Europe Could Place Carbon Tax On U.S. Goods

[Frank Merton]

One of the purposes of the regulation of financial institutions, such as banks and insurance companies, where the company makes money by taking on risk, is to stop practices by the dishonest of lowering standards and prices competitively, driving conservative underwriters out of business and then a few years down the road going bankrupt, walking away with huge fees and salaries.

In spite of regulator activity, this still happens, although just to a somewhat diminished degree.  The opposite extreme, where regulators dictate underwriting practices and prices, is almost impossible to carry out and creates inefficiencies and gaps in coverage and availability and no end of other problems.

The simplistic approaches I see being posted and read out of the Trump people is seriously worrisome.

[bee]

17 hours ago, Setton said:

Nothing to do with being sore losers. Your government (finally) made a commitment to cut emissions and actually tackle this problem. Your incoming government wants to go back on that promise. You can't make a decision to mess up our atmosphere and our countries and not expect us to respond.

Good for Sarkozy. Hope other signatories follow his lead.

.

Apparently the ozone hole is 'healing' itself - hooray!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/30/ozone-layer-hole-appears-to-be-healing-scientists-say

while man made emissions can cause a certain level of (localized?) pollution - I'm really suspicious that the whole thing
has been a bit of a con --- and the real heavy pollution in the atmosphere causing damage to the ozone layer
was all the nuclear testing - but this had to be hushed up and so the finger got pointed at not just industry but
the common man / woman for using aerosol sprays etc --

I have also come across the idea that the crafty globalists are using the global warming issue as another way to unify the
planet politically as another preparation for the march towards the New World Order...

I feel that the Global Elite working to their secret agenda -- is opportunist and used global warming / ozone damage to
help cover up the damage caused by nuclear detonations and at the same time use it as a political tool -

maybe good old earth is naturally healing herself from all the nuclear tests and it's got nothing to do with energy saving
light bulbs, carbon tax etc.

I remember years ago when there was a scandal about global warming data being falsified and it got exposed -
could have been at a British University?? (can't be bothered to look it up right now)

I was --- why on earth would they do that - how ridiculous - but now I have my suspicions why - 

 

 

[bee]

.

Steve Hughes brings the subject up --- at 1:15 ----

 

 

[Torchwood]

When the 15 warmest years of the last century have all been in the last 16 years, and the planets average temperature is going up and up, then it doesnt really matter whats causing it- yes it might be a little bit natural causes, but the only factor that we know for a fact is new to the scene is the human race producing huge amounts of harmful gasses etc.  Either way we have to recognise that if the average temperature continues to rise (and it will) it will be bad for us, unless we do something.  

[bee]

7 hours ago, bee said:

 

I remember years ago when there was a scandal about global warming data being falsified and it got exposed -
could have been at a British University?? (can't be bothered to look it up right now)

 

.

I've bothered to look for it now ---  ----it was East Anglia University that was involved --

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

quote...

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

and

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

quote...

The emails appeared to show researchers discussing how to manipulate historical temperature data and dodge requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
 

,

[aztek]

3 hours ago, Torchwood said:

  Either way we have to recognise that if the average temperature continues to rise (and it will) it will be bad for us, unless we do something.  

we do recognize, however  global temp has been up and down as long as earth  exists, humans or not, this is not the first time it happens, it is however the first time when so many of us affected by it. just because we exist does not mean we caused it.  if anything pollution, deforestation, changing river flow, oceans are dump yards, all of them, sea floor is covered with garbage,....etc, is what we need to recognize and figure how to reverse\fix it. not because it changes climate that would change without us anyway, but because we are poisoning ourselves  and destroying ecosystem.  

 

[Setton]

8 hours ago, bee said:

.

Apparently the ozone hole is 'healing' itself - hooray!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/30/ozone-layer-hole-appears-to-be-healing-scientists-say

while man made emissions can cause a certain level of (localized?) pollution - I'm really suspicious that the whole thing
has been a bit of a con --- and the real heavy pollution in the atmosphere causing damage to the ozone layer
was all the nuclear testing - but this had to be hushed up and so the finger got pointed at not just industry but
the common man / woman for using aerosol sprays etc --

I have also come across the idea that the crafty globalists are using the global warming issue as another way to unify the
planet politically as another preparation for the march towards the New World Order...

I feel that the Global Elite working to their secret agenda -- is opportunist and used global warming / ozone damage to
help cover up the damage caused by nuclear detonations and at the same time use it as a political tool -

maybe good old earth is naturally healing herself from all the nuclear tests and it's got nothing to do with energy saving
light bulbs, carbon tax etc.

I'm sorry but all I can say to the above is: go and study earth sciences. Not just read about it on the internet and watch videos. Actually study it. There is a reason virtually every scientist in the world agrees on this and it's not because of some conspiracy.

