climate change whos paying?

hi guys, after all the intellectual posts , i figured i shouldn't be a sheep and do a search on climate change to find the truth, i came up with this site.. here is a tiny url to make it easy to type into your browser i think it will open a few eyes to both believers and non believers of climate change that indeed with due dilligence and in depth searching skills the truth can be found on the internet.

http://tiny.cc/climatechangereality

Sick of this thread now. No-one is going to change the world on this forum...

Went for a great sail today

Yes I have skimmed it and it has more holes than a flour seive and they want it to be legally binding.


It is all about money. They want to tax developed nations a minimum of 0.07% of GDP.

They want this:-

A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.

A uniform global levy of USD 2 per tonne of CO2 for all countries with per capita emissions higher than
[1.5][2.0] tonnes of CO2; the LDCs shall be exempt.

An international adaptation levy on airfares, except on journeys originating from or destined for LDCs.

Agreed penalties or fines on non-compliance of developed country Parties with their commitments to reduce emissions and provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and
capacity-building.

and this just to keep the Arabs happy

4. A Special Fund:
29. A special fund shall be established:
(a) For the economic and social consequences of response measures (para. 1 (b) (vi) of theBali Action Plan);
(b) To assist countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the
production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels and associated energy-intensive products (Article 4.8(h) of the Convention).

But then way back on page 29 they say this:-

Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to
postpone or scale down action on adaptation.

So what they are saying is that they don't care whether the "science" is correct or not, they just wan't to tax the guts out of so called "developed" nations.

Oi guys, a top level Uni lecture once said .
“Anything longer than four (4) A4 size pages isn’t worth the read, so I don’t bother. If I cant get the drift in the first 4, it’s a zero mark”.
I like your passion fulla's, but 8 pages.......

ang about, flame suit on.... righto, givittooer[}:)]

Yep

At the moment, it's about all that's keeping me awake on an otherwise REALLY quiet week at work. Roll on Thursday arvo!!

ginger pom.......Sick of this thread now. No-one is going to change the world on this forum...

at last we agree on something......it should still not stop people from telling the truth as they see it.

still patiently awaiting your reply as to how physic Larry managed to ''stand back and watch the building collapse''.

take a look at the collapse of building 7,a primary 3 schoolkid can see it was a controlled demo.

perhaps gestalt can give me an explanation. he seems pretty much up with the details on most things.

a few hundred million worldwide[at least] are still baffled by Larry Silversteins seemingly physic power.

from debunking 911.. the page i linked to a little while ago

Claim

Controlled demolition was used to bring about the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

This claim was bolstered by a comment made by Larry Silverstein on a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, where he uttered the phrase "pull it". Conspiracy theorists claim that this is slang term used in building implosions, and that with those words, Silverstein was authorizing the demolition of WTC 7.

Fact

Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.

The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.

"Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".

His spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said that by "it", Silverstein was referring to the contigent of firefighters in WTC 7.

FDNY interviews available on the New York Times website also shed light on the use of "pull" in firefighting on 9/11, and help address the question of whether firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon.

FDNY Captain Ray Goldback:

"I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse." [1]
Firefighter Richard Banaciski was in the Verizon Building, adjacent to WTC7.

“ Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street. [2] ”

well if you want to go one pondering hypotheticals i'm not going to stop you.

do you mean psychic larry?

anyways, i'm also psychic,

the night the plane flew into the trade towers i was watching it live on tv. at the same time on msn with a windsurfing mate.

i remember very clearly saying to him.

"mate, i know enough about buildings to tell you that that building is going to colapse. i'd be getting as far away from it as possible"

you wouldn't beleive it but it collapsed not long after.

which question? i've lost track.

Oh yes...

Does all this CO2 cause warming? I guess you could breath into a bag and add a thermometer and sunlight (and a control bag), no?

speaking of conspiracies,

i had heard some rumours that the labor party is using the carbon tax to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

now i was told this prior to the announcments in the last few days about poor families being better off under ets.

just as mineral1 said.......4 pages, any more is uninteresting,

equates to .......foreplay ....now get stuck into it !!! [}:)]

I watched the thing live on TV with my son and kept wondering how come they hadn't fallen down. They were mighty big planes travelling pretty bloody quick. Didn't take Einstein to see the end result.

Anyway, what has any of this crap got to do with climate change?

its the suns activity that causes the earth to go through cooling + warming cycles.