dumb non sequitur used by all of your climate cultists

do you realise, the flat earthers were in the majority as they believed in the government of the time, ie the catholic church who created the flat earth 'reality'

the minority, including the great scientist Galileo were persecuted for disagreeing with the 97% of experts

so your flat earth analogy is misplaced as you are in fact the flat earther

CO2 is not pollution

err no.
it is you who have the anti science agenda as science is now being abused and positioned as a new age religion.
they can make you believe anything they want, they just stamp "science" on it and tell you to shut up and believe.

thats not science my friend. science is supposed to be challenged, its supposed to be questioned, particularly in cases where a theory is not proven. the marginalisation of the infidels to your climate alarmism is very much in line with the fanatical agenda of the flat earthers, who were quite successful in having society adopt their views.

you see like "flat earth" this very notion that humans are changing the climate is being used as a power play to the benefit of the powers that be of the time.

i probably went to secondary school at a different time to you. that they're now teaching you that CO2 is a pollutant is frankly outrageous and shocking.

if you were to remove CO2 from our atmosphere, every living thing on this plant would die.

How does that prove CO2 is not a pollutant? Whether or not CO2 is a pollutant depends on the context. Under certain circumstances Oxygen, O2, that we breathe is also a pollutant. Water can also be a pollutant.

Edited by chillbilly: 6/4/2014 12:07:57 PM

err, no we're not

too much of anything is bad but we're no where near that, and that doesnt make it a pollutant. you're a carbon based life form. too much oxygen will kill you too.

we've had higher concentrations in history

the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule and no where near dangerous to anyone or anything

Never said it was. Learn to read.

However, if we're releasing CO2 into the atmosphere faster than it can be eradicated, it's a pollutant.

Edited by afromanGT: 6/4/2014 12:22:18 PM

its part of the life cycle. its waste to us but its food for plant life.
plants and trees require it to photosynthesize

minuscule = 400 parts per million or 0.04 of a %

the graphics you're provided are skewed on their scales to make it look like its a massive fluctuation. that's part of the propaganda process to program you into thinking its out of control.

furthermore many of them are deliberately inaccurate in their historical data.
i've seen so many different versions of those graphs there really is no credibility to them.

when you're indoors in a crowded room you'll experience many more times CO2 concentration than what you'll experience outside.

concentrations that we'll never be reached in the atmosphere in millions of years...and you dont die because of it.

I haven't read the other 12 pages and it may have been said already, but if climate change really isn't at a point that we are made to believe, what is the point of creating this idea of climate change?

power and money

it actually was a legit theory in the 50/60's

Roger Revelle came up with it, then others saw it as an opportunity to capitalise on it

Edited by ricecrackers: 6/4/2014 12:37:36 PM

Who is gaining power and money?

its more a case of power or money when talking about individual entities

the global tax and trade benefits financial institutions and the financial industry around it
in the energy sector it makes coal less competitive which benefits the oil&gas industries. as a result, coal production in many western countries is down whilst natural gas production and usage is increasing.

its also a useful method of control by fear for collective governing institutions such as the UN and EU.

then there is the government grants and gravy train for scientists that follow. you wont get government funding if you dont agree with the dogma.

various alt energy industries also benefit by getting increased funding. eg Solyndra in the US received a large amount of grants however that eventually failed as it turned out to be good money after bad

i'm not necessarily a supporter of coal by the way however the issue with natural gas is due to its distribution method,
ie cross border pipelines... it does seem to contribute to most of the wars/conflicts going on these days...which is fine if you like war, but i'm not a fan of it personally as we just end up with more messed up and radicalised refugees

No it doesn't. Oil and Gas are just as bad for the environment and no matter what companies claim sooner or later people pay attention to the facts. Take the Cigarette companies trying to claim that Cigarettes weren't bad for you as an example.

I haven't put much thought into the subject of climate change.

But I can totally understand if it did exist. The level of industrialization, cars on the road, level of electricity use etc has never been higher and the percentage of the earth covered in forest has never been lower.

So for this to have an impact on the climate and atmosphere seems logical to me.

Can you quit it with the non sequiturs please? The planet doesnt have cancer ok. Stay on topic.

Oil and gas are harmful for the environment, I'm not disputing that at all, never did; however that industry is still a beneficiary of the climate change scam.

