IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The mammoth global warming scam

Quest
post Mar 11 2008, 10:13 AM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march.../110308scam.htm

The mammoth global warming scam

AP
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

More evidence from the International Conference on Climate change last month which produced the Manhattan Declaration (see post below) of the way in which scientists who are sceptical about man-made global warming find their work is suppressed. A detailed piece on the website of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reports:

During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views.

‘We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,’ wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4. (LINK)

(Article continues below)


Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. ‘Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: Clarification from original posting. Miskolczi worked with NASA, not Zágoni.]

Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is ‘very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.’ Other scientists have echoed these claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, asserted in December 2007 that skeptics have a much harder time publishing in peer-reviewed literature. ‘Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,’ Paldor, who was not in attendance at the New York conference, wrote in December.
From this post, and in particular if you follow the links, you will find a wealth of other information which illuminates the mind-blowing scale of the global warming scam and how it has been perpetrated — for example, that proponents of MMGW have been funded over the past decade to the tune of $50 BILLION whereas the sceptics have received a meagre $19 MILLION. In other words, MMGW is a giant cash cow for scientific researchers, while those who refuse to latch onto the poisoned udder find they risk professional suicide. Even so, the number of scientists now ‘coming out’ to declare that MMGW is a monumental fraud is growing by the day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Mar 11 2008, 10:15 AM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...8_big_money.htm

Professor: Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda
Another professor challenges the so-called "consensus" behind man-made climate change
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

A retired physics professor became the latest public figure to debunk the myth of a "consensus" behind man-made global warming when he slammed big money interests for pushing climate change propaganda that was at odds with real science in a speech yesterday.

Howard C. Hayden, emeritus professor of physics from the University of Connecticut, told a Pueblo West audience that he was prompted to speak out after a visit to New York where he learned that scaremongering billboards about the long-term effects of global warming were being purchased at a cost of $700,000 a month.

"Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global warming," Hayden said. "Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda."

Hayden pointed out that global warming is taking place throughout the solar system, underscoring the fact that natural causes and not human beings are driving climate change, which has occurred throughout history.

"Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars," he said, "On Mars, the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing," adding that warming trends were also being observed on Jupiter, Saturn and Triton.

Citing the fact that human activity is responsible for just 3 per cent of carbon-dioxide emissions on earth, Hayden said that carbon levels in the atmosphere have been rising and falling for 400,000 years.

"We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years," he said. "During the Jurassic period, we had very high levels of carbon dioxide."

"About 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, not humans," Hayden concluded, adding that global warming is being pushed not by grass roots advocacy groups, but by giant corporations who stand to gain from selling concepts such as carbon tracking and carbon trading.


As we reported last year, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?

In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

The fact that global warming hysteria is being pushed by governments that have been caught lying to the public on a regular basis, along with elitists whose stated goal is to push fearmongering as a means of increasing taxation and control over our lives, emphasizes the reality that, allied to the its phony scientific foundation, global warming is just the latest hobby-horse on which control freaks have piggy-backed their agenda to dominate and rule.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Mar 11 2008, 10:56 AM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,701
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



People are more easily manipulated when it's for a "good cause", who can be against saving the planet ? but in the end it's always about making a quick buck or a trillion or two...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Mar 11 2008, 11:42 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



Sorry but this is complete BS.

I have worked for Scripps Inst for 24 years (semi retired 2 years ago) and personally know some the leading Climatologist in the world and have spoken to them several times about this in the past decade these people are not scamming anybody the data is what it is.
I don't know who allegedly stands to make a buck off of Global Warming but it isn't the scientist that I know and respect and consider friends. They are only interested in the facts.

