Hmmm
I fail to see the point. You seem not to be able to tell the difference between the weather and the climate.
I'll grant you that there's a degree of poetic irony about it snowing during a debate on warming - but it's nothing more than that.
As for it being a scam, there's a number of obvious questions that present themselves. I'll ask just one here: cui bono?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:17,
Reply)
I have a feeling the words 'tax' 'control' and 'money' might come into this answer
*awaits*
(
The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:23,
Reply)
That's something I've never understood about these wackaloons...
The assumption seems to be along the lines that Gordon Brown, or whoever, earns a commission from HMRC and so has a personal interest in increasing the tax level.
That's the only sense I can make of it. Beyond that: I'm baffled.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:26,
Reply)
The people who benefit are those who are running the new "carbon trading" companies and those selling carbon licences
The people who lose are those who will have to buy carbon licences (motorists and new businesses)
(
CanonCaliber A big bore, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:27,
Reply)
Yes. That's it.
They invented global warming, convinced lawmakers all over the world, infiltrated the IPCC, and altered the laws of chemistry as they've been understood for the past couple of centuries.
Really? If they were that clever, wouldn't they have been able to hit on a simpler way of making a fortune?
Carbon trading has been proposed as a possible means of doing something about a recognised problem by privatising a public cost. It places an economic value on the environment, and thereby helps solve a problem of market failure.
It is not, as far as I can see, part of a conspiracy. If you have evidence to the contrary, please do say. I'm not going to hold my breath.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:31,
Reply)
Have a looksy at this.
globalwarmingquestions.googlepages.com/ipcc
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:36,
Reply)
I've only skim-read it, admittedly...
But this appears to be old hat. Self-referencing old hat at that.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:44,
Reply)
CO2 is an essential requirement for flora
Plants lock up CO2 so reducing CO2 levels will reduce the ability of plants to grow. The plan for large mirrors in space to reduce the solar energy reaching earth will only slow down plants photosynthesis and therefore will not reduce CO2 levels
A good sink of CO2 is timber yet forests are being cut down and burnt worldwide. Britain was once @90% woodland but now its only @12%
(
CanonCaliber A big bore, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:46,
Reply)
...
Reducing CO2 levels too far might be a bad idea - some greenhouse effect is a necessary criterion of there being any life on Earth at all - but that's not an argument against trying to keep them in the 300-450ppm range.
It's also the case, though, that we're emitting CO2 at a rate that would be impossible to counterbalance by reforestation, and that global warming (in the short term, at least) is likely to cause more plant deaths than growth owing to increased forest fires and so on.
Beyond that, cheers for pointing out the blindingly obvious.
Right: home time!
I think you're right that a space mirror would be a daft way to solve the problem, btw.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:53,
Reply)
Haha, you what?!
Muppet.
(
Fishcat Difficult difficult lemon difficult., Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:55,
Reply)
As mad as it sounds, the 'space mirror' was proposed years ago.
As part of Nasa's 'Geoengineering' plans.
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 16:17,
Reply)
Most CO2 is...
...absorbed by algae innit?
Seem to remember reading that this rainforest malarky is over-milked. But that's probably just disinformation from the giant lizards again.
Never trust a giant lizard.
(
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 16:24,
Reply)