all means, but don't throw your hands up in defeat to wait complacently until they are passed before acting on problems we face NOW.
     
  8. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's no rush, when you get back, the money changers have been around for centuries they can be traced back to rome, its not as though they popped out of nowhere just recently in our time.

    Therefore to understand you have to watch the videos cause i'm not going to try to explain it to.

    No not a joke at all the CRU at the university of east anglia seem to be the inovators or HEAD of scientists in the climate cooling. climate warming come climate change theory and most other authors certainely have to ties to these, most of the IPCC papers have been written or approved by these CEO's of science in climate change.

    So if the head is corrupt what does that say about the body?

    Climategate is real it happened and if it wasn't for some hacker who is probably a non believer we wouldn't have seen these emails, now we have seen them.

    Are these the emails of scientists or rip of artists?

    Like i said before the CRU is one of the prime bodies that supplies the political UN's IPCC scientific papers so they can brainwash the unsuspecting.

    Why is it pointless because you cannot defend their highway cowboy ways, they are lining their pockets and you know it thats why you cannot say jack sh!t about it.

    A bunch of robbers ready to call anyone else that is not on board their ship crazies lunies and some times terrorists?

    If thats your definition of a scientist then i'm a monkey's uncle.

    If you want to debate you should be able to debate from all angles, carbon tax / ETS, carbon credits, UN green fund, clean energy, stock market, banks, deforestation, pollution etc etc etc are all related and are all in the same boat so whats your poblem?

    Watch the videos.

    Now i know the movie thrive had some mulder and scully moments at the start but the stern report is mudler and scully from start to finish.

    You base your faith on this pig? Good luck champ.

    Now thats science fiction.

    Just watch 15 minutes of the thrive movie starting at the 60 minutes mark.

    Is that also too much for you?

    Why did you ingore my posting on the Manns and the IPCC graphs?

    Is it because you cannot defend fraudulant science and scientists?

    Here it is again, Manns graph which conveniently leaves out the mediavel warm period you know when vikings where growing crops on greenland!

    And why did the IPCC switch there first graph 1990 showing the mediavel warm period to Mann's hockey stick graph which omits it.

    Pigs i tell ya and you believe them, AGW has so many holes in its armour its funny LOL. :)

    [​IMG]
     
  9. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you playing jokes with me here, the IPCC's papers are the bases of all Anthropogenic Global Warming, take them away and what do you have?

    NOTHING.

    Yes i have seen the bullsh!t you read, no need to explain any further.


    Yes we all know that man produces 3% of all CO2 in our atmosphere and that the ecosystems produce the rest thats 97%.

    Today total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 390ppm.

    Natural CO2 from nature = 378.3 ppm

    Manmade CO2 from pollution = 11.7 ppm

    What about millions of years ago when there was 7000ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere?

    How did this all get absorbed back into the Earth's sinks?

    The Earth can absorb thousands of CO2 ppms and it cannot absorb the 11.7ppm made from man?

    Antropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

    The carbon tax is a scam.

    [​IMG]


    So the whole idea of saving the Earth through the implementation of the carbon tax / ETS is to get people to close that extra light or tv that might have been left on during the past.

    This is going to save the planet from disaster?

    While the big polluters keep on increasing their Co2 emissions because they will be compensated by the government and also pass on any cost through energy bills to the consumer.

    Hey no big secret here you can just google, the United Nations is owned by the World bank and who ownes the world bank?

    If the world bank didn't provide money to the UN would the UN even exist?

    And avoiding questions like Manns/IPCC graph is ok is it?

    Have you ever asked yourself why all countries have to join an ETS to clean up their back yards, why all countries have to give 10% of their revenue to the UN?
    Why all countries must purchase carbon credits on the supposed free market to continue sending up more pollution into the atmosphere.

    Here's one IPCC pig that explains it very well.


    The world government is not a conspiracy its an agenda that one day will become reality, about the thrive movie i have explained my stance on that one.

