| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 140464 | 2015-10-16 19:47:00 | Global Warming | jayal (1291) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1410012 | 2015-10-18 20:22:00 | Nothing dodgy about an organisation putting its docs into archives . You said you couldn't find evidence of where the carbon trading money is going so I provided one well-known example . The Christchurch City Council is real . British Gas is real . $3 million is real . Here is more: Dunedin City Council Forests yielded $6 million selling carbon credits in 2013 . . odt . co . nz/news/business/273231/carbon-credits-boost-bottom-line" target="_blank">www . odt . co . nz Well Winston, I don’t have a problem with the Council archiving stuff, but I do treat as suspicious the need for such a disclaimer . In full: 6779 So they are saying the article may or may not be correct, your guess is as good as anyone’s . Strikes me as dodgy needing such a disclaimer . Can we all avoid the repercussions of or actions by archiving them with such a disclaimer? Then there is the part that says: 6780 So where did the New Zealand Government get these Carbon Credits from to be able to give them away and how much did they cost? I have seen quotes claiming “Global Warming/Climate Change” is a Trillion Dollar industry, but I’m damned if I can find any accountability at all . :confused: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410013 | 2015-10-18 20:29:00 | Uh huh, abandon all your technology and go live in the bush somewhere. If you don't think you owe scientists and their theories anything think again. Not engaging in the climate change debate with you again though. Eventually I recognise a dead horse when I see it. I don’t have a problem with genuine scientists, but I do with Pseudo Scientists pursuing Pseudo Science at the Tax Payers expense. ;) |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410014 | 2015-10-19 06:11:00 | So, Forbes Magazine, that voicepiece for capitalism, greed and Free Market Economics (ie rampant consumption/consumerism) sees fit to cast doubt about our need to change our ways? Why would Forbse do that? Because it's readership is based on the very people and industries that have the most to lose from changes to how we do things. Forbes and the industries it glorifies only care about business as usual. Keep those oilfoelds pumping, those refineries hot, and all those vehicles moving. Because every day change is delayed can mean another pointless billion dollars for people who have no capacity to ever use their own wealth. But for those who can have everything, there's nothing left to collect or glorify than more dollars. Dollars that they don't actually need, and will never live long enough to use - because they've already got tens of billions of dollars they also can't find a use for. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1410015 | 2015-10-19 06:56:00 | So, Forbes Magazine, that voicepiece for capitalism, greed and Free Market Economics (ie rampant consumption/consumerism) sees fit to cast doubt about our need to change our ways? Why would Forbse do that? Because it's readership is based on the very people and industries that have the most to lose from changes to how we do things. Forbes and the industries it glorifies only care about business as usual. Keep those oilfoelds pumping, those refineries hot, and all those vehicles moving. Because every day change is delayed can mean another pointless billion dollars for people who have no capacity to ever use their own wealth. But for those who can have everything, there's nothing left to collect or glorify than more dollars. Dollars that they don't actually need, and will never live long enough to use - because they've already got tens of billions of dollars they also can't find a use for. Yes, but I’m more interested in the Science that the Politics. At the moment it’s all about the Al Gore and his disciples Politics, and little or nothing about Real Science, just Pseudo Science. With Real Science you don’t have a Climategate, you don’t withhold your calculations, you don’t rely on the ring spacing of only selected trees, you don’t take the data from only selected stations that suit your needs, and when your found out you don’t rely on Spin Doctors to Bull S..t your way out. However, it concerns me that you seem to see the issue as a Left Wing – Right Wing issue, not a scientific one. :confused: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410016 | 2015-10-19 22:14:00 | So, Forbes Magazine, that voicepiece for capitalism, greed and Free Market Economics (ie rampant consumption/consumerism) sees fit to cast doubt about our need to change our ways? Why would Forbse do that? Because it's readership is based on the very people and industries that have the most to lose from changes to how we do things. Forbes and the industries it glorifies only care about business as usual. Keep those oilfoelds pumping, those refineries hot, and all those vehicles moving. Because every day change is delayed can mean another pointless billion dollars for people who have no capacity to ever use their own wealth. But for those who can have everything, there's nothing left to collect or glorify than more dollars. Dollars that they don't actually need, and will never live long enough to use - because they've already got tens of billions of dollars they also can't find a use for. +1, or +2 to that. |
rumpty (2863) | ||
| 1410017 | 2015-10-19 22:23:00 | All your questions on Global Warming/Climate Change answered HERE (www.youtube.com). Make sure you watch it all, maybe more than once, just to see how you've been duped. :lol: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410018 | 2015-10-19 23:07:00 | Whoops this one too. HERE (www.youtube.com) | B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410019 | 2015-10-20 03:08:00 | All your questions on Global Warming/Climate Change answered HERE (www.youtube.com). Make sure you watch it all, maybe more than once, just to see how you've been duped. :lol: It's a video of Ted Cruz being a lawyer. It doesn't disprove or prove anything. Along with not even coming close to answering "all your questions on Global Warming/Climate Change". Whoops this one too. HERE (www.youtube.com) How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible. I'm done. **** this guy. Just because he's won a noble physics prize doesn't mean he knows anything about climate change. xkcd.com |
icow (15313) | ||
| 1410020 | 2015-10-20 04:43:00 | It's a video of Ted Cruz being a lawyer . It doesn't disprove or prove anything . Along with not even coming close to answering "all your questions on Global Warming/Climate Change" . I'm done . **** this guy . Just because he's won a noble physics prize doesn't mean he knows anything about climate change . . com/793/" target="_blank">xkcd . com Well I saw it differently . In the first Video I thought Senator Ted Cruiz was brilliant the way he set Aaron Mair up and let him totally destroy his own credibility along with the Sierra Clubs . I can think of a number of lawyers who would have gone for the jugular once they realised Aaron Mair was so far out of his depth, but no, he just silently sat there with a grin on his face and watched Mair self-destroy . Brilliant! As for Ivar Giaever, well which of his arguments would like to dispute? For me he was right on every count so where was his reasoning flawed? You're allowed to ask the "Union of Concerned Scientists" . :D |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410021 | 2015-10-21 08:17:00 | BM I know you are sincere and your skepticism is shared with others . So lets say that climate change is a natural event not contributed to by human activities . What we can agree I suggest, is that man's activities do create pollution . The result is undrinkable water, smog, and lightly poisoned soil . Not so much in New Zealand with our high rainfall and being in the Roaring 40s . But elsewhere? Awful . Google the South Asia Plume which is a smog cloud extending from Pakistan across India, South China, SE Asia and Indonesia . Industrial activity from 3 billion people . Then there is the Pacific Gyre which is an enormous patch of plastics floating in the sea . The single common element in these pollution events is Carbon . Even then it's complicated . Some is organic carbon such as plastics and others are inorganic carbon such as CO2 . Reigning back carbon use is the most practical way of reducing pollution . That is the core aim of carbon policies worldwide . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | |||||