The amount of PAID SHILLS for oil companies calling themselves climatologist that are spreading this BS are minute, its about the same ratio as those complete lunatics that call themselves biologist that are trying to spread the pure idiocy of Creationism there are about 400 of them on the whole planet, meanwhile the other million of so of us non brainwashed Biologist know that Evolutionary Theory is as close to absolute fact as science is capable of achieving.
Same goes for Global Warming, there are a tiny handful of mostly oil company shills usually Geologist that are spreading this propaganda.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Mar 11 2008, 12:29 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Re; global cooling, personally, I like Arizona a lot, so I don't mind so much if the mean global temperature drops a couple of degrees. I'm OK with global cooling. To a point, mind you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Mar 11 2008, 12:35 PM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,701
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 11 2008, 06:29 PM) *
Re; global cooling, personally, I like Arizona a lot, so I don't mind so much if the mean global temperature drops a couple of degrees. I'm OK with global cooling. To a point, mind you.



Well, we had record breaking snowfall this winter, and it's not over ! hopefully springs is not too far away...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Mar 11 2008, 02:23 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Mar 11 2008, 04:42 PM) *
Sorry but this is complete BS.

I have worked for Scripps Inst for 24 years (semi retired 2 years ago) and personally know some the leading Climatologist in the world and have spoken to them several times about this in the past decade these people are not scamming anybody the data is what it is.
I don't know who allegedly stands to make a buck off of Global Warming but it isn't the scientist that I know and respect and consider friends. They are only interested in the facts.

The amount of PAID SHILLS for oil companies calling themselves climatologist that are spreading this BS are minute, its about the same ratio as those complete lunatics that call themselves biologist that are trying to spread the pure idiocy of Creationism there are about 400 of them on the whole planet, meanwhile the other million of so of us non brainwashed Biologist know that Evolutionary Theory is as close to absolute fact as science is capable of achieving.
Same goes for Global Warming, there are a tiny handful of mostly oil company shills usually Geologist that are spreading this propaganda.


Is the following BS?

"Hayden pointed out that global warming is taking place throughout the solar system, underscoring the fact that natural causes and not human beings are driving climate change, which has occurred throughout history.

"Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars," he said, "On Mars, the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing," adding that warming trends were also being observed on Jupiter, Saturn and Triton.

Citing the fact that human activity is responsible for just 3 per cent of carbon-dioxide emissions on earth, Hayden said that carbon levels in the atmosphere have been rising and falling for 400,000 years.

"We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years," he said. "During the Jurassic period, we had very high levels of carbon dioxide."

"About 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, not humans," Hayden concluded, adding that global warming is being pushed not by grass roots advocacy groups, but by giant corporations who stand to gain from selling concepts such as carbon tracking and carbon trading."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Mar 11 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #8


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



We had a record-breaking heatwave last summer and a record-breaking cold winter. Call it warming if you like. I prefer "radical geological and weather event proliferation."

Whoever is right or wrong as to the cause of the proliferation matters little in light of the fact that the paper trail reveals that the technocrats are redrawing national boundaries as they see they would be after events they see brewing on the horizon. Gore smugly mentions a million ecological refugees and moves to the next slide. He won't have to deal with the starving, homeless multitudes. He'll move to the underground bunkers with the rest of the elites when mass population movements trigger the final stage of global economic collapse.

Knowing that disasters of cataclysmic proportions loom large on the horizon and being able to but not moving populations to safety amounts to criminal neglect, in my book.

Yeah, the sun is the primary driver of climate on the planets of Our Solar System. You bet. This solar storm cycle starts now and peaks in, get this, 2012.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html

For those interested I'm about to open a blog on 2012 based on my studies. I'm going to shoot for May as my initial projected launch date. At 11:11 on 12.21.12 Our Solar System, in fact our Universe, will be aligned with the center of the galaxy for the first time in 26,000 years. We'll enter the House of Aquarius. And, according to Terrance McKenna, time itself, as the fourth dimension, will likely end.

Lots going on betwixt now and then.

http://edro.wordpress.com/collapsing-cities/

I'll start a thread on 2012 in the Alt Theories room soon.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Mar 11 2008, 03:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Mar 11 2008, 06:57 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



QUOTE
"Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars," he said, "On Mars, the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing,"


Yes that's complete BS in the context of which it is meant to be taken.
Mars has SEASONAL "ice caps" technically these so called ice caps are really dry ice which is just what one would call the air on Mars that freezes during the Martian winter.
and they don't "melt" they vaporize.
This air is a thin layer that lays on the ground and freezes, the polar caps on Mars recede in springtime because its facing the sun.
This happens every year and has remained the same since we have kept records of it.