    [video=youtube;2_MpLocFQus]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_MpLocFQus[/video]

    [video=youtube;pj73WuCdAbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj73WuCdAbo[/video]

    [video=youtube;byxeOG_pZ1o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o[/video]
     
  10. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The GST money all stays here in Australia to build schools for kids hospitals for the sick roads for its citizens.

    Where the fark does the money raised by the carbon tax go?

    What do you mean evidence?

    Ok you are a big polluter from now on you have to purchase carbon credits to ofsset your carbon footprint at $23/tonne, the most expensive carbon tax in the world even though Australia only emitts 1.5% of all manmade CO2 pollution.

    So you know that you emitt X amount of Co2 ever year and therefore have to purchase X amount of carbon credits.

    The government allows you to pass on this extra cost of running your company onto the consumer through energy bills.

    The government also compensates you with millions of dollars for the purchase of carbon credits.

    The bottom line is this new expense is not felt by your company if anything you may come out on top and save some money, especially if you can also purchase carbon credits from companies that dont need all there quota and are selling them at a reduced rate on the market to make some extra cash.

    On paper you may seem to have reduced your carbon footprint through the purchase of carbon credits.

    In reality you have increased your emissions.

    Who does the carbon tax effect? you and me the big polluters are not affected, otherwise they would pack up and go to another country where they dont have to incur this extra cost.

    Where does this leave our export industry?

    Everythingis going to get more expensive in Australia while other countries are at a status quo in terms of carbon pricing.

    Please tell me how this is going to cut CO2 emissions and save the planet from AGW.

    Thats rubbish and you know it, they are too poor to do anything about it.

    Plus in what way are they contributing to AGW?

    Do they have power stations? do they have cars? do they have industry?

    More than likely they will be forced to follow them.

    So some indians living in the amazon like primitive man should we seek them out and ask them to pay up to the carbon tax SCAM? LOL

    You madam have been caught hook line and sinker and are truely endeavored in this new global warming religion.

    Funny i thought i showed you an article that had the corporates lining up to dig their dirty little hands into the GCF funds and that the US, the UK and some others were pushing for this, who do you think is going to win and get their way, i know where my bets are going.

    Lets just wait and see how this money gets used, if i'm wrong i'll say so.

    The greens have been exposed for what they really are and hopefully at the next elections it will be the end of them all.

    You are so naive i just have to laugh LOL, what they just got up one morning and thought it would be a good idea to collect a carbon price from the whole world?

    Planned my dear years in advance.

    But there all linked aren't they? these emails are from across the atlantic and the pacific, like i said before these guys are the kahunas the plebs all go through them.

    Your case is zip.

    Maybe street savvy but definetly not arrogant, who's listening to politicized statements? you make me laugh!

    Listen if you take away the IPCC and their computer models where is the evidence that CO2 causes global warming and a runaway green house effect?

    Hey why not do these things here at home without joining the UN or the EU's ETS.

    You suggest a cleaner coal at the front end something that China has implemented and they dont have a carbon tax/ETS, that cleaner coal at the front end coupled with all the technology available to capture emissions at the back end could see us reduce our emissions by a substancial amount in real terms not on paper.

    If you want to do something about it it can only be done at the grass roots level, not on some stck exchange.
     
  11. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have to ask yourself what the fark does the world bank have to do with the United nations?

    Who owns the world bank? and the IMF? wouldn't be the Rothchilds would it?

    We all know that bankers are kind sweet hearted individuals that look out for people all around the world.

    Bless the bankers souls what would our economy be without them.

    No wonder their meddling in the affairs of the UN those dear sweet souls, they want the best for us all.

    god bless bankers.

    http://truth11.com/2011/03/08/rothschild-bankers-looting-nations-through-world-bankimf/

     
  12. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Firstly, I think most references to the GST were about how all the alarmists were warning that it would be the end of small business, that it would be an accounting nightmare etc.

    Now the so called carbon tax.

