Princeton Physicist: Global Warming is Bullshit

Search

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
It doesn't matter how much we do or do not influence these things because the objective of the government globul warming propaganda is to tax you to the max.

"Global-warming" is a government tax brand for making profit, like "coca-cola" is a sales brand for making profit.
:grandmais


In many places things like "road-maintenance-tax" are no longer even spent on roads, the system has gone insane and just wants money, and it doesn't give a fuk how it gets it.

Modern governments are tax-cash junkies.
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
Eek, which global warming taxes exist? At least here in Germany, where the government is, I believe, more pro-global warming than in America, I can see no global warming taxes intended to raise additional money for the government. Yes, you have to pay more when using a "dirty" car but you get tax breaks when you use "clean" cars. And the changes required of the industry in order to fulfil the set environmental goals will cost the industry a lot of money to implement, meaning the profits will decrease -> less taxes for the government.

I don't claim to be a tax expert, it's well possible that I'm missing something here, but at the moment I cannot find much that supports the spreading theory that global warming is intended to create more tax revenue.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Maybe I can get a government grant to get a bidet.

Always wanted one.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Since we can't do anything about the sun dosent it make sense to try and reduce the man made causes?
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,544
Tokens
eek, people love 'going green' these days. It's the trend. Your standard light bulb won't even be available for purchase soon, going to be all fluorescent and then eventually LED.

Have you ever seen a LED flashlight? They are rediculously bright and effecient.

yes good ol fluorescent light bulbs, the majority of which get buried in our landfills to add mercury into the soil. sounds green to me :toast:

at least you're not telling me, like sheryl crow, to use one square of toilet paper per sitting
 

WNBA Guru
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
4,836
Tokens
KHbwvJZPVr_manbearpig.jpg
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
Eek, which global warming taxes exist? At least here in Germany, where the government is, I believe, more pro-global warming than in America, I can see no global warming taxes intended to raise additional money for the government. Yes, you have to pay more when using a "dirty" car but you get tax breaks when you use "clean" cars. And the changes required of the industry in order to fulfil the set environmental goals will cost the industry a lot of money to implement, meaning the profits will decrease -> less taxes for the government.

I don't claim to be a tax expert, it's well possible that I'm missing something here, but at the moment I cannot find much that supports the spreading theory that global warming is intended to create more tax revenue.
Filter out the raving nonsense in this article and it gives various real world UK examples P.
http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/040907Tax.htm

If europe was SERIOUS about saving the planet and all the little fluffy things then, for example, it would issue a moratorium(ban) on commercial fishing in eu waters Preussen.
Fish stocks in eu waters have been annihilated over the last 20 years.

What's the latest genius suggestion from the EU?

Rod licences and catch limits for sport fishermen...:nohead:


There's no profit for the EU government in saving the fish stocks in our seas, so they won't be saved, they'll just mess about until there's nowt left.
They CAN "save us" from globul warming tho, because there's lots of taxes to be had there.

http://www.worldseafishing.com/news/angling_trust_release_jan.html
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
The main reason the German Gov is pushing the green energy thing so hard is because they don't want to rely on Russia for strategic levels of energy, which I can't blame you guys for, it's not like you're the bestest of buddies.

The French just build more nuclear stuff if there's a shortfall in their strategic energy requirements.

In Britain we use the old tried and tested British strategy of drinking tea and running around like a headless chicken until there's a national crisis.

:grandmais
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
Filter out the raving nonsense in this article and it gives various real world UK examples P.
http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/040907Tax.htm
...

You are right, there is a lot of nonsense in this article.
The examples you mention are, I guess, "...fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme".

Fuel duty and vehicle excise duty have been there for a long time, long before global warming ever became an issue, the EU Emissions Trading scheme is, as far as I know, not designed to bring revenue, and the other three taxes' revenue are probably significantly lower than the social costs of the pollution they are intended to limit.

Eek, I fully agree with you that lots of things are going wrong in the EU's environmental policies (and not only there), and it's also obvious that governments sometimes use money raised by "green" taxes for other means, just like they sometimes don't use other revenues for their intended purposes. But any theories that there is a giant conspiracy and governments are promoting global warming against better judgement just to create additional taxes are, I think, rather kooky.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
in other news aussies saying eat kangroos and camels instead of cows (they fart too damn much) to combat global warming

-----------------

Put kangaroos, camels on Australian eco-menu: scientists
(Agencies)
Updated: 2009-01-05 14:26
Comments(0) PrintMail

SYDNEY – Saving the planet by eating kangaroos and wild camels may seem like pie in the sky, but the offbeat menu comes with a scientific stamp of approval in Australia.

The aim in both cases is to reduce damage to the environment, but the reasoning behind the push to put the animals on the menu is sharply different.

In the case of kangaroos, environmentalists say the national animal should become a dietary staple in place of cattle and sheep as part of the fight against global warming.