Quote

I remember years ago when there was a scandal about global warming data being falsified and it got exposed -
could have been at a British University?? (can't be bothered to look it up right now)

I was --- why on earth would they do that - how ridiculous - but now I have my suspicions why - 

It was the University of East Anglia and a big scandal at the time. There's no defence for it and those who falsified data will probably never be published again. The scientific community comes down hard on those who fake results precisely because it makes doing real science that much more difficult. It's natural to doubt all scientists because some falsified their data. It's also incorrect to do so.

[ellapenella]

9 hours ago, bee said:

.

Apparently the ozone hole is 'healing' itself - hooray!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/30/ozone-layer-hole-appears-to-be-healing-scientists-say

while man made emissions can cause a certain level of (localized?) pollution - I'm really suspicious that the whole thing
has been a bit of a con --- and the real heavy pollution in the atmosphere causing damage to the ozone layer
was all the nuclear testing - but this had to be hushed up and so the finger got pointed at not just industry but
the common man / woman for using aerosol sprays etc --

I have also come across the idea that the crafty globalists are using the global warming issue as another way to unify the
planet politically as another preparation for the march towards the New World Order...

I feel that the Global Elite working to their secret agenda -- is opportunist and used global warming / ozone damage to
help cover up the damage caused by nuclear detonations and at the same time use it as a political tool -

maybe good old earth is naturally healing herself from all the nuclear tests and it's got nothing to do with energy saving
light bulbs, carbon tax etc.

I remember years ago when there was a scandal about global warming data being falsified and it got exposed -
could have been at a British University?? (can't be bothered to look it up right now)

I was --- why on earth would they do that - how ridiculous - but now I have my suspicions why - 

 

 

 

The ozone hole opened up over the Antarctic due to the vast amounts of cloud that forms over the coldest continent on Earth. This cloud helps the CFC chemicals linger, causing the ozone layer to be eaten away. The void is at its greatest during the southern hemisphere’s spring.

 

 

[bee]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

I'm sorry but all I can say to the above is: go and study earth sciences. Not just read about it on the internet and watch videos. Actually study it. There is a reason virtually every scientist in the world agrees on this and it's not because of some conspiracy.

.

Don't you think all those nuclear detonations could have had a detrimental effect on the ozone layer ?

'''Virtually every scientist in the world'''' is a big (unsupported) statement and reminds me of the Steve Hughes
comedy sketch  

.

[ellapenella]

1 minute ago, bee said:

.

Don't you think all those nuclear detonations could have had a detrimental effect on the ozone layer ?

'''Virtually every scientist in the world'''' is a big (unsupported) statement and reminds me of the Steve Hughes
comedy sketch  

.

Of course they are to blame.

 

 

[ellapenella]

If cloud coverage helps the CFC chemicals linger, causing the ozone layer to be eaten away. and if they only had  cloud machine's who knows what they have in certain parts of the world. What's in Antarctica ?

but, I would think that anyone in  the right mind would NOT  purposely do that...especially knowing how dangerous all that nuclear testing is in the air  .....

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Ellapennella
typos

[Setton]

20 minutes ago, bee said:

Don't you think all those nuclear detonations could have had a detrimental effect on the ozone layer ?

Of course they did. If I recall correctly, there's a distinct spike in the data around the 1950s when nuclear testing became more common. But the change was happening before that and has continued to accelerate even as nuclear testing reduces. The increase in global temperatures almost perfectly coincides with the industrial revolution. Surely you can see just how unlikely that is to be a coincidence?

Quote

'''Virtually every scientist in the world'''' is a big (unsupported) statement and reminds me of the Steve Hughes
comedy sketch  

Agreed, it is a big statement. If you want it making more specific, the scientific consensus among academics is that climate is being influenced by human activity (this is at the 95% confidence interval). I've yet to see a single reputable publication in opposition to anthropogenic climate change. Please do provide references if you have any. Here are some references for you:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level." IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.

IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF), Detection and Attribution of Climate Change, «It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century» (page 17) and «In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: (...) extremely likely: 95–100%» (page 2). , in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013.

IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 2.4: Attribution of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007."It is likely that increases in GHG concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place."

[Notes-SciPanel] America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. (p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. 

 

And that's just wiki.

 

[ellapenella]

1 hour ago, bee said:

.

I've bothered to look for it now ---  ----it was East Anglia University that was involved --

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

quote...

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

and

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

quote...

The emails appeared to show researchers discussing how to manipulate historical temperature data and dodge requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
 

,

  weathergate?

[bee]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

 

And that's just wiki.

 

.

That was handy having all that in one place wasn't it ....

I'm too tired to look at it at the moment --- but I do know from previous discussions the global warming debate is
always highly charged with claims and counter claims - and agreement is never reached from opposing points
of view -

It's a while since I had the misfortune to get involved in talking about it but as at heart this was another Trump bashing
thread I did ---

the useful politicizing of the whole thing is encapsulated in this thread OP - 

.

 

[Setton]

Just now, bee said:

.

That was handy having all that in one place wasn't it ....

I'm too tired to look at it at the moment --- but I do know from previous discussions the global warming debate is
always highly charged with claims and counter claims - and agreement is never reached from opposing points
of view -

It's a while since I had the misfortune to get involved in talking about it but as at heart this was another Trump bashing
thread I did ---

the useful politicizing of the whole thing is encapsulated in this thread OP - 

.