    Good things.
    It is going to make us look at our consumption, turn off extra lights, watch our waste, maybe walk instead of drive some time, plant a few trees around the yard. This is starting to happen.
    It will boost the alternative energy industries, this has already happened.
    It will make industry look at alternatives to make them more competitive.
    It will give an opportunity for people in poorer countries that have ownership of many of our rain forests, a way of obtaining an income from them without having to clear them.
    Bad things.
    It gives every alarmist, conspiratorists, and right wing extreme radio jock ammunition.
    It gives unscrupulous and criminal business people a new agle to rip us off. See David Nilsson.
     
  13. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So basically you are admitting you cannot answer even the most basic of questions. Honestly, why should I watch the video when you can’t even answer the most straight-forward of questions even after you supposedly watched them? And also, read my posts or don’t respond.
    “If you are legit then please link me to the parts that are relevant. That at least is reasonable.”

    Again you make me repeat myself as your confusion begins to swell...

    “You asked where these thousands of scientists came from... Are you aware that the CRU is only comprised of about 30 people?”

    You admit you are assuming this to be the case for every scientist and scientific organization in the world based off a very small amount of scientists from one of the leading groups studying climate change. Wow. That really is very stupid. I don’t even have to say anything. You really make this far too easy.

    So basically when I said: “Or are you going to completely destroy your integrity and insist that this is the case for all scientists supportive of the AGW theory?”

    You thought,’ yeah, who needs integrity?’ :D …or somehow in your fantasy world this was actually a logical assumption.

    And I love how this is all a huge conspiracy to you. Now the CRU are “brainwashing the unsuspecting”? Clearly you have no idea how ridiculous you sound :D

    My problem is you cannot follow a tangent and begin ranting or talking about unrelated topics. This is reiterated by your last post in this specific tangent where you said “I'm discussing anything and everything that is the carbon tax ETS, i think you are the one getting lost,” when we weren’t discussing the ETS at all! We were discussing your conspiracy theory so wtf are you on about?

    I even explicitly said: “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.”

    So you wouldn’t get lost but you still did! You are too thick to debate. I suggest going back to school or something. This is not for you.

    They’re your videos and it’s your burden of proof. Why can’t you link me to the relevant parts? Did you not watch the videos?

    And yet you didn’t even post a critique of the Stern Report. Stop wasting time with your mindless jabbering. Are you incapable of putting substance into your post?

    As I already told you (again I have to repeat myself for you) I’m on an island in Laos. They only got electricity here a couple years ago and the wifi is atrocious. Please have some patience as I simply can’t watch videos on the internet right now. That’s also why it is boring that you cannot answer even the most basic questions or provide evidence outside of these movies. Are these movies all you have? If so then you really have an incredibly weak case.

    Because you were already getting lost in our conversation. To start discussing this other topic would be pointless if you are already struggling to maintain focus and be coherent. It also would be pointless as you have already decided you are right in the matter.
     
  14. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why run from my question? Have you not read the report? Which part of the IPCC 4th assessment report do you find to be a doomsday scenario?

    Calling something BS without refuting anything that was said is straight retarded. If you disagree with something, say it and provide evidence why, otherwise stop filling this thread with mindless crap.


    Please don’t say you understand the tax when you clearly don’t. Have you forgotten everything that has been said already?

    Also, you are now subscribing to alarmism. Why? You just said it was rubbish. You can’t say AGW alarmism is rubbish and then use it to justify your own arguments. That is cognitive dissonance.

    That is the whole point. But you would know this if you had bothered to learn the most basic elements of the carbon tax or slowed down to think and process information before getting your thigh-bone club, howling a primal battle-cry and banging on your computer like some sort of angry, frustrated Neanderthal who can’t figure out how to build a fire even after he has been walked through the motions countless times before.

    “The Bank is like a cooperative in which 188 member countries are shareholders. These member countries, or shareholders, are represented by a Board of Governors, who are the ultimate policymakers at the World Bank.” – is the correct answer.

