He gets around this bloke. He was on Letterman last night or the night before.

He still has not established a conclusive link of global warming to human activity.

When the natural cycle of warming peaks and it starts cooling again they will all cry out "There you see. We were right. It warmed up so we taxed you out of existance and now it is cooling down. You can trust and believe us. We are just working on what is going to be the next global crisis."

The one thing he talks about that makes sense is that taxing the hell out of the end consumer will not reduce carbon emmissions.

I'm with "Supertramp"-Crisis! What Crisis??

It is always the average guy and gal that gets stuck with paying for everything.

The product and service providers always say that they have to pass on the costs otherwise they would lose their profit margin and no longer be able to stay in business to provide the product or service for which there is a demand.

We just have to conveniently forget the fact that they created the demand for the item for which there was no previous need, through the multimedia mind control tool.

cisco said...

It is always the average guy and gal that gets stuck with paying for everything.

....funny that...

If the 'corporations' don't make the money then...

It's always the average guy and girl that sits and whinges that their super has gone down cos the corporations aren't going to make enough profit this year...

If the 'corporations' pass on the cost...

It's always the average guy and girl that sits and whinges that their shopping basket has gone up in price

If the government doesn't tax

It's always the average guy and girl who sits and whinges that the country is going to the dogs - complaining about healthcare, education and infrastructure

If the government taxes the people

It's always the average guy and girl who sits and whinges that their tax bill has gone up.


There is no NWO. There is no WO at all. There is no O.

Even when people publicly try to make things happen, they don't always work. I don't believe conspiracy theories, not because I don't believe people conspire, but because they're far too difficult to actually organise... given when it comes to organisation most big companies and governments can barely tie their shoe laces cos their so ineffective.

It's also interesting that there's a whole load of NWO stuff against climate change now. Ten years ago, the same paranoid idiots would have been sat in their sheds without any friends complaining that the NWO people were suppressing evidence of global warming.

It's not helpful to put down any global attempt to agree on anything as a conspiracy.. especially when you're coming to the debate late, have no idea what constitutes an expert and are interested in the opposite side only because it's the opposite. That and combining with someone who's concerned about what is, in comparison, a fairly marginal downward change in standard of living to a standard of living that is one of the highest in the world (GLOBAL HEADLINE: Standard of living in Australia gets worse)

Grow up. We're all very lucky.

you have to give a little step back and look at the bigger view

ginger pom said...
Even when people publicly try to make things happen, they don't always work. I don't believe conspiracy theories, not because I don't believe people conspire, but because they're far too difficult to actually organise... given when it comes to organisation most big companies and governments can barely tie their shoe laces cos their so ineffective.

I'm with the pom. I work for a major, major, multinational company. Have done for over a decade now. They couldn't organise a half decent chook raffle. The guy at the top sends out a communication setting out his "vision" for what he wants done. By the time it has gone through multiple layers of middle management down to me at the bottom of the food chain, it's usually been mangled beyond recognition and working at 180 degrees to what was originally intended.

The idea that governments and big corporations could some how be orchestrating some kind of NWO is laughable. Like the pom says, they can barely tie their shoelaces.

Of course, I don't expect you conspiracy theorists to believe that. After all, the conspiracy theories have always been around. In days gone by it was called "magic". Some grand master witch or wizard was casting a spell to make you do bad things. Now it's corporations. Of course, no way it could be you.

the hockey stick theory is based on the idea that the medieval warm period was removed from the graph and that errors exist with the estimates. it is also not referring to the graph i linked above. the graph i linked above is also 10 different recording methods over liad. they all show the same outcome.

the hockey stick theory is actually referring to a graph published in a UN report a few year back. here is that graph.

it is also based on the idea that urban heat sinks affected the data. the graph i linked above does not only just look at urban areas, records were also taken at sea, and other areas that don't fall under that premise including ice cores. (no cities there)

here is a recent graph from nasa showing effectively the same thing.



again, the disbelievers would have you think that we are in a cooling period. the actual data as pointed out in the interview i published in this thread shows this is not the case.