 

It was certainly quicker than digging through 4 years of notes, dissertations and articles.

You say it's always highly charged with claims and counter claims. I say again, I haven't seen a single reputable counter claim. I would genuinely like to if you have any.

And agreement can be reached from opposing viewpoints provided both parties understand the material and the nature of scientific inquiry.

[bee]

8 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

  weathergate?

.

in this link I put in the other post they called it '''climate-gate'''
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

[bee]

12 minutes ago, Setton said:

It was certainly quicker than digging through 4 years of notes, dissertations and articles.

You say it's always highly charged with claims and counter claims. I say again, I haven't seen a single reputable counter claim. I would genuinely like to if you have any.

And agreement can be reached from opposing viewpoints provided both parties understand the material and the nature of scientific inquiry.

.

well my counter claim is that all the nuclear detonations has done damage - (but the earth may be healing) -
and although that is 'man made' it's not the kind of man made that can be politicized in terms of carbon tax -
but it is the kind of man made that would be kept hush hush --

but I don't suppose you consider that or me reputable ---- 
 

edit --- anyway got to log off now  -

. 

Edited November 18, 2016 by bee

[alibongo]

On ‎17‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:18 PM, aztek said:

oh, please he is not denying climate change, he is denying global warming, not the same thing.

 

Oh, please.. don't be so pedantic!

We know what is commonly meant by climate change (hint- it is changing due to global warming).

Don't make out Trump to be someone who splits hairs on his visions.(http://weather.about.com/od/climatechange/f/global_warming_climate_change.htm)

[alibongo]

While I think AGW is real, I think there is much hypocracy in those "fighting" it.

In the UK, Prince Charles is a high-profile campaigner against AGW- and he spends a lot of time jetting around the world in his private jet to give lectures on how to not waste fuel!

He also owns several huge estates and mansions, with huge staff numbers, numerous 4x4 vehicles and  lives a life of luxury.

His family , the German Saxe-Coberg-Botha's (who changed their name to Windsor when we were at war with Germany), are currently having a £360M refit of Buck House in London, largely funded by the tax-payer, while we are experiencing an acute housing crisis, especially in London.

Edited November 18, 2016 by alibongo

[alibongo]

On ‎17‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:33 PM, Setton said:

I'll be honest, I don't really care if his motive is the same as mine. So long as someone has the guts to take Trump to task over this. This is probably the most important issue he hasn't a clue about and people need to put pressure on him to stop being an idiot.

I suspect he hasn't a clue about most of the issues he is about to face, as he hasn't been in political office before.

Unfortunately he seems to be appointing quite dangerous advisors!

[Setton]

19 minutes ago, bee said:

.

well my counter claim is that all the nuclear detonations has done damage - (but the earth may be healing) -
and although that is 'man made' it's not the kind of man made that can be politicized in terms of carbon tax -
but it is the kind of man made that would be kept hush hush --

but I don't suppose you consider that or me reputable ---- 
 

edit --- anyway got to log off now  -

. 

Actually, given that that is supported by the data, I do consider that and you reputable. And I would agree that nuclear testing has harmed the environment.

My issue with your claim is that it doesn't account for the accelerated warming prior to nuclear tests.

Forgive me if you already know this but the underlying principle of science is Occam's razor. Science doesn't (shouldn't) set out to prove one theory true. It sets out to disprove as many theories as possible. Out of those remaining, the one requiring fewest assumptions is considered the accepted theory. Until more evidence comes along, then this can shift.

In this case, my theory is that the climate is changing due industrialisation, with the effects of nuclear tests 'stacked' on top. Your theory requires the additional assumption that the warming prior to nuclear weapons was natural, despite being more rapid than at any other point in the data.

It doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does make your theory less likely, which is why the former is the accepted one.

[Torchwood]

1 hour ago, alibongo said:

 are currently having a £360M refit of Buck House in London, largely funded by the Royal Estates

Fixed that for you.  Its not money that is levied from the Tax Payer at all, its from the income generated by the royal estates, which normally goes to the state  with a cut going back to the Royal Family themselves.  That cut will be bigger than normal to pay for the work needed.

[alibongo]

3 minutes ago, Torchwood said:

Fixed that for you.  Its not money that is levied from the Tax Payer at all, its from the income generated by the royal estates, which normally goes to the state  with a cut going back to the Royal Family themselves.  That cut will be bigger than normal to pay for the work needed.

that's okay then.

It is private money going to a worthwhile cause.

For a  moment I thought it was the establishment  looking after itself.

Silly me.

 

[Torchwood]

On the subject of Global Warming I'd recommend to anyone listening to this very entertaining podcast:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07142ls

 

 

[Torchwood]

1 minute ago, alibongo said:

that's okay then.

It is private money going to a worthwhile cause.

For a  moment I thought it was the establishment  looking after itself.

Silly me.

 

to be fair , it is an investment in something that brings in income to the state to make sure it continues to bring in income for the state.