    Are you going to mention conspiracies and Rothschild’s again? See this site for a bit of info on the Rothschild’s:

    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4311

    You also need to provide evidence that shows that the UN is owned by the World Bank as I could not find anything supporting that position. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding

    Now I’m confused. This quote actually suggests the World Bank is a ‘UN organization’ which is completely at odds with your post. Which is it?

    Yes, nobody was discussing the graph or Mann. You were introducing a new topic to divert attention away from the argument you were floundering in. See post 18 if you don’t believe me.

    Also, is this post your tacit admission that you can’t answer any of my questions and are just talking crap to waste time?

    Huh? First of all, not ‘all countries have to join an ETS’. That is nonsense (aka: total crap). Secondly, the one’s that are creating ETS’ are doing it for all sorts of reasons. Taking caution from the world’s scientists, advice from economists, global pressure, previously having committed to emissions reduction, not wanting to be left behind as the rest of the world slowly gravitates toward renewable energy etc etc. What do you believe is the reason for many countries creating an ETS? Is this also part of your conspiracy?

    Not all countries have to you filthy little liar and in this case it’s because they made a pledge to the GCF (which you should know) and the UN isn’t even sure they will be getting the amount of funding they want. Exaggeration is the sign of a weak argument.

    Dude, just stop. Your stupidity is overwhelming and your lying is despicable. You are wrong when you say “all countries must purchase carbon credits” as not all countries are doing this. Carbon credits are also a way for us to mitigate our pollution and therefore mitigate our impact on the climate. Again I will refer you to the most basic starting points as you clearly have no idea wtf you are talking about.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit#How_buying_carbon_credits_can_reduce_emissions

    Stop trying to weasel your way out of the fact you are hopelessly lost in this conversation.

    You said: “Where exactly in the quote have i mentioned the motion picture thrive?

    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.”

    I said:

    "LOL. Pay attention man. Why do I always have to walk you through our exchanges step by step? It’s like talking to a child. I said:"Your way of thinking actually reminds me very much of an article debunking the movie 'Thrive' which states *cue thrivedebunked.com article on NWO*"…

    Purely because it was related to your world government conspiracy theory.

    And…

    You didn’t mention Thrive but were responding to a quote taken from the thrivedebunked website! I also made it explicitly clear it was from a website debunking Thrive and wasn’t from the movie itself. Literally the only explanation for you not understanding this is that you didn’t read my post… which explains why you always manage to get so hopelessly lost in these conversations."


    ALSO, you just posted the George Bush video! Read the thrivedebunked website, for the love of god!

    Excerpt from thrivedebunked.com

    “Believers in the “Global Domination Agenda,” when they are not providing “evidence” along the lines discussed above, will sometimes point to “incriminating” statements by persons they believe to be part of the GDE, supposedly indicating an “admission” of their true agenda. One of the favorites in this category is a speech made on March 6, 1991 by President George H.W. Bush in which he used the words “New World Order.” Supposedly this indicates an “admission” that the New World Order, as conceived by conspiracy theorists, exists, and that Bush was one of the people trying to implement it.

    But does it, though? I doubt most conspiracy theorists have actually read Bush’s speech, in which he outlined his vision of a world following the Persian Gulf War. Here is the full text (http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3430). He does in fact use the words “new world order.” But, if you read the full speech—I won’t excerpt it here because I encourage you to read it for yourself—it’s very clear he’s not talking about global domination. He’s talking about a vision for foreign policy which, ironically, ultimately did not come to pass. How, then, does this prove the existence of a “Global Domination Agenda”?

    Time and time again, believers in a “Global Domination Agenda” will serve up these sorts of tidbits, which do not stand for the propositions they claim they stand for. (At least Bush’s “New World Order” speech is real, even though it doesn’t say what they think he said. Often, quotes by high-ranking figures used by conspiracy theorists are simply false. For example, the Thrive movie claims that Henry Kissinger makes an ominous-sounding statement. I cannot find any reputable source—meaning, not another conspiracy theorist website—that even indicates Kissinger ever said this.)”


