What do Greenpeace actually know about the science behind 'Global Warming' ?
21 December 2009, 09:21 AM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally i think the failure of Copenhagen to provide any coherent world policy is disappointing.
And i'm also amused that, despite the sceptics' repeated assurances that this is all a tax scam, and that further green policies would open the door to yet more opportuities to con and fleece the population, the majority of countries put their own economic agendas before any commitment to reducing emissions, thus missing a golden opportunity, surely?
And i'm also amused that, despite the sceptics' repeated assurances that this is all a tax scam, and that further green policies would open the door to yet more opportuities to con and fleece the population, the majority of countries put their own economic agendas before any commitment to reducing emissions, thus missing a golden opportunity, surely?
21 December 2009, 09:29 AM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Personally i think the failure of Copenhagen to provide any coherent world policy is disappointing.
And i'm also amused that, despite the sceptics' repeated assurances that this is all a tax scam, and that further green policies would open the door to yet more opportuities to con and fleece the population, the majority of countries put their own economic agendas before any commitment to reducing emissions, thus missing a golden opportunity, surely?
And i'm also amused that, despite the sceptics' repeated assurances that this is all a tax scam, and that further green policies would open the door to yet more opportuities to con and fleece the population, the majority of countries put their own economic agendas before any commitment to reducing emissions, thus missing a golden opportunity, surely?
Scam? See ... Copenhagen climate deal: London faces carbon trading challenge from New York - Telegraph .....
"... Richard Gledhill, head of climate change at the accountancy firm, said the US acceptance of the Copenhagen Accord would "accelerate huge growth in the global carbon market", possibly tripling its size over the next decade. Trading in carbon markets has grown to £75bn since the EU Emissions Trading System was launched in 2005 and London has emerged as the leading centre for trading and investing in carbon...."
These are not small sums. First we bail out the banks, then we set up a so-called 'carbon trading' system, allegedly to reduce CO2 emmissions, to make them even more money. It's all about the money!
And see ... EU Referendum: How to get rich .... more scams, but back to the old ozone-depletion-gases days.
"... Thus, the system had created a perverse incentive to keep producing. Even if the manufactures did not sell any of their product but simply kept making it, they would rake in twice as much money as they had previously.
In fact, the UN had been warned of this possibility in 2004, and of a probability that the CDM funds would be used as a cross-subsidy to cut the price of HCF-22 and thereby increase its sales. Not only has that occurred, however, there has built up a significant illicit trade, with 51 percent of illegal exports being attributed to China. Illegal product is even entering the United States via Mexico.
All of this is being done in the name of greenery - saving the planet. But the real reason, of course, is to underpin the carbon market which has proved so lucrative for Western financiers.
Nevertheless, with the costs paid by consumers in developed countries through our electricity bills, we at least have the comfort of knowing we are making some Chinese (as well as Indian and Brazilian) CFC producers very rich. ..."
Scam? Absolutely. Who's getting scr3wed? We are!
Dave
21 December 2009, 09:39 AM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave i have to admire your continuing scepticism. It's brilliant. I also think it's brilliant to link the growth of a new commodity market to your own personal financial suffering. What's happening in carbon has happened before (albeit without the "credits" system) in many other commodities, including, most importantly perhaps, oil.
Can we have a conspiracy theory thread on the pricing of oil please. Or gold. Or copper. Or wheat if you want to go non-metals.
You're condemning a free market. Ok if that's your view, go for it. But why live in the West if it irks you as personally as this? People will find ways of making money out of anything, even if they're vehemently in favour of the whole MMGW agenda. It's worth bearing that in mind perhaps.
Can we have a conspiracy theory thread on the pricing of oil please. Or gold. Or copper. Or wheat if you want to go non-metals.
You're condemning a free market. Ok if that's your view, go for it. But why live in the West if it irks you as personally as this? People will find ways of making money out of anything, even if they're vehemently in favour of the whole MMGW agenda. It's worth bearing that in mind perhaps.
21 December 2009, 09:44 AM
#64
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally i think the failure of Copenhagen to provide any coherent world policy is disappointing.
And i'm also amused that, despite the sceptics' repeated assurances that this is all a tax scam, and that further green policies would open the door to yet more opportuities to con and fleece the population, the majority of countries put their own economic agendas before any commitment to reducing emissions, thus missing a golden opportunity, surely?
And i'm also amused that, despite the sceptics' repeated assurances that this is all a tax scam, and that further green policies would open the door to yet more opportuities to con and fleece the population, the majority of countries put their own economic agendas before any commitment to reducing emissions, thus missing a golden opportunity, surely?
Individual taxing policies can now still be put in place without hinderance of a coherent world policy.
It's quite shocking really that is any of the western nations truly believed in AGW that they failed to get anywhere near the response that was needed.
TBH, I would be surprised now to see any reduction green taxes even if the whole of the scientific community stated that it had been a mistake and there was no problem, such is the politicisation of it now.
Too much to give up!
Geezer
21 December 2009, 09:46 AM
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
And of course the other thing to bear in mind is that by using an emmissions trading scheme the politicians can blame private industry for putting prices up. Whereas if they just taxed emissions then, as for fuel tax, we could blame them. And the politicians don't want to be blamed for putting taxes up do they ..... ? 