So NO the Martian polar ice caps are NOT shrinking.
They vaporize in the North and grow in the South then visa versa.

Mars does not have a moon to keep its tilt stable which is the reason why Mars ice caps wax & wane so much, has absolutely zero to do with solar activity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 11 2008, 07:23 PM
Post #10


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I'm moving this thread to the "debate" forum. Looks like we have some strong differences of opinion here.

Personally, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the data. The problem is, as George Hayduke pointed out in another thread, many of us no longer trust not only government and media but all established institutions, including the sciences, in part because, except for a few brave individuals, they have gone along with the 9/11 war-on-terror charade.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Mar 11 2008, 09:24 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



QUOTE (painter @ Mar 12 2008, 01:23 AM) *
I'm moving this thread to the "debate" forum. Looks like we have some strong differences of opinion here.


I agree with you, painter, although 'differences of opionion' seems an understatement, when looking at the amount of B's and S'es in Nunyabiz' posts. wink.gif


@Nunyabiz
I've had in mind earlyer to ask you to kindly reduce your level of definitiveness in your statements.
Quest started an interesting topic, which would be worth researching and not debating.
You say, you have some knowledge in this field.
So could you please share your knoledge with us WITHOUT ignoring the main aspect in Quest's posts:
Scepticims about Global Warmin as man-made by extensive emission of CO2.

While you might be right with the Mars (dry ice) polar caps, we'd be interested to know your answers to ALL of Quest's questions

thank you
Zap
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 11 2008, 10:43 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I found this interesting:

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

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity.
...
The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.[1]

The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[2] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change."

So we have a UN-mandated special-interest publishing group that DOES NOT do research sharing a Nobel Prize with law-school dropout and career politician Albert Gore (whose father grew weathi(er) in the coal and oil industry for Occidental Petroleum as I recall), and these are the MSM media "experts" on global warming- hmmm...

Gore's family also grew tobacco, and I think most of us are well aware of the tobacco corporate lobbying and lying by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Interestingly enough, ExxonMobil appears to contribute considerable money (and confusion) into the "global warming" and alternate energy "debunking."

http://hydrogentruth.info/page_02.html

I've read several articles and seen a few movies about the "impossibility of the hydrogen economy" and have read much of Tim Flannery's book "The Weather Makers." Now I (a scientist/engineer) find it interesting that all these hydrogen "debunkers" are usually biologists, law-school dropouts, lobbyists, politicians, news reporters, and the like. I never hear from them about catalytic lysis, photolysis, sonolysis, or solar hydrogen production. I have archived over 100 hydrogen production patents in my research, some going back to the early 1800s.

Most of these "experts" won't know that the US Navy has been using seawater electrolysis for decades for oxygen production (and the hydrogen "fuel" is just wastefully dumped back into the sea after generation, but I'm getting near to some classified technology here). And yes, hydrogen gas REALLY IS a fuel- just ask NASA or the US DoE.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

http://www.treadwellcorp.com/history.htm

http://rfdesign.com/military_defense_elect...ll_stacks_0926/

Here's one of the few knowledgeable "experts" on hydrogen- Roy McAlister was a professor of engineering at ASU who has run his small pickup without gasoline or diesel for over 16 years. I highly recommend his book "The Solar Hydrogen Civilization." Roy also runs a multi-fuel Geo Metro on turpines that are produced from "waste" citrus fruits grown locally in AZ.

http://clean-air.org/

The "experts" also don't seem to know that humans and animals are quite-efficient hydrogen fuel cells (that's why we need so much water daily and also get fat), as are photosynthetic plants and algae.