    You might also like to know your Money Masters movie made up a lot of quotes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Money_Masters#Disassociation_.26_fake_quotes

    And the Shock Doctrine suffered criticism as well as praise.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_doctrine#Criticism

    Since your whole argument rests on these two movies whose integrity has been brought into question, I’d say you are up sh!t creek with a turd for a paddle unless you can find some real evidence.
     
  15. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do you not know this? Why are you here if you don’t even know where the money is going? Or are you just asking silly rhetorical questions in an effort to bore me to death and/or dumb me down to a point where my frontal lobes disconnect and ooze out my ears, eyesockets and mouth while I slur how right you are in the manner of an automaton? And we’ve already established the GST and the carbon tax can’t be compared as they have fundamentally different objectives. I know you are grasping at straws but this part of the conversation is done.

    Evidence that “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.”

    What institutions? How do we know they have absolutely no interest in curbing their emissions? Where is your list of what institutions the GCF is supporting?

    On top of those very basic and crucial questions… On what grounds do you doubt these statements: http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/green_climate_fund/items/5869.php

    "The GCF will support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties....?

    And…

    "The assets of the GCF will be administered by a trustee only for the purpose of, and in accordance with, the relevant decisions of the GCF Board."

    Let me guess…It’s all part of your conspiracy theory and you don’t actually have any evidence but I should take your word for it because you’re right and that’s that. Right?

    Yes, in your example you chose a company that chose to pay more to raise their emissions rather than make money by lowering them. Well done. Don’t forget the company who managed to reduce emissions and managed to sell leftover carbon credits saved more money than the company who just bought up more credits to make their quota.

    How does that work? Either your emissions increase or they decrease. How does it look like they reduce on paper through the purchase of credits when they actually increase? Do you think buying and selling credits is some shady black-market type deal with no transparency whatsoever?

    Isn’t this one of the reasons why we compensated certain industries? So they didn’t go offshore? Yes, they are not immediately affected (except in cost-competitiveness with low-emission industries) but they now have incentive to reduce their emissions to save/make more money. Especially when the current generators run their useful course and need to be replaced (which is literally how the tax is meant to work), which you have been told at least three times already. What don’t you understand about that?

    You complain about an alarming drop in our standard of living but then start to whine when the government takes action to prevent this drop from becoming too great. No matter what you are still sitting at your keyboard, foaming at the mouth and ranting angrily about it.

    Depends who you ask. For credibility’s sake, let’s ask some pros:

    http://www.efic.gov.au/country/inte...-economic-insights-2011-carbon-tax-lk3-110822

    “a panel discussion led by Stephen Long (ABC Radio), featured Paul Bloxham (Chief Economist, HSBC Australia and New Zealand), Huw McKay (Executive Director & Senior International Economist, Westpac Banking Corporation) and Roger Donnelly (Chief Economist, EFIC).”