As for *my own financial suffering* I actually used the *we* word. We will ALL suffer financially because of this scheme. Just go and read about why that steel plant was shut down on Teeside - 1700 on the dole now wasn't it?
I do believe that you (Telboy) are actually Martin in disguise .......
Dave
As for *my own financial suffering* I actually used the *we* word. We will ALL suffer financially because of this scheme. Just go and read about why that steel plant was shut down on Teeside - 1700 on the dole now wasn't it?
I do believe that you (Telboy) are actually Martin in disguise .......
Dave
21 December 2009, 09:56 AM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No i'm not Martin, but i just get bored with the continual one-sided endless references and Klaatu's unnecessary spite, but he's not here to spoil it today yet so i thought i'd chime in 
Again, the Corus plant closure was (as far as i understand it), pure economics, a free market decision. Regrettable, but in my opinion preferable to protectionist policies.
I guess it remains to be seen what the fallout is now. In kindergarten terms, i'm refusing to believe that a deal wasn't struck just because the West couldn't be compensated sufficiently. I'm not disputing that that angle wasn't considered, but i think they need to revisit the whole framework under which they're working, to allow emissions to be cut on a worldwide basis, and for countries to demonstrate that they aren't just approaching the whole thing as a business opportunity. There are enough people who don't believe man is complicit without the politicians putting even more barriers in the way of actually doing something.
Again, the Corus plant closure was (as far as i understand it), pure economics, a free market decision. Regrettable, but in my opinion preferable to protectionist policies.
I guess it remains to be seen what the fallout is now. In kindergarten terms, i'm refusing to believe that a deal wasn't struck just because the West couldn't be compensated sufficiently. I'm not disputing that that angle wasn't considered, but i think they need to revisit the whole framework under which they're working, to allow emissions to be cut on a worldwide basis, and for countries to demonstrate that they aren't just approaching the whole thing as a business opportunity. There are enough people who don't believe man is complicit without the politicians putting even more barriers in the way of actually doing something.
21 December 2009, 01:29 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Coppenhagen had of succeeded it would of been leapt upon on here as proof positive of the tax conspiracy.
It failed...but nevermind we can still use it a proof positive of the conspiracy. This is a great example of how tragic and vacuous the conspiracy theorists agrument has become!!
If it wasn't so ridiculous it would be quite alarming
Why is it so hard to even allow the posibility that at least some people involved in this are acting in good will?
It failed...but nevermind we can still use it a proof positive of the conspiracy. This is a great example of how tragic and vacuous the conspiracy theorists agrument has become!!
If it wasn't so ridiculous it would be quite alarming
Why is it so hard to even allow the posibility that at least some people involved in this are acting in good will?
Last edited by Martin2005; 21 December 2009 at 01:33 PM.
21 December 2009, 02:36 PM
#68
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on what you mean by succeeded Martin.
Surely, if AGW is true (or even if they truly believed it was true, whether it is true not is irrelevant really), then the only successful outcome would be to massively reduce emissions, to the point where the damage to economies would be pretty devastating.
That didn't happen, so it is any wonder people are skeptical of their intentions? Surely you can see why they would think that, even if you don't necessarily agree with it?
Geezer
Surely, if AGW is true (or even if they truly believed it was true, whether it is true not is irrelevant really), then the only successful outcome would be to massively reduce emissions, to the point where the damage to economies would be pretty devastating.
That didn't happen, so it is any wonder people are skeptical of their intentions? Surely you can see why they would think that, even if you don't necessarily agree with it?
Geezer
21 December 2009, 03:57 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on what you mean by succeeded Martin.
Surely, if AGW is true (or even if they truly believed it was true, whether it is true not is irrelevant really), then the only successful outcome would be to massively reduce emissions, to the point where the damage to economies would be pretty devastating.
That didn't happen, so it is any wonder people are skeptical of their intentions? Surely you can see why they would think that, even if you don't necessarily agree with it?
Geezer
Surely, if AGW is true (or even if they truly believed it was true, whether it is true not is irrelevant really), then the only successful outcome would be to massively reduce emissions, to the point where the damage to economies would be pretty devastating.
That didn't happen, so it is any wonder people are skeptical of their intentions? Surely you can see why they would think that, even if you don't necessarily agree with it?
Geezer
21 December 2009, 05:23 PM
#70
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha, ok, but that was not how I see it. I don't go for this world domination, new order crap, and it was all dreamt up as a scam!
I do, however, think it has little to do with saving the world now and more about how to be seen to do something whilst protecting their national interests.
On that basis, Copenhagen has succeeded, or failed, depending on your point of view
Geezer
I do, however, think it has little to do with saving the world now and more about how to be seen to do something whilst protecting their national interests.
On that basis, Copenhagen has succeeded, or failed, depending on your point of view
Geezer
21 December 2009, 08:29 PM
#71
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- they just look foolish now... They haven't sent their Greenpeace ship into Antarctic waters in 3 years, think they've got bored of the whole "whaling" agenda.
Forget banners and protesting anyway. Sea Shepherd do it my kind of way.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
