Refrigerant prices will increase 300% - %500 under carbon tax

The reality is evidence of global warming can only be found in the computer generated models of the UN's IPCC.

Empirical evidence doesn't exist at all in our history that CO2 drives major climate change or a runaway greenhouse effect, and we have had CO2 levels as high as 7000 ppm compared to todays 390ppm.

The sad thing is people that dont know any better actually believe this bullsh!t.

Weather baloons, thermometers and satellites cannot find this hot spot in the tropopause which will destroy us all unless we establish a $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market by enslaving every man woman and child for eternity.

A bit like fighting terrorism where does it end and who is really behind it all?

Do we really have to relinquish all our rights so that terrorism can be fought, or is terrorism a vechile to reduce them.

That my friend is reality, so wake up and smell the CO2.

 

This is counteracting fear with with further extreme fear. I mean dumb, the planet was a completely different place in terms of life many moons ago, so can't measure co2 effects then, as opposed today. All that can be said is that as the report suggests that from the time of the industrial revolution temperature has risen and moreso in the last 50 years. All reports suggest this, but for some strange reason you want to sit on this extreme conspiracy view that everyone is after you and wanting to destroy mankind......maybe the church of Scientology has a bit to do with it, and our extra terrestrial creators!

 

No its not to undestand the future you have to look into the past.

We have had climate change on this planet from day one.

Climate change isn't something that started happening in the last 50 years or so.

And we have measured the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere dating back millions of years, when life flourished on Earth.

Yes i agree CO2 level have risen, but i dont think its because of the manmade CO2 that gets kicked up into our atmosphere.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere increases with the temperature, temperature drives the amount of CO2 that is present in our atmosphere.

97% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the ecosystems only 3% is manmade CO2.

If we orbit closer to the sun or if the sun grows a few more sunspots or if we get bombarded by cosmic rays these phenomenon have the potetion to increase the 97% CO2 from the ecosystems so much that the 3% man made CO2 would be insignificant.

You know what you should do start asking yourself who is telling all this information and who do they work for?

 

There are too many other simple explanations: Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Your right, you can't be too careful who is providing what information. You are basically suggesting weirdly that the world is colluding. This is utterly silly to keep banging on about something that is verified unaminously by scientists to try and persuade people into thinking there is a world wide inter colluding phenomenon regarding climate change........Elvis and michael are dead, there is no conspiracy!!!

 

I think sir David should stick to what he knows best that is wild life documentaries.

Or if he is going to present something on global warming then he should research not hard to do.

For instance he could have told us in that video that the current concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere is the lowest in accordance with our history, and these are some of the coldest temperatures we have seen.

he could have told us that we have actually seen concentrations in the past at 7000ppm compared to todays 390ppm without the help of manmade CO2.

he could have told us that from our past history that the global mean average temperature drives CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere not the other way around.

and he could have told us about the weather baloons and the thermometers and the satellites failing to find the hot spot in the atmosphere that these pigs over at the Un and the IPCC are claiming exist because of their farking computer projected modelling.

over all sir David you get a nil for misrepresnting the truth in that video clip.

FAIL

 

Or the market will be forced to make you a better cheaper frig? Then we will all be rich again!?

People always have suffered before it clicks.

 

So totally discount that temperatures have risen by 1.5 degrees since industrialisation and by 0.9 degrees in the last 50 years.

 

There has been 0.8 degrees celcius warming over the last 100 years.

I dont find this alarming and neither do scientists that aren't on the IPCC's payroll.

Its only natural for the Earth's temperature to have peaks and troughs, it always has.

And dont forget that temperature drives the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, you seem to think that CO2 drives temperature, since there is no empirical evidence of this then it must be that temperature drives CO2 concentrations.

Also dont forget that mnmade CO2 is only 3% of the total CO2 concentrations in our atmopshere.

The Earth's temperature correlates to the activities of the sun it doesn't correlate to the CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere it actualy drives it (CO2).