    “Stephen Long: What impact is a carbon price going to have on our chap exporting bricks to Vietnam?
    Roger Donnelly: I’m not sure about bricks to Vietnam and I don’t think the carbon price is a terribly important matter for Australia's overall international competitiveness, that might sound surprisingly and controversial so I’ll go on and explain that in the second. Where I think the carbon price is or does handicap or has the potential to handicap is the competitiveness of emissions intensive industries and actually improve the competitiveness of less emissions intensive industries. I don't think the imposition of a carbon price should be seen as a concern for our ability to pay our way in the world to earn enough export revenue to pay for imports and so forth. Will it precipitate a balance of payments crisis or a currency crisis? I don't think that's a concern at all, it’s going to affect the relative competitiveness of industries.
    Stephen Long: OK, so who wins and who loses and are the people who lose, who are already hard hit for example in manufacturing where there may be a high use of energy?
    Roger Donnelly: Well, it's undoubtedly going to affect relative competitiveness. It’s a broad statement that the emissions intensive industries are the ones that they are going to be relatively handicapped, relatively not necessarily absolutely. On top of that general statement you know, you have to realise that the system is very complicated, there are various industries have been given free permits. Exporting emissions intensive industries have been given other concessions and so forth, that is quite difficult work out. I wouldn't say, I wouldn't cast the issue in terms of will the imposition of a carbon price affect the overall level of international competitiveness, let’s say that it does damp exports in aggregate, well then, there would be corresponding exchange rate adjustments. The exchange rate will be lower than otherwise would be and that would restore competitiveness to other parts of the economy.
    Stephen Long: I’m seeing nods of approval on the panel.
    Paul Bloxham: I think the exchange rate is a much bigger driver of our international competitiveness than the carbon tax will be. And as you say it’s all endogenous anyway so the exchange rate will move to reflect a loss or some loss of competitiveness on, as a consequence of a carbon tax.
    Stephen Long: Ross Garnaut and his final report made that observation that the rise in the exchange rates is a much bigger issue for exporters than, and the carbon price will be trivial by comparison.
    Roger Donnelly: And the rally in coal prices.
    Stephen Long: Yes.
     
  16. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you mean to tell me you still don’t understand how the carbon tax/ETS plans to cut emissions? Why should I explain it again when you either don’t read it, are too stupid to understand it, or too deeply entrenched in your beliefs to listen?

    Also your cognitive dissonance is showing. First you say the scientists spouting alarmism are unreliable, rubbish etc etc and then you go around using their alarmist position to justify your own argument! If you thought they were rubbish you wouldn’t refer to their position like it’s some sort of crucial point.

    Ever heard of the GCF? I mean, it’s not like it’s been explained to you a dozen times in two separate threads, is it?

    Again you demonstrate that you do not comprehend a word of my posts. We literally just went over this. I can walk you to the school but I’m not your teacher. Think for yourself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...ping_economies
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_per_capita

    “So you can imagine they produce quite a bit.”

    We were talking about ‘nations’, not individual people. Try to remember the context. Also, your scenario was an epic fail. Do you really think some primitive man in the middle of the amazon is going to be producing a lot of CO2?

    Why? Do you dispute those links I posted? Where is your evidence? You were the one who asked how much CO2 those countries produce. I showed you. Do you have anything to say other than mindless ad hominems? Are these ad hominems tacit admission you had no idea what you were talking about?

    What’s your point? Have you forgotten what you said already? You said the money was going to dictators to kill their own people. This was an excellent demonstration of how you know absolutely nothing about the GCF. Admit it, you have no idea how it’s supposed to work and are just making things up. It’s ridiculous. Do you have anything to say in response or is your entire argument now boiling down to ‘just wait and see because I don’t actually have any evidence’?

    LOL. Funnily enough in your last post you also exposed what you really are. An ignorant bigot. Congratulations on being the scum of the earth.

    Then why can’t you prove it? Why can’t you provide evidence? Am I naïve because I don’t blindly agree with what you say when your entire argument is based on one HUGE assumption? I find that incredibly ironic. You have no evidence whatsoever and yet I’m the naïve one because I don’t follow your word like a blind child. Get a clue. In the real world you need evidence otherwise you look like a loon or a fool.

    And again you expose your stupidity by thinking the ‘whole world’ has a carbon price. Your ignorance is stupefying.

    LOL. You are assuming things again and, appropriately, making an ass of yourself. Either provide evidence that CRU were controlling every single scientist and scientific organization that agreed on AGW or accept your argument is nothing but desperate BS.

    You are the one listening to politicized statements because you still think science can be ‘settled’. This is a politicized statement and you regurgitated it here in support of your argument which backfired on you when I called BS.

    And you dodged my question…Do you dispute the consensus amongst scientists and scientific organizations? If so, are they all in on your conspiracy too? Where is your evidence for this position? Etc etc

    Take this to E&C or the science section. I’m not about to start discussing this with you when you can’t even sufficiently explain yourself on the topics we started here.

