Is trying to alter the climate a waste of money?

Lunnaris2012

New Member
The "tax" generates "income" to be spent on research and development. If this R & D is not carried out, we shall be in much worse trouble than merely being "short of money".


They must be mining it on the Moon, then. When did they get there?

The obsolescence planned into mass-produced goods reflects a vision of a better future. It isn't possible to design any "perfect" thing, because change is demanded by both fashion and innovation. This applies to most things.

Everything either goes out of fashion, and/or is superseded by superior product. All manufacturers attempt to balance the longevity of their product to its natural sales lifetime. It's more profitable that way.

"Only stainless steel cutlery lasts forever." - Jazzy. Except when in the hands of Uri Geller, of course...


The tax generates income,yes,above all if we don´t become poorer and that tax is spent on resarch and development rather than on the same wealthy people´s pockets,which is the other face of the coin.That´s mi opinion.Fashion and innovation can be included in items without producing more ones,as that is a waste of materials,energy and time without saying there are a looot of people that they would not change devices,computers,cars...etc,if they would not be obliged because of obsolescence planned.

Mi friend told me,that energy is called "fission" and it is in regard to helium.I don´t know any more,but International companies have invested on a French business that work that.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
The tax generates income, yes, above all if we don´t become poorer, and that tax is spent on resarch and development rather than on the same wealthy people's pockets, which is the other face of the coin. That´s mi opinion.
That's a very poor argument. It wouldn't have been very productive if you used it in Britain in 1939. Our warming atmosphere is a deadlier threat than Nazi Germany ever was. People remain the same, mostly. You aren't going to change Human Nature overnight.

Fashion and innovation can be included in items without producing more ones, as that is a waste of materials, energy and time, without saying there are a lot of people that they would not change devices, computers,cars...etc, if they would not be obliged because of obsolescence planned.
Obsolescence isn't "planned", for reasons I have already stated. Things wear out.

Mi friend told me, that energy is called "fission" and it is in regard to helium. I don´t know any more, but International companies have invested on a French business that works that.
Helium 3 is found in Moon dust. Fusion is required to liberate the stored energy, I believe. (Groping somewhat!)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Helium 3 is found in Moon dust. Fusion is required to liberate the stored energy, I believe. (Groping somewhat!)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Power_generation
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Wow, that was quick. Thanks, Mick.

treasurecoastskywatch said:
Just like Hitler was a nice guy and never threatened or exterminated anyone.

If you cannot see the factual and scientific threat we all face right now, and deny the evidence, you are free to do so. But you force the rest of us to consider you a threat to our existence.

The fossil carbon we are rapidly returning to the atmosphere took hundreds of millions of years to be fixed in the ground.

Before it was fixed it had accumulated in the atmosphere in the time of Snowball Earth.

It accumulated to the point where the atmospheric heat melted the ice which had formerly covered the planet from pole to equator. The atmospheric temperature then rose by several tens of degrees until all non-coastal land became desert, and the sea level rose by a hundred and fifty feet.

If we ignore that, we will experience it.

Not "we", of course, but our miserably-damned descendants.
 

Lunnaris2012

New Member
Mick,¡buuuf!,It´s Chinese to me.My friend told me that is "fission",not "fusion"; it is based on helium and there are a lot of multinationals interested in it,at least in France.Is that true?
 
J

Joe

Guest
Wow, that was quick. Thanks, Mick.


Just like Hitler was a nice guy and never threatened or exterminated anyone.

If you cannot see the factual and scientific threat we all face right now, and deny the evidence, you are free to do so. But you force the rest of us to consider you a threat to our existence.

The fossil carbon we are rapidly returning to the atmosphere took hundreds of millions of years to be fixed in the ground.

Before it was fixed it had accumulated in the atmosphere in the time of Snowball Earth.

It accumulated to the point where the atmospheric heat melted the ice which had formerly covered the planet from pole to equator. The atmospheric temperature then rose by several tens of degrees until all non-coastal land became desert, and the sea level rose by a hundred and fifty feet.

If we ignore that, we will experience it.

Not "we", of course, but our miserably-damned descendants.
Like the trillions of debt ? Doesnt seem like anyone cares about that ? Hoax or a CONSPIRACY and hype all for money carbon taxes . What about the Nuclear threat ? Seems that would heat things up pretty fast yet we do nothing about that because we cant TAX it . I worry more they will try to fix something and only make it worse . If they spent all the time and money figuring out how to make carbon free power they would have solved it already . Yes they will stop China and India from emitting carbon ? What the hell does HITLER have to do with anything ??? So us carbon polluters are like Hitler ? Just because you live on a Island and can ride a bike anywhere doesnt make you a Saint !
 
J

Joe

Guest
I think the compressed air car idea never really took off, too many technical problems with storing that much energy in that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car

Remember this is really just a way of storing energy. Kind of like a battery, or a clockwork car.
mabe if they used CO2 instead . Then the can get credit for carbon sequestration until they use it ? In order to increase energy density, some systems may use gases that can be liquified or solidified. "CO2 offers far greater compressibility than air when it transitions from gaseous to supercritical form .
 
J

Joe

Guest
Something has to power the air compressor.
Yes they said it cost way less then to purchase gas . Could also use a compressor to slow the car down and regenerating the air pressure ? they also have Hybrids .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Just because you live on a Island and can ride a bike anywhere doesnt make you a Saint !
It seems you missed my point. It's a simple one.

If we continue putting back the carbon dioxide which at one time roasted the earth back into the atmosphere to do the job again, we shall roast ourselves. The proof of that is written in earth's rock.

It makes no difference whether "China won't stop" or "I am holier than thou" - it is still going to happen.

However, if we all believe in science and our ability to control ourselves, and stop burning fossil carbon, and take steps to mitigate the powerful processes already under way, it then will NOT happen.

That's our choice. There aren't any other options. So choose.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I am more pro fossil fuels than some, BUT we do need to be reducing the use of the worst offenders, especially coal. We need to help China and India reduce their dependence on them. The US and much of the developed world is sort of stuck for the next 15 -20 years at the best. We need to make sure that others develop without our dependence.

I wish we had continued the work on alternative energy sources after the oil embargo of the 70s.

I do my part, my power is green, I limit my driving, my hubby uses transit, we use CFL lights, own a small house.
 

mustanglovrsue

New Member
yes. mother nature can fix herself if we dont make it worse. man is on an ego trip if he thinks he can control the weather..
the scariest quote i ever heard..
'what mother nature has done for millions of years automaticly may now require mankinds help to keep the schedual'..
man screwed up the planet stop trying to fix it! no we can use up the planet, hop a missle and go screw up a new planet. thats not going to happen. what WILL happen, IMO, the earth is about to shed its skin, for lack of a better term. when the planet needs a forest seeded, it sends a lightning strike to burn the old trees , then it will rain when the proper amount of forest has burned. now brand new trees can be born. the planet knows how to fix itself if we dont screw it up too bad. but im positive, the earth is about to start it over.earth is going to shake like a wet dog, then burn off the forests and people, flood it out and start over brand new.. im telling ya, the earth is about to shed her skin ( humans) shake off us termits and start over brand new.. then life will begin again. probably wont be just like humans though, if you think about it the dinasours were not the best attempt at life. too big, ate all the food, so that plan got squashed, dinasours wiped out, start over..humans.. now look what we gone and done.we proved ourselfs to be selfish little pigs that leave nothing but mess, cant even get along with each other and are breeding way too fast. food sources will be gone soon, but the planet isnt stupid. it has fixed itself all this time, it will keep on long after humans are gone. im no 'end of the world' person, but its coming, within 50-100 years.my guess. i just hope it happens quick... call me crazy, thats whats going to happen!
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
yes. mother nature can fix herself if we dont make it worse. man is on an ego trip if he thinks he can control the weather..
the scariest quote i ever heard..
'what mother nature has done for millions of years automaticly may now require mankinds help to keep the schedual'..
man screwed up the planet stop trying to fix it! no we can use up the planet, hop a missle and go screw up a new planet. thats not going to happen. what WILL happen, IMO, the earth is about to shed its skin, for lack of a better term. when the planet needs a forest seeded, it sends a lightning strike to burn the old trees , then it will rain when the proper amount of forest has burned. now brand new trees can be born. the planet knows how to fix itself if we dont screw it up too bad. but im positive, the earth is about to start it over.earth is going to shake like a wet dog, then burn off the forests and people, flood it out and start over brand new.. im telling ya, the earth is about to shed her skin ( humans) shake off us termits and start over brand new.. then life will begin again. probably wont be just like humans though, if you think about it the dinasours were not the best attempt at life. too big, ate all the food, so that plan got squashed, dinasours wiped out, start over..humans.. now look what we gone and done.we proved ourselfs to be selfish little pigs that leave nothing but mess, cant even get along with each other and are breeding way too fast. food sources will be gone soon, but the planet isnt stupid. it has fixed itself all this time, it will keep on long after humans are gone. im no 'end of the world' person, but its coming, within 50-100 years.my guess. i just hope it happens quick... call me crazy, thats whats going to happen!
Nature will always fix itself. But our lifetime is but a moment to Nature.

It takes 10,000 years for an emerging volcanic island to develop a mature forest cover. We can do the same in the lifetime of a single tree.

If we don't set about acknowledging our wrecking of the earth's ecology and apply ourselves to immediate fixes, then our descendants (if there are any) are surely going to damn our eyes.
 
J

Joe

Guest
 

Boston

Active Member
[Admin: This new thread was split off from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/79...nd-debunkers-agree-upon-regarding-chemtrails]

Would you agree that it is a waste of money to try to alter the climate?

How can we agree on this complex information when Monckton makes a very good case (financial case) for doing nothing...

[video=youtube_share;RfkcpW93Z5Y]
Edit: (financial)

Monckton makes no case at all. If you'd like to discus any specific claiims he's making feel free to point them out but in the end he' really doesn't have clue what he's talking about
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
I don`t have a problem (if) Monckton is partially correct/correct or entirely wrong. But the same scientists who are funded with $Billions to inform us that the Earth is warming are the same scientists who were informing us of the impending "Ice Age" 30 odd years ago. They are as accurate as Monckton is (in my opinion).

Most of the articles on this site are not written by Monckton, but no doubt he supports them. These articles would have to be debunked before we can conclude that Monckton is debunked...?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/


Sorry friend but wrong on all counts. Monckton is pretty much wrong across the board and those scientists you seem to think are raking in billions are actually drinking really bad stale beer and eating cold pizza. I know a whole bunch of pretty big names in the field and even the best aren't exactly living high on the hog. Also that bit about our timing in the interglacial cycle, go look at the graphs and get back to us about where you think we should be vs where we are due to GHG emissions.
 

Boston

Active Member
Post was to be about ineffective carbon taxation schemes - and the carbon credit scam...

Whether AGW is really affecting the climate (more than sunspot activity) is wide open for debate...

Yet the taxation is massively, and increasingly, in effect...


actually there is absolutely no debate concerning the solar output and the alterations man has made in the atmospheric chemistry.

Solar output has nothing to do with the planets insulating layer being influenced by GHG emissions



Your confusing Milankovitch cycles with pollution
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
The subject is just too complex, and the opposing views have to mean that the science is NOT settled:

No they don't, if you look at the top 100 most published climate scientist you'll find one dissenting opinion, its either Christy or Spencer can't remember which. If you look at the top 500 you end up with two dissenting opinions. Both are being paid by the oil and gas industry. Its not exactly rocket science to figure out there really isn't a debate.
 

Boston

Active Member
Better not to waste $billions/($trillions) now based on what "might" happen sometime in the future?

So what 'WILL' happen in the future and 'WHEN' in the future will this happen?

And how much taxation is acceptable to try to avert this inevitable (event/s)?

Where would you draw the line, at what spending point, - and admit that a wait and see policy should be adopted - then attempt to tackle whatever 'might' happen 'if' and 'when' (whatever) does happen, if it ever does?

What "WILL" happen is that our planet "WILL" heat up proportionately to the level of CO2 within the atmosphere. As a result of that the ecosystem will change. The rate of change is the problem. But we can look at past climate events and estimate just what happens to the ecosystem when alterations in the climate system exceed x.

Go look up mass extinctions and get back to us on that one.

Oh, don't forget to calculate out the depth of the extinction and its rate of onset vs the rate of climate shift. Its kinda a wake up call. Think 4~6°C by the end of the century. Pretty much means the end of life as we know it and very very likely another snowball earth event. I posted some calculations as to just how accurate these statements are in another thread, don't remember the tittle of it at the moment but its around here somewhere if you care to look it up. Try KT boundary extinction as a key word, or maybe Permian Triassic boundary extinction, or Cambrian extinction. Oh hell just look up extinction in the search feature.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
How silly, Joe. The money moves, Joe. It doesn't disappear. It isn't destroyed. It is redirected. Stationary money is worthless. Moving money is useful.

All this argument about carbon taxes is a proxy argument of the energy companies. THEY don't want to vanish, but they surely will.

Either the present energy companies vanish, or the oceans arrive.

How expensive is an ocean rise of two hundred and fifty feet?

You should read up on the tragedy of the commons.
 
J

Joe

Guest
How silly, Joe. The money moves, Joe. It doesn't disappear. It isn't destroyed. It is redirected. Stationary money is worthless. Moving money is useful.

All this argument about carbon taxes is a proxy argument of the energy companies. THEY don't want to vanish, but they surely will.

Either the present energy companies vanish, or the oceans arrive.

How expensive is an ocean rise of two hundred and fifty feet?

You should read up on the tragedy of the commons.
Of course it moves . Into someones pocket . doesnt solve a problem it only enriches people . Its a SCAM . The Ocean that is filling on a daily basis with radiation from Japan ? The 3rd World War about to start over our stupid leaders ? Im supposed to worry about 3 degrees in a hundred years ? That is silly Jazzy ! 250 Feet ? LOL :)
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Of course it moves . Into someones pocket . doesnt solve a problem it only enriches people . Its a SCAM . The Ocean that is filling on a daily basis with radiation from Japan ? The 3rd World War about to start over our stupid leaders ? Im supposed to worry about 3 degrees in a hundred years ? That is silly Jazzy ! 250 Feet ? LOL :)
Watch your petroleum shares, then, if you must. It will be OK for you if you don't have children, don't live close to the sea, enjoy the taste of soylent green, don't mind fighting for your food.
Tragedy of the commons, Joe, tragedy of the commons. You're in the game. We all are.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Watch your petroleum shares, then, if you must. It will be OK for you if you don't have children, don't live close to the sea, enjoy the taste of soylent green, don't mind fighting for your food.
Tragedy of the commons, Joe, tragedy of the commons. You're in the game. We all are.
Florida ? I dont think there is one spot over 250 feet in the whole state
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Florida ? I dont think there is one spot over 250 feet in the whole state
That's right.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

Read the rest of it. It's a good read.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
Mick West Is this Twitter Bot trying to affect the national zeitgeist, or just spam? General Discussion 39
steve holmes I'm trying to ID the flight for this old photo of mine, Feb 19, 2014 5:25 pm Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Bass In Your Face Trying to create a simple Flat Earth experiment Flat Earth 23
P Hi all, I'm new to this forum, so still trying to find my way around. I wanted to comment regarding Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Seattle Trying to Ban Land Ownership in Name of Equality General Discussion 4
Mackdog Trying to Identify a plane I saw Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Clock A debunker trying to fit in... Site Feedback & News 19
MikeC The next evil plot to alter clouds? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Marin B Climate scientist on man-made clouds General Discussion 0
mrfintoil Climate change forum section? Site Feedback & News 27
Mick West Debunked: Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
T Explained/Debunked: "Irrefutable Footage of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying" - Explanations? Contrails and Chemtrails 20
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
keefe Debunking guide Practical Debunking 3
TEEJ "Airline Pilot" at Climate Engineering Awareness Day - Carlow, Eire, 22nd August 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
keefe Climate change and conspiracy theories - Lewandowsky General Discussion 3
Katie Seas GeoengineeringWatch.org: Are Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas?, Again? Conspiracy Theories 15
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
CeruleanBlu Airliner Emissions EPA Hearing General Discussion 15
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Auldy Claim: Satellites show global warming pause continues by CFACT Science and Pseudoscience 13
Mick West Hoax: Climate Engineering Pilot Disclosure? Contrails and Chemtrails 76
K Please help me find sources on anthropogenic climate change scientific consensus General Discussion 5
Belfrey "Climategate" and "Censored" Data General Discussion 4
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
Mick West Debunked: Renowned Physician Sounds The Alarm On Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
BlueCollarCritic Debunked: US AIrforce Admits that HARRP is used for Climate Engineering HAARP 7
mrfintoil Debunked: SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Steve Funk Internationally Recognized Theoretical Physicist Acknowledges Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Lone Bison Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate? Contrails and Chemtrails 233
Tim TheToolman Coles Debunked: Infowars: "Latest Climate Report Admits Chemtrails Exist" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
jvnk08 Monsanto acquires Climate Corporaton for $1.1 Billion Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Critical Thinker Flooding in Colorado caused by HAARP, nothing to do with Climate Change? Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Critical Thinker NASA: 'This September, Ask a NASA Climate Scientist' Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington & Co. get taken to the cleaners by climate scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 7
David Fraser They study Human Engineering for Climate Change. Conspiracy Theories 0
Kevin45345 Climate change deniers: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere General Discussion 2
Mick West How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what? Practical Debunking 534
Mick West Climate Scientist Alan Robock gets asked every chemtrail question in 11 minutes Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Spongebob Climate Change Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from humans Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Steve Funk The Climate Fixers Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Contrails in Teacher's Climate and Weather Text Book Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed Science and Pseudoscience 1
Related Articles
















































Related Articles

Top