Carbon taxes........

Grimreaper666

Now that global warming has been outed for the scam that it is, when is this tax going to be scrapped and how do we get a refund on all the taxes we've paid?

Grayson

Sometime after the ice age.

Artful_Badger

When was it outed as a scam ?

Grimreaper666

Artful_Badger wrote: »

When was it outed as a scam ?

Read it in the papers today. It's global cooling now apparently and figures quoted by scientists were "rearranged" more than likely to keep them in their jobs.

Gee Bag

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Read it in the papers today. It's global cooling now apparently and figures quoted by scientists were "rearranged" more than likely to keep them in their jobs.

Sounds like a Daily Mail exclusive

Climate change caused by immigrant welfare tourists on drugs!

Peregrine

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Read it in the papers today.

Well it must be true then..

Out of curiousity, was it the Mail?

Roger_007

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Now that global warming has been outed for the scam that it is, when is this tax going to be scrapped and how do we get a refund on all the taxes we've paid?

The scam is calling it the 'carbon' tax......It's just tax:mad:

Guy:Incognito

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Read it in the papers today. It's global cooling now apparently and figures quoted by scientists were "rearranged" more than likely to keep them in their jobs.

I would have thought that would be worthy of a mention on the 6-1 no? Major scientific discovery and all.

demanufactured

Roger_007 wrote: »

The scam is calling it the 'carbon' tax......It's just tax:mad:

Poor Politicians fund.

Roger_007

Pat





Oops,,,,,wrong thread!

Amirani

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Read it in the papers today. It's global cooling now apparently and figures quoted by scientists were "rearranged" more than likely to keep them in their jobs.

Any links to any at least semi-reputable sources? You won't have much chance of getting a tax refund by telling Revenue about a story you read in Tea-Party Weekly.

boynesider

Global warming is happening and it is being caused by human activity.

You might not like this, but it is the truth. Disregarding the truth because it is inconvenient to you is an incredibly childish and irresponsible thing to do.

wexie

boynesider wrote: »

Global warming is happening and it is being caused by human activity.

You might not like this, but it is the truth. Disregarding the truth because it is inconvenient to you is an incredibly childish and irresponsible thing to do.

ah....right....well if it's THE TRUTH then well....that changes things.

Peregrine

I think I may have found the OP's source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

Grimreaper666

It was in the Mail today and the Times during last week too iirc. I can appreciate how the Mail gets slated but there are plenty cases of scientists tweaking figures and genuine scientists like David Bellamy who disagreed with the theory of man being responsible for global warming, literally being regarded as a social outcast for even suggesting it. It's a multi-million pound/euro industry now that the taxpayer has been hoodwinked into paying for.

hullaballoo

Just posting because I know this. No consumers paid the carbon levy until mid-2012 because it was supposed to be a tax on a windfall as a result of the provision of carbon credits by the EU to member states. Electricity companies had to pay the cost of the levy but they were not allowed to pass it on to consumers by the CER. Carbon credits are a traded commodity, so you can sell them if you're below your carbon emissions quota, like most energy companies here are.

That decision by the CER was reviewed by the Supreme Court last year and found to be unlawful as a result of which, we now all pay the carbon levy on electricity and gas etc. even though the government who introduced the tax never intended for it to be paid by us.

Oddly, and I can't figure this one out, the current government have not repealed the law introducing the levy. Anyone?

joeperry

Nobody knows the truth about this sort of thing.

V.W.L 11

it was just John Gormley on a power trip when it was introduced,the man is a bloody eco warrior,hopefully the green party NEVER return to government

Amirani

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

I think I may have found the OP's source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

Ah, I'd read about that earlier on in the week. It's simply regression towards the mean, and was expected by any scientist (or statistician) worth their salt. The long term trend is a definite decrease in the volume of ice in the Arctic. Yes there was 60% growth here, but that's 60% growth on the lowest level ever recorded. Current ice levels are still far below historical levels despite this growth.

Image that illustrates this: http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/arctic-sea-ice_1-620x497.jpeg

ted1

Global warming is happening and as a result we are experiencing global cooling also.
The warmer weather is melting the ice caps. As a result this cooler water is reducing the heat of the worlds water.
Also what is happening is large and large amounts of salt are also being released which is causing other troubles.

Now this is part of a natural cycle but is being expedited by man kind.the Stone Age ended because man relived as did the Bronze Age.

We are now in a unique situation where the oil age is ending not because if new technology but because of limited resources.

We've screwed ourselves over and need to move away from carbon based energy. The question isn't what happens when we run out if Oil but what happens when we reach low stocks. Countries with it won't share it and those who want it will fight for it.

So in summary the OP doesn't know what he is saying.

dxhound2005

joeperry wrote: »

Nobody knows the truth about this sort of thing.

I do. Me and Wikipedia. About 10,000 years ago Ireland was under 2 miles of ice. Same will happen again. Guaranteed.

