BF2S Forums Hey Climate Experts! Got an answer for this one?

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Does it not encourage people to save money by reducing emissions, which after all is the whole point of the scheme?

No. The company isn't going to eat the loss, they'll just pass it on to the consumer. Our biggest polluters are utilities companies. You think they'll think twice before tacking on another surcharge? No way.

True, but that's why the utilities sector needs an utter and total overhaul.

Lawl. The utility company on Long Island is owned by New York State because it was supposed to lower prices and provide better service when the previous utility company, LILCO, went bankrupt. Because of more efficient electronics, appliances etc Long Islands electricity usage recently decreased. What did the utility company do? It raised rates to offset its losses from less energy being consumed.

You really think this only applies to utilities? Every corporate tax in the world gets passed down to the end user, you the consumer. When they raise the tax on gasoline does the oil company eat the tax? No, the tax shows up right there on the pump.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-19 14:51:03)

skittles wrote:

blah blah blah

It falls on party lines this way, because if global warming doesn't exist then corporate taxes aren't justified. Liberals get to fight the big corporations in the name of the little guy, conservatives get to defend big business.

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

skittles wrote:

blah blah blah

It falls on party lines this way, because if global warming doesn't exist then corporate taxes aren't justified. Liberals get to fight the big corporations in the name of the little guy, conservatives get to defend big business.

The liberals aren't doing this for the little guy. They are doing it for everyone. It is a global issue.

No, they're doing it for themselves and they've convinced you otherwise. Open your eyes.

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, they're doing it for themselves and they've convinced you otherwise. Open your eyes.

Yeah, the 650 scientists DBBrinson1 have that go against climate change must be correct. They must be the only people to not be brainwashed envirohippies out for a power grab.

The way you right wingers spin this just gets more bizarre as the evidence continues.

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, they're doing it for themselves and they've convinced you otherwise. Open your eyes.

Yeah, the 650 scientists DBBrinson1 have that go against climate change must be correct. They must be the only people to not be brainwashed envirohippies out for a power grab.

The way you right wingers spin this just gets more bizarre as the evidence continues.

I'm no more a right winger than you. I happen to be a true liberal that questions everything, especially when governments and special interests are involved. Who benefits from the Climate Exchange and Cap and Trade Bill that sailed through the House over the summer?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, they're doing it for themselves and they've convinced you otherwise. Open your eyes.

Yeah, the 650 scientists DBBrinson1 have that go against climate change must be correct. They must be the only people to not be brainwashed envirohippies out for a power grab.

The way you right wingers spin this just gets more bizarre as the evidence continues.

Ha.. Re-read the OP up there.  The evidence has stopped.

*stopped like a decade ago...

I could pull half a dozen quotes from the OP source they said otherwise. Hence why as soon as you posted it it was immediately asked whether or not you had read the thing yourself...

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

The standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend.

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

World is growing warming according to the Hadley Figures, than the UN predicted.

The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory.

Sea ice is melting. It doesn't matter if somewhere else gets colder to compensate. Do you know what a rising sea level does to coastal cities? Want to hazard a guess?

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm no more a right winger than you. I happen to be a true liberal that questions everything, especially when governments and special interests are involved. Who benefits from the Climate Exchange and Cap and Trade Bill that sailed through the House over the summer?

Who benefits if we do nothing to stop global warming? Oh, yeah. Nobody.

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Who loses? You, the consumer do. You think all those taxes and carbon credits will get eaten up by corporations? That they'll just shrug and let it eat into their profits and not pass that tax down to the consumer? Right. So, in the end that Carbon Exchange and all those people living off the new carbon credits are making money off of you. No one else. You.

You could just as easily argue that companies will make cleaner products and improve efficiency and deliver me a better product with better research. Yeah I'll likely pay higher for that research. But as always if the price is too high demand falls and then the price falls.

You're living in a dreamworld.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AR wrote:

The standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend.

"Probably"?  REALLY? Make up another excuse.  It's like Florida when all of these "experts" are predicting a devastating hurricane season -because of global warming.  When hurricane season turns out to be one of the most mild on record -its global warming.

Sorry, what? That was taken word for word from your article. I was just making sure you had read it. Because, you know, it seems like you didn't... and still haven't read the article. It's not my excuse, it's from the article you presented. Guess that makes it your excuse?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

And it has to be man's fault.  Global warming right?

Apart from the 650 scientists who have said "hey look, it might be plateauing off", any explaination as to why the temperature has risen so dramatically in the last 30 years...?

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

skittles wrote:

blah blah blah

It falls on party lines this way, because if global warming doesn't exist then corporate taxes aren't justified. Liberals get to fight the big corporations in the name of the little guy, conservatives get to defend big business.

The liberals aren't doing this for the little guy. They are doing it for everyone. It is a global issue.

That would be the exact line they're feeding you. Not that they're doing very much about it considering it is such a important issue. They would rather bitch and moan about Republicans blocking the vote in Congress unless they water down the legislation just as Republicans would rather block anything being done about the environment in exchange for corporate profit.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It falls on party lines this way, because if global warming doesn't exist then corporate taxes aren't justified. Liberals get to fight the big corporations in the name of the little guy, conservatives get to defend big business.