    Uhh we have been part of the UN since 1945 and we aren’t joining the EU’s ETS. IF you don’t even know these basic facts then why on earth should anybody take you seriously on this subject?

    China is a single-party state which means the government doesn’t have to worry about getting bad poll results because of some policies/funding the people didn’t like. They also have the biggest obligation out of any country as they are the biggest emitters of CO2 and because they are the biggest emitters ‘energy security’ is more of a concern. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for investing more money into our renewable sectors but we aren’t China and, much like the GST and the carbon tax, you can’t draw a fair comparison.

    What do you think the cost of going the way of China would be? Why do you think we should try and follow in their footsteps when you think our emissions are negligible? Why should we bear the full brunt of the cost when we can change consumer behaviour and give polluters their own incentive to change?

    China also apparently have a carbon tax in the works so again your post was an epic fail.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...x-carbon-by-2015/story-fn59niix-1226238633181

    Where is your evidence? Also, China didn’t do it at the grass roots level. Why contradict yourself?
     
  17. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that the world bank has its claws in the UN should ring alarm bells.

    Watch the videos.

    Thirty people that allow or disqualify what is to be published in the IPCC reports.

    Maybe only thirty people but important people that have the last word.

    Not admitting anything although in your mind you might want to think such a wishful thing.

    Here once again for your perusal the climagate scandal.
    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf


    They have so many holes in their armour it wont be long before even the average person with no interest at all will see through them.

    Most of these scientists are recieving huge grants fro publishing their work on global warming is this true or false?

    Its funny how the skeptics are not on their pay roll dont you think?

    And again climatgate confirmed the nature of these highway cowboys abit like Gore MONEY MONEY MONEY.

    If i'm wrong can you prove it?

    Yes that is your problem i only talk about related topics if you cannot keep up then watch the videos.

    You got lost i didn't i was talking about an ETS along with the carbon tax, the UN, banks and everything else that is related.

    Keep up dude.

    In your mind i have the problem who says you are right?

    Maybe its you who should do all those things, because apart from being a very rude prick you yourself have never given anything of substance in your answers, you fly of the handle with personal attacks when you cannot win the arguement.


    I read bits and pieces and its pure science fiction, this guy wouldn't have a clue how the carbon tax will affect a tomatoe, id he foresee the $25 funeral burial fee due to the carbon tax?


    I cant right acouple of pages for you sorry.


    Rubbish answer the question?
     
  18. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have read some of the IPCC reports but i dont like parametric computer model projections i want facts, sadly thats something the IPCC is lacking.

    Facts like weather baloon readings or satelite readings which dont agree with the IPCC's computer models.

    Take away these computer models and what have the alarmists got NOTHING but their dick in their hands.

    Can you prove otherwise? If so i'm waiting!


    I think i understand it better than you do!

    Am i wrong?

    What esle exactly will the carbon tax do?

    Companies dont feel the pinch its the consumer that has to carry this burden on his or her shoulders.

    Although companies might feel it in the export market because the carbon tax will increase production costs and therefore we will lose our edge on the market, so yeah that way they will feel it, but the direct cost of the carbon tax will be passed down to you and me.


    So you admit the carbon tax is a scam then! because big polluters can go on their merry way sending up more CO2 into the atmosphere while being compesated for it by the government and passing on direct costs to the consumer.

    So tell me when are we going to reach the point of no return when the Erath will spiral into a runaway green house effect, better not be anytime soon i hope.


    Skeptoid and wkipedia what would you do without them, have you ever thought for yourself?

    YYEEAAHHH the world bank is in there to make the world a better place for you and me. :)

    Dont know you tell me, someone's in bed with someone maybe its an orgy between the rich, you tell me does the world bank own the UN? they seem to have executives at every post of the UN maybe their just friendly observers.

    Can you answer the question about Mann's graph?

    Can you tell me why the IPCC changed their graph from the one showing the medieval warm period to the fruadulant Mann graph?

