Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
BJWoods said:
.... BUT I don't care, as I can now go to a the pub, with out smelling like a ashtray.
The science/statitics is righ though
A AGW Alarmist smear tectic.
I see a lot of boarded up pubs in places where they used to be very busy. You may be lucky to find one nearby soon, though whether that is truly related to the smoking ban (which could have been handled in other ways had there been a will to do so) or a climate change of social habits/personal fiscal policy is another matter.The science/statitics is righ though
A AGW Alarmist smear tectic.
I sus-pect that drinking at home and distance chatting in the internet lounge is far more common these days.
hairykrishna said:
Are you going to defend 'intelligent design' next? The man talks a lot of s
te.
He is still more or less right about wind turbines though.
hell no..te.He is still more or less right about wind turbines though.
does that mean you conced on the other one
(ie misuse of statistics on passive smoking - All though I was completely in favour of the repercsusions, i can recognoise flawed statistics being used for a politica goal)LongQ said:
I see a lot of boarded up pubs in places where they used to be very busy. You may be lucky to find one nearby soon, though whether that is truly related to the smoking ban (which could have been handled in other ways had there been a will to do so) or a climate change of social habits/personal fiscal policy is another matter.
I sus-pect that drinking at home and distance chatting in the internet lounge is far more common these days.
those pubs were going anyway, relics of a different era and social time...I sus-pect that drinking at home and distance chatting in the internet lounge is far more common these days.
Lifestyles have changed.
newestie said:
The problem I have with CC being a conspiracy is why would ‘the government’ ‘the greens’ ‘the scientists’ create an elaborate conspiracy when they have other perfectly valid reasons to tax the use of natural resources?
Well, because people get f***ed off being taxed. If it's just a "we want you to pay more money" tax, then they will be voted out.But this way, they expect people to "want" to pay this bull***t tax, and indeed there are those who seem happy to do so. AS they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time.......
Therefore, the state gets more tax and also doesn't get voted out because of it.
hairykrishna said:
Are you going to defend 'intelligent design' next? The man talks a lot of ste.
.
Going completely off topicte..
Best argument I ever heard for intelligent design is Red wine.
No way could evolution produce two completely different organisms grapes and yeast which when combined produce something as wonderful as a good red wine.
Does make more sense when your rat arsed.
Bedazzled said:
tank slapper said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Bedazzled said:
Good grief, try telling that to Roy Castle's family.
Roy Castle smoked Cigars.Occupational hazard, though not usually at a relatively young age if they made it past the first decade or so of professional work and continued playing.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about the smoking question (Full disclosure - I speak as a long time ex-smoker here having abandoned paying weed tax many years ago) is that organisations like the OPT are not pushing tobacco as a 'personal choice' way to ensure at lkeast some relief, as they would see it, from the continuing extension of the aged generations. After all, one could argue that a life of smoking is not only extremely generous in terms of tax given over to be shared with non-smokers but also rather selfless for accepting an 'early' death and thus helping to solve the world's population 'crisis'.
Or at least one could make a case for such a proposal ....
PRTVR said:
Diderot said:
newestie said:
I just don’t buy that academics are the kind of people to go along with something just because it’s mutually beneficial. We’re talking about people with an interest in research and discovery. Why would they go along with a theory they thought incorrect if they could just as easily be researching the same issues but from a resource utilisation angle? Acting out research day in day out for money alone with no belief in what they were doing? I just can’t see that academics are that unprincipled, or see the motivation.
Not a question of principle but of survival and ultimately putting bread on the table. Funding is a seriously competitive process even in the gloopal wombling field. Universities demand that their staff are research active because their income from the govt. mostly depends on it and the University's status as an institution is measured by it. As the Climategate fiasco demonstrates perfectly, the quality of research processes can leave a lot to be desired (understatement of the century), as long as the output is deemed 'significant' by the RAE panel that assesses it. 
along with how do they get out of this mess? impossible, they have to keep on with the lie, there is no alternative,so many questions would be asked and the people in question would have no answers, leaving them discredited, the bandwagon has to keep rolling, and I think they will do anything to keep it going. The work done on managing the affects of CC would also not be wasted as discussed earlier in the thread. To say the entire field of academics is in the pocket of the government is both insulting to them and for the reasons above highly implausible. Comments on funding being highly competitive are indeed true (as it should be) but there are a number of sources (not all governmental) and I’m entirely unconvinced a government as incompetent as ours could arrange such a systematic downfall of an individual or body not ‘towing the line’. Don’t give them the credit!