clearly all the data points towards an increase around the victorian era and an increase continuing on an upward trend.

try and get away from the pointless argument not based on fact and inspred by paranoid internet pages of conspitracy theories and global government domination. whether what is being recorded is man made or natural, face the facts that previous climate changes on earth have lead to mass extinctions.

currently extinctions are happening yearly. scientist are collecting data worldwide to record current flora and fauna and temps are still rising.

at the end of the day i prefer a green planet. pumping tonnes and tonnes of polution into the atmoshpere and cutting down forests globally is never going to lead to a good outcome.

apologies his book is on amazon, but only second hand...

http://www.amazon.com/greenhouse-trap-effect-will-earth/dp/0947189777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260665513&sr=1-1

^ it's called peer review. so much more beneficial than public review. how can the public possibly review a document on climate change and make an informed decision. they have no prior learning or experience.

let those try and dissprove the majority view, it's healthy and brings balance but until they prove they are right and recieve peer recognition they are considered incorrect.

the "majority" of the scientific community are telling us global warming is real. they are clearly telling us the implications to this and they are clearly telling us ways to limit our risk as a global body.

With all the divisive discussions/reasons for and against climate change, one wonders if we are all being as confused, like those land owners up in the New Guinea highlands who have been offered money "NOT" to cut the trees down and that the cash is for the carbon value in the forests they own. This is right on the back of the last group, offering them Money to "CUT the trees down
As shown on TV yesterday during an interview, one reporter was approached by a land owner group asking if he was a rep from the Carbon Trading group. The land owners wanted to know if the Carbon group would supply the bags for the land owners to ship the carbon down the mountains and who was paying the transport cost. Poor buggers must be thinking the world has gone completely mad, when the reporter tried to explain to the land owners, they didn't have too do anything, just sell carbon lots[}:)] I think that made sense too them...... yea right

Carbon tax world wide
Carbon trading world wide

best to stay off the soylent green, the pigs don't like it and may force us to burn our books.

Gestalt said...

best to stay off the soylent green, the pigs don't like it and may force us to burn our books.

Why have you reverted to ridicule?

Agree with you Cisco about the need to reduce pollution. Added to that list should be protecting the natural environment, slowing down the consumption of non renewable resoures and reducing the huge gaps of wealth between rich and poor.

I don't agree with the global conspiracy stuff. There may be a cabal of human induced climate change protagonists. I'd liken this to any other lobby group protecting their interests. Many people now earn a good living from climate change science and associated policy so its in their material interest to keep the interest up. Peer review could easily develop into groupthink.

This does not amount to a conspiracy just as the decision by the federal government to throw a few hundred million at the Australian car industry is not a conspiracy.

Through my reading of history its clear that societies are prone to doom and gloom scenarios. Many societies have had doomsday prophecies. Humans often tend to be pessemistic about the future. Thats fair enough as we don't really know what the future holds.

For Australia at least it would be good to have some sort of public enquiry and forum where the issue can be settled before the people. Those who are in favour of the theory of human induced climate change could present their evidence and arguments while those against could present their case. At the moment we have KRUDD, Wong and co going on about it, but not really explaining very much.

Once the argument is settled, most probably in favour of human induced climate change of some degree, or at the very least the fact that humanity inflicts a great deal of damage on the environment, we could look at developing policies to mitigate damage now and into the future.

www.petitionproject.org/

no someone will say that it refers to the koyote agreement which is out of date and was not agreed to by australia until it was so late that it meant nothing anyway.

10 years on and the evidence is now wholey accepted by the science community in general.

show me some current accepted data that proves climate change is incorrect. not whacky webpages that are inaccurate or out of date.

show me the csiro reports, australian academy of science paper, nasa papers etc.

I also noticed that the UK is putting a 50% tax on all (bank) bonuses in excess of 25,000 pounds and the UK and France is expecting to use a tax on the Financial system to pay for the majority of the money that they are pledging.

I assume that if Kevin Rudd was talking about along similar lines, Cisco would be insisting that humans are definitely to blame for Global Warming