Grimreaper666

I've been reading lots of articles over the years about global warming, climate change or whatever they like to call it at that particular time but the one thing i always seem to come across on forums like boards is how quick people are to rush in and try to discredit the papers that run the articles about global warming/climate change and the opinions of anyone who has a different view on the situation.
There's a lot of evidence for and against but there's a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest that it's now a money spinner for scientists and governments by way of taxes.

galwayrush

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I do. Me and Wikipedia. About 10,000 years ago Ireland was under 2 miles of ice. Same will happen again. Guaranteed.

The sheer weight of the ice caps bearing down on themselves creates massive amounts of heat which in turn is melting the ice caps. A natural cycle, the more ice build up, a critical point is reached and the rate of melting accelerates.
The seas rise , and the greenhouse effect starts a major cool down and it's another ice age.

Roger_007

ted1 wrote: »

Global warming is happening and as a result we are experiencing global cooling also..............

I remember reading something like this in Alice in Wonderland. :rolleyes:

ted1

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

it was just John Gormley on a power trip when it was introduced,the man is a bloody eco warrior,hopefully the green party NEVER return to government

And tell me was in power in Britan when they bought in the CCL?

Plenty of other countries have carbon taxes. It's called the polluter pays principle.

Grimreaper666

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I do. Me and Wikipedia. About 10,000 years ago Ireland was under 2 miles of ice. Same will happen again. Guaranteed.

Probably will alright. Apparently in Greenland, Viking settlements were found under the ice which proves that there was much less ice when they were around. In the 17th century the Chinese sailed from the South pole to the North pole and didn't encounter any ice at all.

ted1

Roger_007 wrote: »

I remember reading something like this in Alice in Wonderland. :rolleyes:

If you liked reading that try reading some scientific journals, that's where I get my info. Have a look there's plenty out there to back up my claim

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

ted1 wrote: »

If you liked reading that try reading some scientific journals, that's where I get my info. Have a look there's plenty out there to back up my claim

I saw a documentary a while back saying because of Arctic ice melting places like Europe and Canada would get cooler by a few degrees and other parts of the world would get hotter by a few degrees.

It then said it could mess with the Gulf Stream and the knock on effects of that could be quite catastrophic so I put my head phones on and started listening to some songs so I didn't have to pay more attention to it.

Grimreaper666

ted1 wrote: »

If you liked reading that try reading some scientific journals, that's where I get my info. Have a look there's plenty out there to back up my claim

I have and it's they're the ones who are tweaking the figures to suit themselves. There are plenty of valid publications with alternative views too. Don't believe all you hear or read about and most importantly of all be very wary when politicians get involved as the bottom line for them as we all know is money.

Ziphius

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Read it in the papers today. It's global cooling now apparently and figures quoted by scientists were "rearranged" more than likely to keep them in their jobs.

Global cooling you say? All those carbon taxes must be having an effect.

:pac:

Sh1tbag OToole

Carbon taxes just make it easier for China to take over. You can outsource polution as well. Also extra pollution generated at sea from shipping stuff back but that doesnt belong to any particular country so nobody cares

Gee Bag

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Now that global warming has been outed for the scam that it is, when is this tax going to be scrapped and how do we get a refund on all the taxes we've paid?

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Read it in the papers today. It's global cooling now apparently and figures quoted by scientists were "rearranged" more than likely to keep them in their jobs.

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

It was in the Mail today and the Times during last week too iirc. I can appreciate how the Mail gets slated but there are plenty cases of scientists tweaking figures and genuine scientists like David Bellamy who disagreed with the theory of man being responsible for global warming, literally being regarded as a social outcast for even suggesting it. It's a multi-million pound/euro industry now that the taxpayer has been hoodwinked into paying for.

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

I've been reading lots of articles over the years about global warming, climate change or whatever they like to call it at that particular time but the one thing i always seem to come across on forums like boards is how quick people are to rush in and try to discredit the papers that run the articles about global warming/climate change and the opinions of anyone who has a different view on the situation.
There's a lot of evidence for and against but there's a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest that it's now a money spinner for scientists and governments by way of taxes.

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

I have and it's they're the ones who are tweaking the figures to suit themselves. There are plenty of valid publications with alternative views too. Don't believe all you hear or read about and most importantly of all be very wary when politicians get involved as the bottom line for them as we all know is money.

Your mind was clearly made up before you started this thread. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The vast majority of climatoligists agree that the Earth's climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. There is disagreement on the hows and whys, but taken as a whole The evidence is overwhelming.

The story you referred to in your OP is a one year variation. The danger of reading too much into a one year evnt is outlined here.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0910/Arctic-sea-ice-rebounds-but-don-t-jump-to-global-cooling-conclusions

Overall both the arctic ice maximum and minimum extents have declined significantly since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

Given the weight of evidence are you really willing to take a gamble on a long shot that everything will be ok?

P.S. in your last post quoted you refer to valid publications with alternative views, any chance you could list them for me?

Grimreaper666

I rely on NEXUS magazine quite a lot as they're not swayed by main stream and don't really have an agenda like scientists have in general.
David Bellamy has pretty much been shunned by the BBC for his opinions about man not being responsible for climate change. It just goes to show that if you have a mind of your own society can turn on you very quickly.
I think that the records really have only been recorded relatively recently too and considering the planet's millions of years old i think it really will be here after all of us anyway and will probably reinvent and renew itself without our politicians taking the credit for it.

Gee Bag

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

I rely on NEXUS magazine quite a lot as they're not swayed by main stream and don't really have an agenda like scientists have in general.
David Bellamy has pretty much been shunned by the BBC for his opinions about man not being responsible for climate change. It just goes to show that if you have a mind of your own society can turn on you very quickly.
I think that the records really have only been recorded relatively recently too and considering the planet's millions of years old i think it really will be here after all of us anyway and will probably reinvent and renew itself without our politicians taking the credit for it.

Your credible scuientific journal is Nexus magazine?

Alien reptile jews responsible for global warming hoax!

Canis Lupus

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

I rely on NEXUS magazine quite a lot as they're not swayed by main stream and don't really have an agenda like scientists have in general.
David Bellamy has pretty much been shunned by the BBC for his opinions about man not being responsible for climate change. It just goes to show that if you have a mind of your own society can turn on you very quickly.
I think that the records really have only been recorded relatively recently too and considering the planet's millions of years old i think it really will be here after all of us anyway and will probably reinvent and renew itself without our politicians taking the credit for it.

Taken from wiki: Bellamy complained in November 2008 that his dissent from global warming has resulted in rejection for his BBC TV programme ideas.[17] However, The Guardian newspaper has pointed out that Bellamy stopped making television programmes in 1994, some ten years before his first public statement showed scepticism about climate change.

Earlier in the wiki it pointed out that Bellamy was using incorrect figures for his opinion which he admitted some time later.

I think the nice thing about 'science' is scientists publish papers and these papers can be torn apart by their peers and people not in a position to 'spin money'. I think when the majority of people get together and say the evidence indicates that man is responsible for climate change then you should probably listen rather than reading alternative news sources like Nexus which again, according to wiki supports something called MMS which is apparently a bleach that is purported to cure HIV, malaria, hepatitis viruses, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, cancer, and more.

But you're unlikely to listen to me because I guess I'm a sheep, blinded by the mainstream media...

K-9

After a cold summer........how could there be global warming?

As the summary piece says, it'll take 5 years at least to tell either way.

ted1

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

I rely on NEXUS magazine quite a lot as they're not swayed by main stream and don't really have an agenda like scientists have in general.
t.

Nexus is not quite like the scientific journals I was talking about.

Cookie_Monster

the article just says it's bigger than last year. Doesn't mention how big it is compared to 10 or 20 or 100 years ago, funny that...

smoking_kills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the article just says it's bigger than last year. Doesn't mention how big it is compared to 10 or 20 or 100 years ago, funny that...

It also never mentions thickness, which is the real issue.

Anyway from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Sea ice extent for August 2013 averaged 6.09 million square kilometers (2.35 million square miles). This was 1.13 million square kilometers (398,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for August, but well above the level recorded last year, which was the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Ice extent this August was similar to the years 2008 to 2010. These contrasts in ice extent from one year to the next highlight the year-to-year variability attending the overall, long-term decline in sea ice extent.

Jester252

Why can't people understand the basic climate science. Its not that hard, just read the first section on the wiki article for global warming. While this year the average temperature is lower than last year doesn't mean that world is cooling. If you look at the bigger picture rather than a few years worth of data you will notice an upward trend with the average temperature. As for the arctic ice gain mass, yes it did become 60% than last years new record low. Yet again look at the bigger picture.
If you want to believe that the world is getting cooler and the arctic ice is recovering. I guess that means all the measures in place to help combat climate change are working

smoking_kills

Jester252 wrote: »

Why can't people understand the basic climate science. Its not that hard, just read the first section on the wiki article for global warming. While this year the average temperature is lower than last year doesn't mean that world is cooling. If you look at the bigger picture rather than a few years worth of data you will notice an upward trend with the average temperature. As for the arctic ice gain mass, yes it did become 60% than last years new record low. Yet again look at the bigger picture.
If you want to believe that the world is getting cooler and the arctic ice is recovering. I guess that means all the measures in place to help combat climate change are working

I would argue that the basic science of climate change is the FACT that co2 absorbs long wave radiation. The more you pump into the atmosphere, the more heat it will absorb.

Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius made some calculations and predictions, based of know physics at the time (1896).

Excerpts from the wiki page on him..

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[8] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 °C.[10] In his 1906 publication,