Since when did GE become the little guy?  They're about as green as it goes and as big as a corporation as you can find.   They love the big O too.

My ass. They just get off on being seen as the "green corporation" that doesn't mean they are one.

Global warming is a political movement. People are being rushed to accept carbon credits and what we don't see is that Gore and others are in it for the money. you've got the Chicago Climate exchange itching to trade mandatory carbon credits and where do you think their profits are going to come from? we will all pay to make Gore and others into billionaires.

Another fun factoid. Gore owns a coal fired electric generator, my guess is that he is angling to get free carbon credits for trading when the govt hands out the carbon credits for free.

There is so much stink over the whole global warming movement it takes a person of real faith in the movement to not sit back and start asking questions.

You know that enivornmental science used to be a real campus joke, there was no future for a person who held an environmental sciecne degree and people used to take positions at companies with no pay just to be a environmental sceintist. All that has chnaged with the in flux grant money and IMO that has corrupted the science being done by those departments just like the tobacco paid scientists who said tobacco wasn't addictive. They're a joke and now they are scientific whores.


Here are two problems with the scientific data on global warming
1. When the data is broken down to finer increments of time it shows that the increase in carbon dioxide is an effect of increasing temperature, in that the increase in carbon dioxide comes AFTER an increase in temperature. The increase in carbon dioxide is not a cause of global warming. Solar activity causes the heating.

2. Where temperature readings have been taken for the past few decades has changed. The sites where the temperatures are taken has styed the same but cities with their increased heating due to concrete roads and buildings has encroached on these sites and resulted in increased temperature reading that are the result of the sun heating the surrounding concrete in these areas. If the temperature sites were move to new locations similar where similar conditions exist to when the temperature readings were first started, you would find no change outside of the ordinary flucutations that could be explained by sun cycles and natural long term heating and cooling trends.  (Aussie reaper this one explains the temperature changes in the graph)


There is other information out there like scietists who originally signed on with the UN 2400 scientists who then re-examined the data and found the conclusions flawed, who then tried to get their names removed from the list but whose requests were refused.

Anyway, carbon credit trading will be a disaster just like an ENRON scam but only many multiples worse. If you think that the California electric crisis caused by ENRON was bad then you haven't seen anything yet.

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Apart from the 650 scientists who have said "hey look, it might be plateauing off", any explaination as to why the temperature has risen so dramatically in the last 30 years...?

Considering that lines up about right with when Greenpeace was formed and the entire environmental movement... it appears to be just dumb luck

Okay cool.

Now explain why it's been rising like this:

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2575/tempco2lg.jpg

http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/poles/climate.html

Unless facts, evidence and all this data is too "dreamworld" for you.

Those damn greenpeace activists really are diligent. They've gone back in time!

Extend that graph backwards oh lets say... 50,00 years, and maybe we'll get something meaningful from it.

Because the dinosaurs must have caused the ice age, amirite?

Spark wrote:

Of course, but remember to distort the scale

huh?

just because we've seen a degree or two over the last century doesn't mean it's due to carbon emissions. The climate changing doesn't prove anything. The climate went down to super-fucking-cold for a while and it wasn't due to humans then - so why are we incessantly blaming culture for this change in temperature?

Thermometers were invented around when mercury was discovered right, so not more than a few centuries if that. We don't have any sort of meaningful sample size to tell if this rise is significant at all. The temperature on the earth fluctuated without us interfering before.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

What I find interesting in all this is that the global warming movement is largely a left wing or "socialist" movement, but if you look at the solutions being proposed they are wholly market solutions with the creation of a carbon credit market. Now doesn't that seem strange that a leftist movement is going to propose one solution and only one solution and its going to involve creating a market out of carbon..... Since when does the left embrace capitalism as the solution for anything. You would think that the solution proposed from the left would be prohibition, regulation or taxation but its not... now shouldn't your antenae be flicking about now because there is something here that is a disconnect between the values and character of the people driving the movement and the values and the character of the solutions being pushed. And to make matters even more weird you have the right wingers fighting the creation of a new market and the use of a free market as a solution.

It should make you go hmmmmmmm.........

There is a disconnect here and IMO its race between getting these markets implemented and the time when this recent hot cycle of the sun ends and the global warming science is finally debunked.

But if those markets come on line, good luck ever getting rid of them. And here is another disconnect, if you create a market out of carbon, then aren't you putting carbon emission in a status where they will never be eliminated? What I am pointing out is that if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions, then how is profiting from a carbon market going to accomplish that when the elimination of carbon will reduce the carbon credit market to what should be the point where the market is eliminated.  your ulitmate goal is to put yourself out of business? That's a type of stock market that really doesn't make sense.

What the push for a carbon credit market reminds me of is the movement to control public water supplies in places like central and south america where private companies gained control over water and started to gouge profits by increasing the price of water by 300% or more. If the carbon credit market comes on line that's what our fate will look like as commodiy brokers, hedge funds and other crooks cause energy prices to sprial out of control.


Anyway the debunking has finally started here is a website http://cce.890m.com/ and a review of a book http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/gr … review.pdf