The farm animals make a major contribution to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions simply by belching and farting, while kangaroos emit negligible amounts of dangerous methane gas.

In other words, there should be more kangaroos and fewer farm animals.

"For most of Australia's human history -- around 60,000 years -- kangaroo was the main source of meat," the government's top climate change adviser Professor Ross Garnaut noted in a major report on global warming recently.

"It could again become important."

In the case of camels, scientists say eating the imported animals would be one way of reducing the million-strong feral herd -- one of the largest on earth -- running amok in the fragile ecosystems of the outback.

"Eat a camel today, I've done it," says Professor Murray McGregor, co-author of a three-year study on the humpbacked pests presented to the government last month.

In each case, the scientists admit they face a struggle to change Australia's eating habits, but believe strongly in the need to somehow cut the numbers of sheep, cattle and camels.

Garnaut's study concluded that by 2020, beef cattle and sheep numbers could be reduced by seven million and 36 million respectively, allowing for an increase in kangaroo numbers to 240 million by 2020, from 34 million now.

He acknowledged, however, that there were some problems in this plan, including livestock and farm management issues, consumer resistance and the gradual nature of change in food tastes.

The idea of farming kangaroos -- which appear on the Australian coat of arms -- for human consumption is distasteful to some, but many health-conscious Australians already eat kangaroo meat.

"It's low in fat, it's got high protein levels, it's very clean in the sense that basically it's the ultimate free range animal," says Peter Ampt of the University of New South Wales's institute of environmental studies.

A similar argument was put forward last month in an attempt to whet Australian appetities for camel meat.

A three-year study found that Australia's population of more than a million feral camels is out of control and damaging fragile desert ecosystems, water sources, rare plants and animals.

The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, which produced the report presented to the federal government, said a good way to bring down the number of camels is to eat them.

"It's beautiful meat. It's a bit like beef. It's as lean as lean, it's an excellent health food," said McGregor.

Unlike the native kangaroo, camels were introduced into Australia as pack animals for the vast outback in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but were released into the wild as rail and road travel became more widespread.

With few natural predators and vast sparsely-populated areas in which to roam, the population has soared to around a million and is now doubling about every nine years, the centre's Glenn Edwards told AFP.

While putting camels on the menu could help reduce their numbers, and is one of the proposals in the report, Edwards admits it is unlikely that Australia can eat its way out of the problem.

Hundreds of thousands of camels will have to be removed to bring the numbers down to a point where they cause minimal damage, he said.

"I think (eating them) is an option that may work in some areas but it won't be the panacea," he said.

The local market for camel meat would be limited and even given the fact that there is a large demand from some countries overseas it would be difficult to harvest and process the animals.

"To commercially use camels in that way you need to have access to them -- so you need roads and, depending on how you are processing them, electricity and water.

"Parts of the range have the infrastructure but other places are simply too remote, nobody lives out there."

The only way to deal with the populations in those areas if they did not become commercially viable would be to shoot them from helicopters, he said, and leave them to rot.

Switching from cattle and sheep to kangaroos also faces problems, said beef farmer Kelvin Brown.

"In theory farming kangaroos is probably good because they are selective grazers, don't tend to overgraze country and have a good conversion rate of feed into meat," he said from his farm Ykicamoocow.

But the practicalities would keep farmers on the hop.

"You would need ten-feet (three-metre) high fencing similar to the deer industry," Brown said.

Transporting kangaroos to the abattoir would also be fraught with difficulties.

"You are dealing with an animal that isn't used to being touched or herded and apparently they do have quite high rates of heart attacks from fright and also tend to damage themselves quite easily, break legs, things like that.

"So although this idea of farming kangaroos is good, probably the only way you could do it would be to shoot the kangaroos on the farm and have some system of butchering on site."

Given the difficulties, it seems that kangaroos and camels will not become a staple of the Australian diet any time soon and environmentalists will have to look elsewhere for solutions to the planet's problems.
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
You are right, there is a lot of nonsense in this article.
The examples you mention are, I guess, "...fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme".

Fuel duty and vehicle excise duty have been there for a long time, long before global warming ever became an issue, the EU Emissions Trading scheme is, as far as I know, not designed to bring revenue, and the other three taxes' revenue are probably significantly lower than the social costs of the pollution they are intended to limit.

Eek, I fully agree with you that lots of things are going wrong in the EU's environmental policies (and not only there), and it's also obvious that governments sometimes use money raised by "green" taxes for other means, just like they sometimes don't use other revenues for their intended purposes. But any theories that there is a giant conspiracy and governments are promoting global warming against better judgement just to create additional taxes are, I think, rather kooky.
I KNEW you'd say that!

The tax names are the same but...in the interests of globul warming...these taxes have all been revamped and increased, in some cases hugely increased.

Governments aint daft.
A brand new tax is political suicide, and would be used as a political club to beat them with, so they simply upscale existing taxes.

It appears that you do relatively little research on these things which means the government can run rings around you.