    Why would they distort history like that?


    But there has never been any empirical evidence to suggest that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming or a runaway green house efect.

    Otherwise you guys would be rubbing my nose in it.

    So then why do we need to join the EU's ETS when its been proven to be a failure.

    Like i keep saying we can tackle this problem at grass roots level here at home instead of some stock exchange?
     
  19. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You saying that they DONT have to send a percentage of their revenue from the carbon tax ETS to the UN/IPCC.

    MMMMNNNNNN whos the filthy little liar?


    Are you saying that not all countries will have to purchase carbon credits to offset their carbon footprint?

    How will carbon credits mitigate our pollution and our impact on the environment.

    HOOK LINE AND SINKER i'm afraid.

    This is the last time i'm devoting this much time to your posts, you obviously are not a resonable individual, and most certainely you have been brainwashed to the point of no return.

    Then what are Bob Brown, Gordon Brown and George Bush on about then whats wrong you cannot find some obsured excuse to justify the videos?

    Well then kindly explain to me what the hell their talking about, are their subliminal messages i have missed?

    So now your telling me that those famous quotes by ex presidents etc are fake, how come noone has prosecuted them fro misleading the public.

    Your saying that they cannot be traced back to the individuals who said/wrote them.

    The world is more than wikipedia, do you know how wikipedia works?

    Fair enough dude i'm just about done with you.
     
  20. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles...ate-emails.pdf

    The Lavoiser Group
    President: Hugh Morgan AC
    Hugh Matheson Morgan AC, (born 9 September 1940), an Australian businessman, is the son of former Western Mining Corporation CEO Bill Morgan, and was himself CEO of WMC from 1990 to 2003.
    Vice President: Ian Webber AO
    B Eng (Mech), MSc, Formerly Chairman and MD
    of Chrysler Australia, MD Mitsubishi Motors
    Australia, MD and Chairman of Mayne Nickless.
    Current Director of WMC, Santos. Member of
    General Motors Australian Advisory Council
    Secretary: Ray Evans
    In January 1986 Evans, along with Peter Costello and two others, founded the H R Nicholls Society, a think tank of the New Right of which he is still President. The Society has had considerable influence over Liberal Party policies. The initial motivation for founding the Society was industrial relations - opposition to the setting of the minimum wage by Justice Henry Bourne Higgins and commitment to "freedom in the labour market".
    Treasurer: Harold Clough AO
    Harold Clough AO is the treasurer of the Lavoisier Group, a Director of Clough Limited, a mining and resource service company

    Not a biased organisation, again it's big business you are listening too, no scientists or reputable people.
     
  21. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Climategate happened and those emails show how corrupt these scientists are.

    You cannot justify it with anything mate.

    Climategate is fact not conspiracy.

    Thats a whole lotta sh!t.

    What's a matter champ getting desperate?

    I can assure you in the coming months more will be revealed.

     
  22. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mate, I am showing you that every link you post is incorrect and or biased by the big business that owns the authors.

    Why can't you see you're being scammed, and in a possibly fatal way. Grow up, the CTS should make people watch their fuel use, including heating and lighting as well as petrol. This worries the oil, coal, steal industries, of course they will do anything to stop it.
     
  23. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And the climate scientists that recieve millions in grants to do thier research.

    They aren't acting like the said above?

    Who needs to grow up?
     
  24. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Links please so I can de-bunk them. Garbage, are you saying that all scientists that receive grants are liers and dishonest. If I was to believe any one it would be a scientist over a big businessman any day.

    Your argument is so transparent, it's about greed, your afraid you may have to pay up.
     
  25. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...es-awarded-13-million-in-research-grants.html

    I'm always scared of giving away money fro peanuts in return, i think most of us are.

    How about this gravy train


    Bank of America Pledges $50 Billion to Combat Climate Change

    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120611-707739.html

    Hallelujah i would also want to be a climate scientist.
     

Share This Page