Oh wait, here's a fuel cell at Penn State that can get electricity from sewage- why haven't we seen this on our local news before?

http://www.rps.psu.edu/hydrogen/microbial.html

We've got VAST reserves of mechanical and thermal energy in the world's oceans, and 1800s-technology Stirling engines will run on "waste" heat, but we seem to prefer James Watt's method of burning coal or petroleum for whatever reasons to this day.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3881.html

A solar Stirling engine just set an efficiency record above 98%, as I recall, and the fuel is "free" for all practical purposes.

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/relea...t/Stirling.html

Personally, I find the debate about whether global warming or global cooling to be a complete waste of time (and Gore is inconveniently full of $#%& IMHO). My question is what can we ALL DO to move FORWARD with existing technology and changing public opinion about "acceptable" energy sources?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Mar 12 2008, 02:28 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
Personally, I find the debate about whether global warming or global cooling to be a complete waste of time (and Gore is inconveniently full of $#%& IMHO). My question is what can we ALL DO to move FORWARD with existing technology and changing public opinion about "acceptable" energy sources?


When I look at data like this.

QUOTE
Who Gets What out of our $1.391
1 litre of petrol consists of:
38.143 cents in excise
12.655 cents GST
71.45 cents Crude oil (based on today's price and today's exchange rate)
1.2 cents for the service station (Note: The credit card companies get more)

That is a total of 50.79 cents direct tax + 72.65 cent in raw product and service station margin, making a total of 123.44 cents

Who gets the other 15.66 cents per litre? (see BBC news in side panel.)
15.66 cents per litre might not sound all that much, but multiply that by the estimated 20 billion litres of petrol used per year in Australia, and you are looking at a gross margin of 3.13 billion dollars.
Add to this the margin on the sale of diesel (another 17 billion litres).

Oil Companies rolleyes.gif


FAQ
What are heavy crude and light crude?
Light crude is defined as having a high specific gravity. This classification of oil is easier to pump, transport and refine into high value products like petrol, diesel and jet fuel. Because of this, it tends to be more expensive

Heavy Crude usually contain high concentrations of sulfur and several metals, particularly nickel and vanadium, and high amount of wax. These are the properties that make them difficult to pump out of the ground or through a pipeline and interfere with refining. These properties also present serious environmental challenges. Heavy oil can be broken into the smaller petrol molecules, through the use of a "catalytic cracker", but this process uses energy and the resulting petrol is thus more expensive. That cost is offset by the cheaper cost per barrel of the heavy crude.

What are "sweet" and "sour" Crude?
Sweet Crude has small amounts of sulfur (mainly hydrogen sulfide H2S) (.5% or less) and carbon dioxide, and is used primarily in petrol. Sulfur does damage to the equipment when refining and does damage to the environment (and your car's engine) if not removed. If the percentage exceeds .5% it is classified as sour. Because of the costs involved in removing the sulfur, sour oil tends to be cheaper than sweet oil.

Why do we use the lowest price of the 3 benchmarks for our calculations?
Australian refineries are capable of refining heavy crude. Most Asian refineries are not. Australia produces its own crude oil, but it is a light sweet crude. It is valuable, so we export it and import the less expensive heavy crude. Heavy crude, like Dubai Fateh, is about US$ 5 per barrel less expensive than Brent or WTI.
We should be quoting the heavy crude price, but because they are not regularly published, we use the cheapest price of the ones that are quoted just to be on the safe side.

Why is the price quoted on radio and television different to that quoted on Bloomberg?
There are about 160 different Crude Oils on the market. Some are heavier, they have longer Carbon-Hydrogen chains and are more difficult to refine into petrol, some are lighter and easier to refine. Some contain very little Sulfur, others contain a lot. The quality and weight of the crude oil makes a difference to the price. The prices quoted on radio and TV depend on which "crude" they refer to.