Take a look at this graph where does it show in our history that CO2 can cause major climate change or drive a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

Climate Change skeptic converted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/31/richard-muller-climate-change-good-science

 

Climate Change alarmist converted:

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/links/

 

Climate change science skeptics are unsure of the findings in terms of what is causing climate change but agree that climate change is occuring. Many of them believe man is contributing, but unsure to what extent. This is the argument. Alarmists are more sure of the links. The pure sceptics are being paid by exxon mobil!

 

Climate change is not something that started in the 1950's or from the industrial revolution, climate change has always been apart of the natural cycle of the Earth.

Man's contribution when it comes to CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere is 3% of the whole apple the other 97% is from the ecosystems, the Earth has been warming and therefore the ecosystems have thrown up more natural CO2 into the atmosphere.

Like i said look at that graph temperatures and CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere have been alot higher than today, therefore it only stands to reason that if we are in a trough then the curve will start to go up to the next peak.

NO you are wrong about the oil companies ExxonMobil is a direct decendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil company, and what is John D. Rockefeller? He's a banker.

Bankers are pushing for carbon pricing in all countries all over the world, so i disagree with that theory.

Its the elite bankers that also want to form the new world order and the carbon tax is the first global tax of this new world order.

 

If going back millions of years is confusing for you how about we go back 11000 years.

As can be seen here CO2 doesn't drive the temperature, the temperature drives the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Now you have to ask yourself from the CO2 increase of 288ppm from 1850 to 390ppm now.

How much is dues to humans burning fossil fuels and how much is due to the ecosystems releasing more Co2 into the atmopshere as the planet warms up.

390-288=102

I would say 3% of that is manmade the rest is natural from the ecosystems.

therefore from that 102 increase

Manmade = 3.06ppm

Ecosystems = 98.94ppm

Manmade CO2 is dwarfed by the natural Co2 produced by the ecosystems.

Mean average temperature



Two graphs below Mean average temperature (top) and CO2 (bottom)

 

CO2 preceded increased warming on 90% of occasions historically. CO2 causes warming and warming causes CO2 increases. This is where you are getting your information mixed up. CO2 has risen as you say from 280ppm to nearly 400ppm, but is set to increase to 500ppm by 2050. All correlating with industrialisation! This is why 95% of scientists believe strongly in anthropogenic causes due to the fact that it is undeniably linked to human progress starting at the combustion engine. I mean Exxon Mobil wouldn't try paying off a few scientist would they, because increased renewable energy use won't affect them????? If it wasn't these guys paying off renewable energy technology use in cars in the last century, we probably wouldn't be in such a concerning situation now. You can believe the few scientists who have been strongly linked to exxon mobil and the like, but I'm sure most of the population are going to believe the majority of scientist despite what spin denialists put on their argument.

 

Where are you getting this from.

Just look at the graph below, we have CO2 concentrations at 7000ppm what is the temperature doing?

You dont have to be a scientist to read it.

Get out of that global warming religion bubble that will surely deliver even more riches to the elite, while believers like yourself will try to live like moles underground cause you believe the bullsh!t.

I bet the elite are laughing their heads of at people like yourself.

Again look at the graph CO2 has risen to concentrations 20 times higher than today, yet we cannot find evidence of a runaway greenhouse effect or of major climate change due to higher CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere OR that the temperature follows the CO2 graph???!!!!!

Says who the UN/IPCC and where is their evidence, in computer generated models, remember dude computers are the dumbest things in this world without input they dont do anything and if the input is garbage.......................

Like i showed above i bet from that 102ppm increase since 1850 only 3% is manmade the rest comes from the ecosystems.

As the graphs show temperature rises and falls on the graphs like a jaggered edge its called climate change and has been around since the Earth formed.

Temperature correlates to the activities of the sun, cosmic rays from space the albedo effect, and lets not forget the major greenhouse gas shall we water vapor and clouds.

I've said this before and i'll say it again if you took out all the trace gases from our atmosphere like CO2 methane etc etc.

WE would still be left with 98% of the greenhouse effect.

So wake up dude and smell the CO2 ffs.

Again your listening to the UN / IPCC nd the scientists on thier payroll, yeah 95% of their scientists what about the dudes that have nothing to do with them.

Look here
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

I dont think exxon care too much, their head/CEO wants a price on carbon to fleece all surfs around the world of real money not computer generated figures, do you honestly think the carbon price will affect his business, the carbon price will be all about the trading and farming of carbon credits on the stock exchange not the redcution of pollution, CO2 or other.

I do recall seeing a doco (cant remember the name?) on tv years ago about the electric car in the US, as far as i can remember it was mobil or caltex that approached GMH gave them billions of dollars to shut down the electric car.

The engineers that formed the company that would be producing the electric car had 400 models reading to sell to the public.

Mobil or Caltex didn't want to be seen as the ones that put a stop to it so they sent in GMH it bought out the company payed those people handsomely and then shelved the electric car design.

Majority of scientist dude please wake from your slumber!

You know if the science was settled and the consensus was real why wouldn't they come out and debate it to the whole world to put us skeptics to bed once and for all.

You are following the pigs over at the UN / IPCC just as blindly as you follow this minority government.

This is how much these pigs over at the IPCC care about our environment.

So wake up dude.

 

Why would refrigerant gases increase 300% in price when they are easily cleaned and recycled?

 

Hi Marg

As far as i know the CFC's are rated by the IPCC in this way to make them so much more expensive because apparently they are so more deadly than CO2 as pollution.

 

Oh yes they are.. that's why they are no longer released into the atmosphere. Something about OZONE.

But CFC Refimax and now Airgas are on top of that. It not only saves the environment, but it saves anyone who uses chillers massive amounts of money.

Next breakthru.. POPS.

 

Oh yes they are.. that's why they are no longer released into the atmosphere. Something about OZONE.

But CFC Refimax and now Airgas are on top of that. It not only saves the environment, but it saves anyone who uses chillers massive amounts of money.

Next breakthru.. POPS.

 

Hey i think its a rip of but this is howit works.

 

double post..................

 

It is not about quantity of information but quality so settle on the repetition. There is a huge amount of info out there and graphs provided that dispute this one you keep posting.

Skeptics with scientific nous know the truth and dispute information with ulterior motives because they know they'll attract fools to believe in their theory for their end goal!

Judging from your other posts it is obvious you are basically just a conspiracy chaser. There is plenty of stuff on the net that supports the 95% of scientists findings in support of AGW. As Magot has pointed out there are things that businesses can do to reduce their footprint. All you continue to do is bang on about your conspiracies and how bad things are and are going to be without any substance, especially when it has been disputed solidly by other posters. I'm not talking about just this thread but many others.

 

I am getting a lot of double posts too.

Why is it a rip off if gases can be rapidly cleaned-up and the chiller recharged?

It increases efficiency pretty dramatically.

Or you can have the gas extracted, cleaned and stored or sold.

 

I haven't seen any care to post some?

That's alot of malarkey, its truely sad that people such as yourself believe verbatim what they are told.

True i dont mind a conspiracy theory or two, but hey no one can prove it one way or the other.

For example the twin towers look like they were a controlled demolition, now in the US many engineers and architects are banding together to get to the truth, most of these say that it was a controlled demolition.

So where does that leave the terrorist theory?

Did they go in the buildings months in advance to plant the dynamite at the appropriate locations?

95% of scientists on the IPCC payroll you mean!

Well when you're being taken for a ride and you know it..........................................

But i understand in your case, you think the bankers are going to clean up the worlds pollution through the farming and selling of carbon credits on the stock exchange.

I'm quite ready to believe in AGW as long as they show me the evidence of how and when.

Ofcourse it only exists in the IPCC's computer generated forecasts or projections.

Goodness we're getting a tax on forecasts LOL.

But you know what water vapor and clouds cause 80% of the greenhouse effect.

What next a rain tax - wake up FFS and stop sleeping.

 

Hey i'm with you.

The rip is how they mutilpy the mass by the global warming potential figure.

See table above.

global warming potential of HFC-134a = 1300

1 tonne of HFC-134a is equivalent to 1,300 tonnes of CO2e

instaed of $23/tonne we pay 23x1300= $29900/tonne

Go figure............

Wake up all you aussies that are sleeping FFS.