'Climate Change' and Carbon Tax ... Your Thoughts
-
Hi All,
Over the past few years I have been reading and reviewing anything and everything I can, to get a better handle on 'Climate Change'.
As we all know there are always two sides to every story but in the case of 'Climate Change' it seems to be what I would call, the Religion of Climate Change on one hand and on the other, the 'Deniers'.
In my own country, Ireland, we will be facing heavier Carbon Taxes! I have for some time, due to my skeptical mind, been wondering if the Climate Change agenda is being used to generate further taxes on the ordinary man and woman? I have often thought the elites would like the tax the air we breath if they could find a way to do so .... maybe they see Carbon Tax as the next best thing.
The following are three links to YouTube discussions on the subject.. If you have the time to view I would value your opinions.
The In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud
Youtube VideoPCC pressure tactics exposed: A Climategate Backgrounder
Youtube VideoProfessor Ian Plimer book launch - Not For Greens
Youtube VideoBTW, I most definitely would like to see diminishing resources conserved and the air quality in cities and towns improved .... thats a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. However, I would like to learn the proven facts and hopefully the truth if it is possible at this time. I am really not interested in joining a religious like cult that is trying to brainwash people and alienate 'Deniers'.
-
Hi Mike
I watched your first video all the way through, I found it very similar to many other carefully crafted, soothing, soft-spoken propaganda films on various other subjects. Much like them, it calmly debunks the subject without actually offering any evidence of it's own, It simply tries to discredit 'the other side'. Similar presentations will have you convinced that J.F.K shot himself while lunching on the grassy knoll, but then went on to direct the filming of the fake moon landings.
You only need to go through the comments to get a feel for the audience of this video.I started to watch your second video, but as soon as the same 'Historian' appeared I turned it off.
I started watching your third and immediately recognised the accent as being very close to home. The Greens party subject is a highly politicized subject and extremely open to partisanship. The video is also quite old and Ian Pilmer is rather well entrenched with mining interests.
You can read a rebuttal to one of his articles here if you wish.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/de-smogging-mining-director-ian-plimers-anti-climate-rant-in-the-australian-63808/
Simply a random google search link, not from a publication I read, no different to clicking a youtube link. Having read it again I notice it also refers to many of the 'facts' used in the first video.Nothing I have said above means I agree or disagree with either side of the Climate change debate, only commenting on and pointing out the limitations of internet information and the difficulty with deciding what is legitimate.
In these days of Trump and his 'If I say it often enough it will be true' nonsense we need to be very discerning in our choices when it comes to information gathering.
By the way, having watched the tide marks rise every year since I was a kids, and recently having spent a significant amount of time helping protect many friends properties from horrendous fires, It's quite clear to me that in certain places there is no sand left to bury your head in. -
I'd throw in Patrick Moore as a better presenter on the subject from one perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
No doubt there are equally compelling replies from others.
As an aside, Patrick Moore has been known to refer to Monsanto as nothing more than a seed company. -
Just raise the price of the oil
to be around 1.3 euro like in Europe.
The taxes are, of course the way to spread the load from a few to many. That's how capitalism work. The last in chain pay.
The greatest polluters seams to be the most powerful countries in the World.
https://ceasepollution.com/top-10-biggest-polluters-in-the-world/ -
Short and sweet, to deny climate change? then you probably have a financial interest in nothing changing. There are so many opportunities in alternative energy's Countries that lag will pay the price.
-
My thoughts? An awful lot of otherwise sensible people around the world have, to use a phrase that the OP Mike Lucey may recognise, 'lost the run of themselves'. No longer a debate but only entrenched opinions and scant respect for those who might dissent.
So just to throw something into the mix here's a visual representation of the transport and material requirements for a, not untypical, 7 unit upland wind turbine project. You know, the ones that will let us cool down and breath fresh air? The cubes of stone and concrete, as well as the vehicles, are all modelled to the correct size. The standing turbines are, of course, the same ones as represented on the vehicles. The items shown are by no means all that would be assembled for a project of this size. Maybe not so 'Green' when viewed in this way?
-
@mike amos said:
The grasslands that cattle feed on take in more CO2 than the cows expire, the difference is methane which nobody out there is talking about methane as a problem.
Cows have evolved to be really good at eating and digesting grass. If, as some would have it, we all switched to a plant based diet would that affect the balance of CO2/methane production? I would hazard a guess that we are nowhere near as good as cows when it comes to living on just green stuff. What would the world look like then? Or more to the point - smell like? Also, what about all the trousers that would go south without the support of a good leather belt! Hold on, there's always plastic I suppose.
-
It is actually very simple - the Nature just can't cope with our consumption anymore.There is no more balance, no time to recover. And we are trying to solve the problem with ..."green" consumption! Ironically, the Nature just gave us a sign - the Coronavirus forces us to restrict our consumption in many ways!
"Satellite images have shown a dramatic decline in pollution levels over China, which is "at least partly" due to an economic slowdown prompted by the coronavirus, US space agency Nasa says."
-
Simply put, there are too many of us.
-
-
@mike amos said:
Simply put, there are too many of us.
-
A couple of thoughts to ponder.
According to Forbes in 2018:
World Oil Production Per Day - 92.6 Million Barrels
@ 39.4 Imperial gallons per barrel, that means that per year,Oil 1,179,585,100,000 gallons are produced (Trillion)
Natural Gas 355,000,000,000 cu ft (Billion)
Coal 8,561,852,178 Tons (billion)
These numbers have risen steadily over the last 8 years for Oil, Coal is down to a 1% increase last year.
There is of course natural sequestration of some of this, and not all is put directly into the atmosphere, but is used to produce products such as plastics etc.I heard a great analogy. If we think of our atmosphere as a glass of water. If you add a little salt to that water, no problem, you can still drink it with no harm, a little more salt, starts to taste, but still the body can handle it.
If you keep adding salt there is a point where the water cannot be consumed without adverse effects to the body. In fact at first you feel nausea, weakness and even delirium. As you become more dehydrated, the coping mechanism fails. If you still don't drink any water to reverse the effects of excess sodium, the brain and other organs receive less blood, leading to coma, organ failure and eventually death. -
Sadly there are people looking to make money either side of the equation and they drive the solutions. Pure electric has an ecological cost just like ICE does but the problems is that the ideology of change is fixated on that being the only way. The grasslands that cattle feed on take in more CO2 than the cows emit, the difference is methane which nobody out there is talking about methane as a problem. There was a story in the media about crustaceans expiring CO2 and how this was a new problem. Newsflash guys, anything that uses O2 will put out CO2.
The life emissions of my car are I am sure quite reasonable despite being quite old but the CO emissions beat the regulations for cars 25 years younger by a healthy margin (1/3 of the permitted level actually) due to good servicing and maintenance and not being replaced by newer vehicles which have more gadgets and are heavier etc. I still get people telling me I am evil and should get an electric car. People are fixating on one thing which is never a good idea when dealing with real problems and as it is stupid I get more than a bit annoyed at the money grabbers. Did anyone consider the extra pollution created by all the extinction rebellion protests? No because it is inconvenient.
Just a point on packaging. We were arguing about the excess of plastic packaging etc when I was in school and the industry said it would take thirty years to solve and government gave way. What is there argument now that they are making the problem worse but have had more than the thirty years to fix the problem? Anything worthwhile?
-
Another slant on things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXdhTwO320
-
-
I am all for improving the climate, just not some of the people/motives behind the current rubbish being spouted and the profiteering that goes on.
Sadly 
Advertisement