Forethat

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. Since 1989, the year of its inception, through 2018 the IPCC has received a total of 160,022,000 in swiss francs. The 2018 budget came to about 8,000,000 swiss francs.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/01/080320190344-Doc2-Budget.pdf

Exactly who owns the organisations issuing Carbon Credits?

As previously mentioned (though deleted by moderators), Carbon Credit price has gone from a low of €4.38 per tonne in May 2017 to €13.82 per tonne in April 2018. According to the World Bank, the the total value for Carbon Credits was estimated at $82B (2018 figures).

Carbon Credits are traded as a commodity. As I mentioned in the outset, the question is (in reply to your attempts to scream , "lies" and "nonsense") exactly WHO is profiting from charging people for polluting the earths atmosphere. And more importantly, what impact does it have on the climate?

Here's the answer: none.

13 minutes ago, transam said:

It is pointless. You don't understand that the number of cars on the worldwide roads increases every year, millions and millions of them burning stuff. Mega modern day plane travel increased burned stuff. Everywhere you go it is heated or has air con, burning stuff....Recycling is not so big, stuff burned or buried to create it's stuff..

Don't worry - everything will get better as long as we pay trillions of dollars to the IPCC. 

2 minutes ago, transam said:

You tell me why the climate problem then, and how you would fix it...?

According to the proponents of the IPCC solution (as fronted by the Paris accord), the solution is to pour money into IPCC:s pockets.

Everything will be better as long as we pay for it. Pay to the chosen ones, that is...

While we're discussing this, does anybody know what the going rate is for a carbon credit these days?

Amazing how much cleaner the world gets as long as you invent a system that funnels trillions of dollars to...the right people.

Money makes the world go around

...the world go around

...the world go around

Money makes the world go aroung

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Not 97% of scientists. 97% of climatologists.

But thanks for your report of what some chemists allegedly said. I guess in your world, anecdotes and anonymity are part and parcel of the scientific method.

As is playing silly semantic games. Yes climate is always changing. But now it's about the rate and direction of change.

"97% of scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans (CO2)" 

If I had a penny for every time I've heard this argument... the good thing is that it is an awesome counter-indicator; if someone uses this argument it indicates that they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

So what is the origin of this "97%" argument?

John Cook published a paper in May 2013 "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Abstract:

Quote

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

The interesting bit is how John Cook came up with the number 97,2%. In short, here's how he did it (and in case you think I'm speculating, the method and the numbers are clearly visible in the paper itself):

10,257 members of the American Geophysical Union were asked the question: "Is climate change caused by human production of CO2"? 3,145 members replied.

From the 3,145 replies, Cook selected 77 (completely arbitrary) and 75 of these replies had answered "Yes". 75 of 10,257 is 0,7% not 97%.

So, the correct argument is that "0,7% of American Geophysical Union members agree that climate change is caused by human production of CO2".

Questions?

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

'Another pointless all purpose insulting generalizations about remainers. Nothing actually germane to the issues at hand. I'm not going to make generalizations about Brexiters making clueless comments just because you do.

Actually, last time the moon landing was mentioned remainers on here were unaware of the fact that it had happened. So not a generalisation. Fact.

26 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

No they don't at best 25% of the 'British People' want no deal which is about double the numbers that thought the moon landings were fake. 

Lousy comparison. If posters on here are representative of the average British remainer, at best 25% of them are aware of the moon landings to begin with...

8 minutes ago, david555 said:

Can do same with WTA then with all those exclusions ….(here we go again …!)

As warned by E.U. after a no deal ALL those former difficult things come back on the table ...

Somehow I don't think the WTA (Women's Tennis Association) have much to do with this. 

WTO...

7 hours ago, SheungWan said:

...'er what was I saying about the average Brexiteer not understanding contract law? Lo and behold one comes along and treads in it.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

And then there is, of course, the average Remainer forum warrior who thinks he knows contract law...good heavens. 

May I suggest you do what the experts do - allow for a bit of humbleness until the matter has been settled by ICJ?

You see, not even the experts can say for sure whether the UK needs to pay the alleged divorce bill of £39B.

In every expert's opinion, anyone who claims to "understand" contract law and tell for sure what UKs legal obligations are in respect to Brexit, is exactly that - someone who doesn't understand contract law.

2 hours ago, puipuitom said:

Those, who think the UK can be the "Singapore" of Europe, forget a few tiny miny details:

...

b) Singapore is situated on a crossroad of sea lines, the Uk at none.

I think you need to review a maritime shipping routes map. Here:  

4 hours ago, oldhippy said:

is this yet an other of your analogies ?

 

 

No. It's a straight forward question. Nobody in the quoted article has ever claimed or even mentioned that we are talking about LOW STANDARDS. 

Obviously, I question your interpretation, since it is, evidently, completely wrong. I simply don't understand how "However, many EU lawmakers warned against a no-deal, both to avoid an economic shock and because they do not want to see Britain abandon its commitments to EU social and environmental standards and become a low-tax, low-regulation rival." made you arrive at "LOW STANDARDS".

Clearly a language thingy, so let me correct you:

Nowhere in the article is anyone talking about LOW STANDARDS. They are talking about Britain abandoning EUs environmental standards, low taxes and low-regulation (whatever that means). 

Can we leave this now? I won't hold it against you.

Great.

1 minute ago, david555 said:

Here you can choose who you like to hear …..even Your hero Farage is on E.U. parliament speaking (look in the list ) on  it ,in the download list 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/debate-details.html?date=20190918&detailBy=date

09:01 - 12:00 The UK’s withdrawal from the EU (debate) and choose who you like to hear & see  (dowload link)
 

I don't care what Farage says. The question here was what Verhofstadt said. He's never said anything about LOW STANDARDS.

IMHO EUs standards are the low standards. And the UK are about to abandon them.

The article mentions Environmental standards and low taxes. 

Not LOW STANDARDS.

Some people...