Safez

It wouldn't taste like your favourite blend anymore and you'd be left feeling dissatisfied! sounds like me and you need to have the same goal man, giving up, as quoted by a certain member here, "those industrial waste flavoured sticks" ;)

I think you may have missed the point. Before you pull out the moral sword, this video (and subsequent thread) seems to be primarily focusing on the taxman, the biggest thief of all. It's also looks to address some interesting issues. For example, that fiat currency has no value until it is given value by a banker. Also that the laws/processes being shown here seem to be well and truly out of date and aren't keeping up with the times. A comparison or example would be our privacy laws; there is no law against someone standing out on the street with a high megapixel camera and taking pictures of you and your family from the foot path. Once again. People seem to be taking offence to hypothetical examples rather than addressing or adding constructive feedback to the questions being asked by them. I ran into much the same problem in another thread here on SAB. People seem incapable of seeing past the black and white of things. Poor form folks, I would have expected a little more open mindedness and creative response to what I've been seeing.

So does anyone else have an opinion on this subject?

This has been known since the 70's and has become even more well known in the last decade. Not exactly new information Surprised to see people unaware of it.

Again, not sure I'm quite grasping this. Is this a possible example of this trick in action...? Your credit card provider sends you your monthly/60 day whatever statement as they do. Again, a statement, so from what I gather, not relevant to this. You contact a finance company, find out how they bill you etc and learn they send you paper copies of your outstanding balance as a bill each month. You borrow X dollars from finance company and pay off credit cards. Use this accepted for payment trick with the finance company. ... Profit?

Considering the report copypasta you obviously feel is fact as your provoking me to "prove it wrong", as if I had indeed dismissed the report(which I hadnt, as I'm questioning science not the observations made, which may be true); they technically haven't been proven either, as they are simply "observations" and "models". Therefore your response is rather ignorant considering the high level of respect that members have had for each others opinion to this point. I wish no further debate with you on this subject. I will not post here again.

I think that is what he plans on testing Qualia

I am not questioning your examples here folks, and I feel your getting defensive because in your opinion, climate change is fact. Sure it may be fact, however is it going to cause a man made extinction event or be the cause of massive irreparable damage to the planet? . I am aware of that. It was yourself that formulated that opinion hence why I mentioned to not get taken off topic .I question the science behind the examples being quoted here. When they use phrases like "conservative assumptions", "generalised linear models" "observed regional warming" I raise my eyebrow. Again it comes down to time frames, even this climate modelling This trends data that, on a scale such as the history of the earth, is less than the blink of an eye? Not to mention, this is based on "best and worst case scenarios" that are modelled; meaning they are based on a persons interpretation of data based on someone elses interpretations.So this group says that 13.54% will be saved out a 99.97% loss in habitat if their CO2 emission scenario is implemented. That would leave 86.43% habitat loss. So they managed to save 13% of a species habitat. That's not exactly big numbers... Why do they not provide modelling for any longer periods of time? It's simple, because there are too many variables to quantify, there is too many variables to be trying to make scientific opinions and fact from a study over the period of 100 years. I think humans are causing a huge disparity in the food chain and causing a lot of environmental stress, I just think we need to have less focus on global warming causing chaos and "mass extinctions" and focus more on protection of our natural resources and a reduction in environmental pollution. Which yes, will cause a drop in emissions for all of those worried about climate change.

So, let me get this straight. If a company sends you a bill, they've created a liability for which they must provide remedy? How does that work? You are paying for a service? Is it because they are sending you a copy of the bill with no wet signatures? So at that point, as a banker, you accept it for payment and in turn charge the company who sent you it as it now has monetary value as you have accepted it for value At which point you make payable the money they have been legally forced to send you...? That cant be right... Does that mean for example that if the company I contract to re roof my house sends me a bill rather than an account statement and doesnt hand deliver the original copy of that bill to me with wet blue signatures... I can accept for payment the copy of the bill they have sent me forcing them to send me the money for the bill which I subsequently return to them as payment?

This isn't climate change, it's environmental pollution by manmade actions, let's not confuse or compare this. Environmental pollution would seem to be much more significant than "a degree or two of warming" Could you be more specific? and by who's authority or 'scientific finding' are these trees being eradicated due to climate change? Also, lets put things into perspective here for a moment before people start screaming think of trees! or We need our trees for carbon capture to reverse this climate change! The biggest carbon sink on the planet is the worlds oceans. That is because the oceans of the world cover around 97% of it. Terrestrial plants provide atmospheric oxygen through their respiration and yes, do provide some carbon capture. However it's a fraction of the amount. Again, I'm not "having a dig" at anyone's opinion on this subject so don't be offended if my writing style comes across that way. Although I really shouldn't have to say that, because if people do take it personal, they're likely not worth talking to about the issue anyway.

Not sure if this was mentioned on page two but one such example of a substance that is buried to potentate its effects is Nu Nu. Discuss.

Seems to run parallel or even potentate the theory that we evolved from clay.

What, in QLD? You sure? didnt rain that much here you Lucky ducks

EDIT - Deleted double posts -_-

I think the term 'denier' runs in the same parallel as 'alarmist'. It's a broad categorization that seems to try and lump people into two categories, forcing them to a black and white opinion on the subject. This is something I don't like to see as it's pretentious and really, shows the narrow mindedness of some people. . Sure, this may be the case but what about the permian, triassic and jurassic periods that followed? The age of the dinosaurs. Some of the largest creatures to inhabit the earth. Scientific inquiry has us believe that atmospheric concentrations of Co2 and global temperature in general was higher than it is today.Was the Earth indeed warmer during this period? Ok. So could it not become warmer again as part of it's regular cycles or is the temperature trends we are observing in our very recent history the cause of the Earth playing "catch up" looking to return to these levels? Possibly due to an collision with an interstellar body that caused climate change on a scale that is orders of magnitude greater than the emissions of all mankind in the short period of our industrial revolution? Let's remember the debate here is whether the planet is warming/cooling as a result of man made emissions. It's not a debate on mankinds pollution of the environment. That has been more than demonstrated (acid mine drainage, offshore oil spills, deforestation, etc). Man made extinction event? Perhaps. Could also be that it's not possible to make such a broad statement such as this because of the period of time being measured. I'm still interested to know how our climate change scientist arrived at the decision that the earth has gained X degree of global temperature rise/fall over pre industrial levels... How long have they been monitoring atmospheric concentrations of particles in our atmosphere and the global temperature of the earth? They'd be forced to make a judgement call based on scientific enquiry and mathematical guesswork. Now one could argue that the science is solid, however someone else could argue that scientific opinion is based on general consensus and hasn't always proven to be the correct answer to some pretty fundamental opinions on our existence (eg: The world being flat. The sun revolving around the earth, General Relativity, The standard model of particle physics, etc) I think there is no question or debate that mankind needs to curb it's use of non renewables and reduce emissions from an environmental point of view. Whether those emissions will have any kind of bearing, to the point of causing temperature changes that will have a calamitous effect on life as we know it, is yet to be determined. I'm of the opinion we will fuck our landmasses and oceans to the point of non-sustainability through other means before atmospheric disparity and temperature increase/decrease can affect us. Those "other means" as I've so broadly termed it may indeed be a causative agent in that atmospheric disparity and temp increase/decrease but I think it's too early to say that climate change will be the number one cause of our demise or "mass extinction event" Out of curiousity, what is the main concern of those who believe in global warming/cooling? Is it fear that if the temperature increases/decreases we will be unable to sustain food crops and we will have to deal with rising sea levels?