Take Australia for example, for one, transportation is exempt from the carbon tax.

The carbon tax is calculated on CO2 units, which isnt actual CO2 but greenhouse equivalent based on CO2.

So how do you tax an energy production industrial?

As far as i can tell, the only way you can is by taxing output by calculating how much volume they sell upstream.
From that you calculate how much CO2 is produced when its converted to energy.
That cost is passed down the line and eventually worn by the consumer. ie you, the pleb.

There may be other ways to calculate CO2 production based on measuring volume flow of a particular industrial process.

However, you cant calculate leakage of CH4, as its leakage. There's no accurate way you can do that, so that wont be taxed.
It doesnt matter that the gas industry is probably going to create more greenhouse emissions in total because they'll still win over coal via this scam any which way you measure it.

So as you point out, if CO2 emissions are about 50% from NG than that of coal, that makes coal less competitive.
As a result, coal prices will dive to ensure it stays in the marketplace.

This has actually happened and the results have caused the likes of Nathan Tinkler to go bankrupt.

It doesnt matter that the gas industry have to pay the tax because the cost is passed onto the consumer and with the main benefit of eliminating their main competitor from the energy sector.

So you see why its in the interests of the oil&gas industry to help promote this lie?

And meanwhile such a carbon tax or ETS or any way you want to structure the financial side of it... the result will actually increase the number of your greenhouse gas emissions due to a larger uptake in the natural gas industry and the CH4 leakage that occurs throughout the lifecycle from mining to transportation of the fuel.

Ricecrackers, it seems you've done a lot of research on the issue and you make interesting points.

Are you a believer of any other conspiracy theories or are you just interested in the climate change subject?

I'm very open minded when it comes to these things

Transportation is exempt because automobiles vary too greatly in emissions and petrol usage. The petroleum companies are still subject to the taxes.

Personal transportation is completely separate to power companies.

Edited by afromanGT: 6/4/2014 02:12:13 PM

He's the village idiot.

i dont believe in conspiracy theories, i believe in facts and reality
the world is full of scams

all profit is based on the profiteer knowing something the loss maker doesnt. thats reality and this is an example of it.

the knowledge gap is exploited in all walks of life to derive such profit

you've completely missed the point of my lengthy post.
i doubt you properly read it and i'm certain you didnt comprehend it.

nothing new for you, you've got form in this area

So what's your view on 9/11. And please don't tell me a plane hit the pentagon.

You can probably guess my view from the above statement :d

I stopped reading because every point you tried to make was wrong. For example:

So if a bottle is leaking from a hole I can't tell how much is leaking? If you know how much product you begin with and how much product you end with you know what the leakage is.

I dont know. Too much time has passed and too much pollution has entered the discussion about it to know whats valid and what's not any more. Its too much of a waste of time to get involved.

The only thing I would say is the Saudis seemed to get off quite lightly (ie entirely) in the US response whilst a number of other non involved countries shouldered the burden.

not if it occurs during the mining process you dope #-o

Sure they can. They calculate the approximate volume of the deposit before they start mining. Which is significantly easier with Gas than it is with Oil.

:oops: approximate volumes. you cannot be serious, what are you 14 or something?. my god you are stupid. i'm sorry, but you just are i have to call a spade a spade here.

even for midstream, do you really think the government is going to have a person monitoring gas inventory at every phase of the process?

because if you do then i have some land to sell you

The government doesn't have to when the companies are self policing. If there's a leak they HAVE to know when where and how much because mistakes in this industry kill people via gases exposed to flames, or simply through asphyxia. The idea that every stage of the process isn't carefully monitored to prevent such things is absolutely moronic.

"Oh, we're just going to mine this lethal shit out of the ground and not bother with any kind of safety procedures."

Fucking moron. And the nerve to call me stupid #-o

self policing
fucking LOL

this has got nothing to do with safety you dope, this is about a greenhouse tax

you are stupid

Wow. Your stupidity actually made my head hurt then.

Firstly. You and ricecrackers are fucking pathetic. Grow up and stop sword fighting it's childish.

Secondly, extraction procedures generally aren't monitored. Santos alone has like 200 wells in QLD alone. They might send a bloke out there every once and a while to check out what's going on but that's about it.

There are standard procedures re. not killing drillers and offsiders but gas does leak out. It takes time to remove a drill head and cap the well.