Simply fobbing off stuff like the almost complete annihilation of fish stocks over DECADES as "lots of things are going wrong in the EU's environmental policies" is ignoring the blatant fact that they actually really don't give a flying fuk about the environment.

I would guess that you're a "believer" in green stuff.
So as long as your government issues the necessary propaganda stating that it's supporting your particular religion, then that's fine with you.
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
Fish dumping for example, has been going on for decades.

Watch the video Preussen.

The EU and european governments have ignored this insanity because most people don't have a clue about it, so its not a big issue in the governments environmental(AKA "green") propaganda war.

--------------------------------------------------------


<TABLE class=storycontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Fish 'worth £40m' dumped annually


</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storybody><!-- S BO --><!-- Inline Embbeded Media --><!-- This is the embedded player component --><OBJECT id=embeddedPlayer_7636203 height=287 width=448 classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000>
























</OBJECT>
<!-- companion banner --><!-- END - companion banner --><!-- caption -->Norwegian coastguards filmed Scottish trawlermen dumping fish
<!-- END - caption -->
<!-- end of the embedded player component --><!-- END of Inline Embedded Media --><!-- S SF -->
Scottish fishing boat skippers dump up to £40m of fish each year due to "crazy" EU rules, it has been claimed.
Fisheries Secretary Richard Lochhead was speaking at a major summit on dead fish being thrown back into the sea because of quota restrictions.
The Scottish Government wants a change in European policy to end the practice.
Fishermen have said they could land what they catch in return for spending fewer days at sea. The summit is being held in Edinburgh. <!-- E SF -->
Mr Lochhead said the rules had led to the economic and environmental "madness".
<!-- S IBOX --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=231 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>
o.gif
</TD><TD class=sibtbg>
start_quote_rb.gif
I am confident that Scotland can play a leading role in finding a way of allowing fishermen to land much more of the fish which they catch but are currently forced to discard
end_quote_rb.gif



Richard Lochhead
Fisheries Secretary

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IBOX -->
It is estimated about 100,000 tonnes of fish are dumped by Scottish boats in the North Sea every year.
Mr Lochhead said: "I am appalled and frustrated at the scandalous level of waste and the economic and environmental madness discards represent. In what other industry would it be acceptable to throw away so much of what is produced?
"Responsible and hard-working skippers are heartbroken because they have to throw away precious fish. That is why they, like me, are determined to tackle the scourge of discards. <!-- Inline Embbeded Media --><!-- This is the embedded player component -->
<OBJECT id=embeddedPlayer_7634922 height=106 width=226 classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000>
























</OBJECT>

<!-- end of the embedded player component --><!-- END of Inline Embedded Media -->"The scale of the problem beggars belief. Crazy European regulations mean that at a time of worldwide food shortages and higher food prices at home, our fishermen are having to throw away up to £40m worth of fish for which there is a perfectly good market." He added: "Clearly, given the current European rules and regulations we can't do it alone, but I am confident that Scotland can play a leading role in finding a way of allowing fishermen to land much more of the fish which they catch but are currently forced to discard. "This would benefit fishermen, consumers and the environment."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7635151.stm
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
Every single fishing boat in Scotland does this, every single one.
Its almost unimaginable, this laying waste and destruction of nature for no good reason.
But it happens out of sight, "so it doesn't matter".

I spent a day on a prawn boat, which by default catches a lot of other fish as they drag their nets.

Any other fish caught get dumped because they only have a licence for landing prawns.

It's insanity, it's been going on for decades and if you think the government is going to save nature then you're not taking a good hard look at what governments are actually doing.

You're green energy policies in Germany are mainly because your government doesn't want to rely on the Big Bad Russkies for energy, not because they want to save the planet and the cute furry things.
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,227
Tokens
Eek, are you trying to pull an MJ on me by alleging assertions I never made and debating side issues? I'm most certainly not trying to defend the EU policies or national governments, and I'm also by no means a believer in "green stuff".

All I'm saying is that I don't believe in the kooky conspiracy theory claiming that governments are promoting the global warming theory despite knowing that it's wrong because they want to increase taxes. I have read lots of things about this supposed conspiracy but so far nothing that might give any actual credit to it.


Btw the main reason for the green energy policies in Germany is certainly not that we want to be independant from Russia in terms of energy. If that were the goal, why would Germany have decided to quit nuclear energy?
Why can't you just believe that there is a large enviromental awareness in Germany which influences policies? For example, almost 10% of the members of the German parliament are from "Die Gruenen" (The Greens), a party founded in the 80's whose main issues are environmental. You can safely assume that in addition to these "extreme" environmentalists there are lots of others, just a little more moderate, in the other parties.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, on the contrary, there are lots of things I dislike about the mindset of environmentalists, but to deny that they are a political force means ignoring reality.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Water on the top of my bird bath froze last night.

Alert the polar bears that they can quit treading water.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,934
Messages
13,575,413
Members
100,883
Latest member
iniesta2025
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com