The benchmarks most frequently quoted are:
WTI (West Texas intermediate) crude oil at a reference sales point in Cushing, Oklahoma. This oil is of very high quality and is excellent for refining a larger portion of gasoline. It is a “light” crude oil, and it contains only about 0.24 percent of sulfur (making it a “sweet” crude oil)
Brent, (or rather Brent Blend) is a combination of crude oil from 15 different oil fields in the Brent and Ninian systems, located in the North Sea. It is still classified as a "light" crude oil, but not as "light" as WTI. It contains about 0.37 percent of sulfur (making it a “sweet” crude oil, but again slightly less “sweet” than WTI).
Dubai Fateh - Heavy Crude.
Some others are: Alaska Crude - Heavy Crude; Venezuela Orinoco Oil Belt - Heavy Crude; Greater Burgan, Kuwait - Very Light and Light Crude; Athabasca Oil Sands - Alberta, Canada - Heavy Crude.

What is the tax on petrol?
There are many taxes on petrol (and fuel in general).
The most easily identified are:
Excise = 38.143 cents per liter (both on petrol and diesel)
GST = 10% on the sell price.

Doesn't that mean we are paying GST on the excise, in other words, aren't we paying a tax on a tax?
Yes.

What other taxes are there on petrol?
There are the more 'hidden' taxes:
Royalties -- Australia is rich in coal, gas and oil. When the oil companies take the oil out of the ground they pay a royalty (tax) to the government. The oil companies pass that tax on to the consumer; us.
And of course when the (oil and transport) companies make a profit, they pay company tax, which is past on to the consumer; us.

Hang on, doesn't that mean we are paying GST on the royalties and on the tax companies pay, in other words; a tax on a tax?
Yes.


http://www.cheaperpetrolparty.com/Oil_Price.php

Then when I see stroy's like this.

QUOTE
MOTORISTS will pay at least 10c extra per litre for petrol, with oil giants poised to pass on the cost of reducing greenhouse gas.

Australia's biggest petrol refiner, Caltex, yesterday called for a direct 10c carbon tax on drivers.

"Every time motorists filled up at a service station, there would be awareness of the carbon tax, encouraging motorists to think about driving less, taking public transport or buying a smaller car when possible," Caltex spokesman Frank Topham said.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...65-2862,00.html

I can't help but think that there will be no alternative to the status quo until the revenue currently raised by governments from fuel excise can be bled from us with another form of tax. The oil company profits will remain high as they manipulate the supply from their ever more 'scarce' recource.
You just can't have sheeple driving about untaxed.

It's a shame these type of discussions always en up in Internet dungeons.

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Mar 12 2008, 02:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 12 2008, 08:23 AM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



Last evening I started to answer Quests posts but the hour being late, sickness in the family and not being happy with the way I was trying to work on my arguments I have held fire.

I would like to indicate that I have been following the Global Warming (a term that I don’t particularly like because it is restrictive and misleading) debate for over a decade now and have had many protracted discussions with people on other forums and USENET and am thus familiar with many of the counter arguments - of the sceptics that is which must include Bjorn Lomborg of 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' renown. See:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

What better way to sound authentic than claim to have started in the camp of the opposition - this being a propaganda technique recently embraced by the 'Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID)' faction. And now we have Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni.

Now I must admit that at this point in time I know little about him, his academic origins or his present allegiances - however driven.

The Manhattan Declaration is of course a recent development as are the broadcasting of Zágoni's opinions and the suggestion of muzzling of sceptics by the academic press as typified in this Spectator article:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/melanieph...ming-scam.thtml

Then I discovered who was pushing this:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/

That explains much. Ms Phillips is renowned for expressing strong, and rather cranky, opinion when clutching at straws.

I have over the last decade collected a number of links, many of which have since fallen fallow or changed content significantly - I have some web pages saved on disc so can compare. I have printed out some pages particularly those referring to the fossil fuel lobby machinations typified by the activities of Esso, Exxon Mobile and Fred Singer. And it is knowledge of this particular background that makes me so surprised at the statement:

QUOTE
'proponents of MMGW have been funded over the past decade to the tune of $50 BILLION whereas the sceptics have received a meagre $19 MILLION'


There may now be much more money going into research on anthropogenically induced climate change and how to ameliorate its effects, but it is about time.

I'll admit that many have suddenly woken up to the potential for fast buck generation and I have been skeptical about Gore's motives for involvement but I find it hard to believe that the problem is not real and thus I suspect that the moves of the elite are as much driven by a self-survival instinct as greed and we are right to be suspicious of many of their initiatives and propaganda.

QUOTE
Howard C. Hayden, emeritus professor of physics from the University of Connecticut, 'We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years,' he said. 'During the Jurassic period, we had very high levels of carbon dioxide.'


What a mish-mash of a statement. 300,000 years takes us back into the Quaternary period, of the Cenozoic era, which dates from 1.8 million years ago (MYA) to the present and is thus the period that we are still in. To be more precise 300,000 years ago (0.3 MYA), is in the Late/Upper Pleistocene.

The Jurassic period was the middle period of the Mesozoic era and dates between 205 MYA and 144 MYA.

During both of those periods the land masses were arranged differently which means that oceanic currents and atmospheric movements bear no relationship to those of today. The past is a different world, things worked differently then. In the more recent late Pleistocene there was a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska for example.

That quoted statement above is deceptive on another level. What is probably of more importance, and I am not disputing higher CO2 levels at any time in the past, is that we are at the highest CO2 levels for 20000 years and the increase in temperature closely follows the rise and can be seen to accelerate once the industrial revolution gathers pace:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/p...mate.htm#iceage

which of course contains the famous, for some infamous, hockey stick diagram.


Michael Crichton in his 'State of Fear' challenged 'the consensus' and has in turn been roundly debunked (I recognized anomalies as I read the book):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...logists-return/

It is not only about the burning of fossil fuels though as agriculture too has a determined effect on the quantity, and nature, of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

As Dan Dennett explains in 'Breaking the Spell'
QUOTE
'Since both the domesticated animals and their domesticators have enjoyed huge population explosions (going from less than 1 percent of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass ten-thousand years ago to over 98 percent today...'


This brings us neatly on to the issue of methane and of the huge deposits at the sea bed:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227

For an excellent treatise on much of the science behind the dating of fossils and the geophysical history of the earth I unequivocally, despite that its publication year of 2001 could make it dated, recommend Richard Corfield's, 'Architects of Eternity: The New Science of Fossils'.

This readable and approachable work is packed full of information on techniques and the characters who developed and used them.

This book, apart from being useful background to the Anthropogenic Climate Change debate is a must for pointing at those creation/ID proponents.

QUOTE
'MMGW is a monumental fraud is growing by the day'


That is a statement that should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Sure, some have jumped on the band wagon and using it for their own, hidden, agendas but the basis of the argument for anthropogenic climate change being real is solid.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 12 2008, 08:29 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 12 2008, 10:26 AM
Post #15


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



WOW, great stuff, guys!

More here than I can wrap my head around, that's for sure! blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 12 2008, 11:13 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I can't recall the PBS? program I saw on the Vostok ice cores, but it showed some fairly sudden, extreme temperature swings back through history.

Looking at the following, I see several cycles of CO2 and temperature rising and falling, that aren't often mentioned in these contexts.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautio...nning/New_Data/

Here's a typical GW "discussion" and why I find them so tedious (everyone seems to have their respective pet "experts" and data set):
http://www.xomba.com/ice_cores_air_temp_ri...temperature_why

My personal perspective is that regardless of global temperature shifts and causes, hydrocarbon fuels have LONG been a flawed paradigm. After all, Isaac de Rivas invented the automobile several years BEFORE gasoline was invented... I see Al Gore flying around globally for his speaking engagements and the energy consumption in his extravagant mansion. I also see a considerable amount of what I would describe as his hypocritical GW fear-mongering.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...070227c.html%20

My lingering questions are 1. OK, what are we ALL individually and collectively going to do about our energy shortcomings? 2. When are we going to start?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 12 2008, 12:26 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 10 2008, 01:43 AM) *
...and have read much of Tim Flannery's book "The Weather Makers."

I have that book and have read it - twice. It is currently away on loan.

I also have, and have read, the two books by Mark Lynas, 'High Tide' and 'Six Degrees'. See Mark's blog at:

http://www.marklynas.org/

On there is a series of videos which provide an overview of Six Degrees each chapter of which describes the effect of each succesive degree celsius increase in temperature. If you go to:

http://www.marklynas.org/sixdegrees

you will be able to watch each in turn from 1 up to 6.

Some may consider the videos, and book, scaremongering. Maybe, maybe not. But if true, and the research demonstrates that such temperature changes can cause massive extinction events, then it will be too late when we find out for sure.

God does not play dice with the universe but man is doing so with the earth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Mar 12 2008, 04:17 PM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear)

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.

The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."

Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit."

Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.

Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the "active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented." German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.

A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, "solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals." In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.

Lysenko's methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.

Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.

By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as "bourgeois pseudoscience" in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko's ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.

Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world" of our past. That hope is science.

But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."
That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.


http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-state...sdangerous.html


QUOTE
The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.


As someone who would probably have ended up in an argument in the interview room and subsequently gassed, I'm with Crichton.

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Mar 12 2008, 04:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 13 2008, 08:10 AM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Timothy Osman @ Mar 10 2008, 07:17 PM) *
As someone who would probably have ended up in an argument in the interview room and subsequently gassed, I'm with Crichton.

On the topic of eugenics then so am I.

But then trying to compare the eugenics movement with climate change science is like comparing apples to tomatoes (both being a fruit but one of which is often used as a vegetable)- not very helpful and indicates an attempt at obfuscation.

I have just dug out my copy of 'State of Fear' and found within it a printed copy of the info found at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

that I posted previously.

I hashed together that document so as to print out with a WP including illustrations.

I also included this info:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...te-of-fear.html

which has changed in the interim but not in any fundamental way (and the old URL no longer worked - hazards of net research).

Crichton has, in State of Fear, included an extensive bibliography and I am pleased that the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre gets favourable remarks. This is well worth a visit:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

I consider that Crichton is rather too kind to Lomborg who has been criticised in a fair manner by some in the scientific community and the remarks that Crichton makes here are gratuitous in their mud slinging.

Reading of the author's, Crichton's, position (at the end of book) there is much that I am in agreement with but this leaves me puzzled by the skewed picture presented by the narrative of the novel. Crichton raises some other important questions on other issues at:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essays.html

I think what we have here is a case of an author doing some enthusiastic reading and research into his topics and I consider his novels well crafted, if based on skewed science as is also the case with Jurassic Park. In short he means well but has been lead astray by some of the strong charcters with agendas who he has consulted.

On Lomborg I have found, tucked into my copy of Mark Lynas's 'High Tide' an inkjet print out I did of a scanned article, by Mark Lynas, in a magazine's, unfortunately I am unsure which as I didn't follow my own policy of annotating source and date, Science & Technology section entitled 'Natural Bjorn Killer' which has interesting remarks concerning the origin of the review comments from science journals layed out under an illustration of 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' in a side column.

As Mark Lynas has not featured this article on his site, and he appears to hold more personal, not necessarily academic rigour, respect for Lomborg than the article's title suggests I hold back from quoting until I have contacted Mark and obtained a reply. Unfortunately I am having trouble with my e-mail server right now, also the BBC site here is having technical difficulties right now and some URLs are slow to respond suggesting DNS problems, so this may have to wait awhile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 13 2008, 10:52 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I've found record low tides,
but I'm still looking for record high tides.

I think the ocean levels are dropping,
not rising.

Global dimming, which has been measured for decades,
and most likely, is man made, is a much greater danger than global warming,
and is having a darkening, thus, cooling effect, globally.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382

The sun is spot free at the moment, indicating a weakened magnetic field allowing more cosmic rays to hit our atmosphere, causing cloudier skies.

http://www.spaceweather.com/


Human caused global climate control is possible and is probably going on intentionally and secretively, right now.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st December 2014 - 11:15 PM