I choose largely to ignore uninformed comments such as “we want you to pay more money" tax. Open your mind, they don’t need a CC lie; there is a whole world of ways to tax us. Replace carbon based tax with “sustainable resources use tax”. A V8 will still cost you ALOT (see my previous post on rose tinted utopia).
hairykrishna said:
He is a bit of a nutter but he's got a point about wind turbines. The places it makes sense to build them in are few and far between and without subsidies nobody would bother. They are pretty much the 'least useless' renewable source but that says more about the alternatives than it does about wind...
Back on topicBig windmills that feed directly into the grid are worse then useless 90% of the time.
Small windmills as seen powering road signs and other small things via a battery bank and an inverter are fantastic and work well.
Go read this blog about a guy who lives completely offgrid in Scotland. His power comes from a wind turbine and a hydro turbine with generator back-up
http://lifeattheendoftheroad.wordpress.com/
Now he lives off grid not through choice but because the national grid doesn't cover all of Scotland so no calling him a hippy.
newestie said:
Replace carbon based tax with “sustainable resources use tax”. A V8 will still cost you ALOT (see my previous post on rose tinted utopia).
Owning a v8 should cost no more then owning a 4pot shopping trolley as they both have the same use of resources until you start to drive one.I own a V8 and 4 pot shopping trolley and over a year the shopping trolley uses way more fuel.
As always, it isn't that simple, you're quite right that it is not just about tax. There is the Carbon Trading aspect of it which involves staggering amounts of wonga, the creation of a new economy with green jobs and green technologies, redistribution of wealth and misguided or ill advised alternative energy. I've had emails from Cameron mapping it all out.
BJWoods said:
hell no..
does that mean you conced on the other one (ie misuse of statistics on passive smoking - All though I was completely in favour of the repercsusions, i can recognoise flawed statistics being used for a politica goal)
There are a few dodgy passive smoking studies, but there also seem to be quite a few good ones. I think I'll abstain from that debate! does that mean you conced on the other one
(ie misuse of statistics on passive smoking - All though I was completely in favour of the repercsusions, i can recognoise flawed statistics being used for a politica goal)newestie said:
I choose largely to ignore uninformed comments such as “we want you to pay more money" tax. Open your mind, they don’t need a CC lie; there is a whole world of ways to tax us. Replace carbon based tax with “sustainable resources use tax”. A V8 will still cost you ALOT (see my previous post on rose tinted utopia).
True - but why stop at one tax when you can have many? There are so many potential angles to that - not the least of which is dwindling political power and differentiation between the parties, at least in the EU parish of the UK. UK politicians will jealously guard their take from UK taxes - they need the money to play with - but the EU will still demand its cut. There's a lot of psychology in all of this. The common theme is that once you have persuaded people that all thiese things are needed to save 'the planet/polar bears/your grandchildren you', as a politician or a political party, have a buffer between you and voter that will dissipate any anger they may find the energy and drive to express. 'It's not me - we are all in this together, etc., etc.' And since that implies some kind of acquiescence and compliance from the mass of the public which will be conveneint to all parties they will tend to work together to achieve it whether they recognise they are doing so or not.Whether or not they need to lie is another matter. One would havve to observe that is does seem to be a trait of many politicians to be economical with the truth - which in turn perhaps suggests that they do in fact have to lie even if they don't really need to. It's not really a surprise though.
thinfourth2 said:
newestie said:
Replace carbon based tax with “sustainable resources use tax”. A V8 will still cost you ALOT (see my previous post on rose tinted utopia).
Owning a v8 should cost no more then owning a 4pot shopping trolley as they both have the same use of resources until you start to drive one.I own a V8 and 4 pot shopping trolley and over a year the shopping trolley uses way more fuel.
And yes, it's not all about tax.
newestie said:
thinfourth2 said:
newestie said:
Replace carbon based tax with “sustainable resources use tax”. A V8 will still cost you ALOT (see my previous post on rose tinted utopia).
Owning a v8 should cost no more then owning a 4pot shopping trolley as they both have the same use of resources until you start to drive one.I own a V8 and 4 pot shopping trolley and over a year the shopping trolley uses way more fuel.
And yes, it's not all about tax.
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Diderot said:
Too many and just like any damned coalition, commensurately far too much influence.
Not according to this:http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/02/no-irish-...
EU Referendum site said:
The greatest joy is that the Greens have been totally stuffed, losing all their six seats. It's funny how it works that way. They do alright until they get a bit of power – then people realise how absolutely crap they are, and they never get another look in. That's what's happening in Germany.
chris watton said:
thinfourth2 said:
chris watton said:
How have the Green Party in Ireland fared in the latest elections?
Just wondering.......
Not too badly they only lost 6 seats.Just wondering.......
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff