Global Warming Nonsense

[Tafia]

ewenm said:

Indeed, as I said above, we just don't know enough, either way.

Another way to look at it is to see what actions (not rhetoric) governments are doing - after all they should have the best advisers and information. However it would appear that our government are doing their utmost to find the maximum taxation level WITHOUT inducing behaviour change in the population. If the government truly wanted to cut CO2 emissions wouldn't they just ban all non-essential journeys? Or put fuel taxes up so high that only essential journeys are worthwhile? How will raising more tax without changing behaviour help the environment?

Ironically, it's the oil market at the moment that is possibly going to start modifying behaviour. Lots of people are finding fuel rather expensive but not due to any green taxes, just due to expensive oil supplies.

Though oil costs have risen, the biggest cause of high prices is clearly the 300% added in duty and tax.

[Tafia]

_James said:

Jasandjules said:

_James said:

I should imagine it has become quite fashionable in the scientific community to deny global warming.

You must be joking. It is almost impossible to get funding UNLESS your research sets out to show MMGW.. IF your hypothesis is that any warming is dissapating and is in any event anthropological, there is no funding......

Fair enough, I stand corrected. Although where do you get that information from?

It's widely known amongst those of us who read both the science and the communist politics behind the man-made warming lie.

[Tafia]

_James said:

eldar said:

I don't know for sure if mmgw exists to any great extent, I'm not qualified enough to qualify the evidence of its existence or not.

One question always seems to be avoided is 'Why, exactly, is global warming a great threat - greater than aids, malaria or overpopulation.?' Never had an answer to that beyond 'Oooh its terrible'

To take the most quoted economic report, GDP could be 20% lower than what it should be without global warming - I refuse to get into a debate about the Stern review however. Just mentioning that to give an indication of the costs. Bear in mind 20% of current global GDP is something like $13 trillion, it is a big cost.

A cynic might suggest that the reason it gets so much attention is because it will be a significant problem for developed as well as developing countries (if it is actually happening).

Stern has been slammed both by scientists and economists.

[Jasandjules]

_James said:

This place needs some serious BALANCE.

IF you read the Global Warming threads, you will see a few posters who put the opposing view.

As for scientists not having grants, check the IPCC data - check out how many grants have been given for non Pro MMGW.. Even check out the idea that the IPCC and various "scientists" wanted to BAN any non pro MMGW data going out into the public domain - the work of those who are guilt ridden IMHO. FOr any scientist to say "the science is settled", means alarm bells ring very loudly in my head, and for anyone to say BAN the opposition, well, a scientist welcomes the challenge of an opposing view, so they can refute it, and re-inforce their own view, and no true scientist will ever say the science is settled, for they cannot know this.

I don't believe in MMGW as much because the Govt still ride around in 4l Range Rovers and Jags, and all fly off to Bali for a conference on MMGW etc.. Not to mention the EU moving building each month, I'm sure that's "carbon neutral"... as any of the science - but, the science that I have looked at with my only A Level standard of scientific education, does not show MMGW at all.

[Tafia]

hairykrishna said:

It's fairly well settled that it's hotter now that at any time in the past 1000 years, probably 2000. It's probably going to get hotter. It's very likely that these rises in temperature are due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. It's very likely that these increased concentrations are due to human activity.

Oh no it isn't. Holocene Optimum ; much warmer. Roman Warm Period, warmer; Medieval Warm Period, warmer: 1930s decade now proved warmer than the 1990's. Last decade, cooling. No proof at all that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures. It was only ever a hypothesis, never even elevated to a theory and now disproved by real world events.

[Tafia]

Steve E said:

It is great to find on this and many other web forums this discussion going on and the healty sceptic challenging the "Official" line.

I work in the oil and gas industry.
Our geologist says CO2 is at its lowest for 320,000,000 years!
The other considerations have been mentioned, but climate change is fact and has been for the whole history of the planet.

There is only one way to reduce the human contribution to climate change.
And that is to reduce the number of Humans!

Not rocket science as they say.
But can't see any politician with the balls to take that one on yet.
Apart from the so called "bad guys" the Chinese.

Your geologist is likely right. CO2 was 12 times higher than now during the Late Ordovician Ice Age. Ssssssssssssh!

[Tafia]

_James said:

bosscerbera said:

Steve E said:

It is great to find on this and many other web forums this discussion going on and the healty sceptic challenging the "Official" line.

I work in the oil and gas industry.
Our geologist says CO2 is at its lowest for 320,000,000 years!
The other considerations have been mentioned, but climate change is fact and has been for the whole history of the planet.

There is only one way to reduce the human contribution to climate change.
And that is to reduce the number of Humans!

Not rocket science as they say.
But can't see any politician with the balls to take that one on yet.
Apart from the so called "bad guys" the Chinese.

I am framing this post.

This is precisely the attitude I was talking about in my earlier post. "Our geologist says.....[insert fact which goes against MMGW theories]" - therefore this person should be hailed as a hero. You have no way of knowing that fact to be correct. Yet because it supports your view, naturally it must be correct.

This place needs some serious BALANCE.

And to the person that says that taxes are pointless - there would be no point in banning things that caused global warming - shockingly, being able to drive also brings with it benefits. The whole point of the market mechanism, and in the event of its failure, government intervention, is to equate the costs of doing something with their benefit. So if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt (which I concur hasn't happened yet) that MMGW is happening, and will have negative effects, taxes should be set to equalise the costs of the production of CO2 with these negative externalities.

James mon,

If fossil fuel taxes are needed to stop the world melting, why did our lunatic, crazed extreme leftie government give aid of over £2 billion from 1997 to 2002 to India, Zimbabwe, Turkey, China and more to help them build coal-fired power stations? Chinese coal use is predicted to double to 2 billion tonnes per annum by 2010. Gordon Brown-stuff is helping China open a new coal-fired station every week!!! Explain please.

[Tafia]

tekta said:

I like Pistonheads because the GW skeptics give me some hope that it may not be true.
But isn't it a strange coincidence that such a fervently anti GW site....is based on a fondness for fast, high energy use cars? Funny that

You all reap the benfits of cars - you sit in a comfy seat, shielded from the elements, and travel wherever you want at 80 mph with just a small press of your foot. So take some fg responsibility for what comes out of your exhaust pipe.

Cars are too good these days, they disguise from you the energy and resource use required to propel each person's own 1500kg vehicle. Hide away those villainous vibrations, noise, smells and heat - it's all about creating the illusion that you effortlessly get from A to B. bks.

Prove to the rest of us that cars have no negative effects, and we'll shut up. Until then we'll listen to the majority of scientists while you all sit on your hands, justifying your hobby.

Majority of scientists??? Man you are sooooooooooo out of date. Helloooo.

[SamHH]

Steve E said:

There is only one way to reduce the human contribution to climate change.
And that is to reduce the number of Humans!

So are you saying that human activity is contributing to changing the climate or that it's not?

[SamHH]

HRG said:

And Tekta, the scientists don't believe in MMGW, it's the lobbying organisations and politicians who do!

That's a bit of a blanket statement isn't it? Are you genuinely saying that no scientists believe that MMGW is happening or are you just making that up in order to support your argument?

Edited by SamHH on Saturday 26th April 10:29

[_James]

I guess balance was a bit too much to ask. Whilst everyone on here is very welcome to spout as many scientific facts as they like about temperatures in different time periods, the fact of the matter is, NONE OF US UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Even slightly. Even the climate scientists are only making their best approximations, since we, as a species, do not fully understand what is happening.

Suffice to say, however, there are scientists who believe that MMGW is happening. There are also those that believe it isn't. However, the existence of the latter does not make the former wrong. And vice versa.

What I am trying to say is that the debate continues, and NONE OF US, on this forum, are even capable of having an educated opinion. We are not, in any way, qualified to say it isn't happening. In fact, standing up and saying it isn't happening is stupid, because your only proof can be something you read on the internet - the majority of research, that is published, can't be accessed via Google (and again, that applies both ways).

On the note of governments taking advantage of it, I'd almost be inclined to agree. There is an argument that if we don't start reducing emissions now, the costs later will be higher, but I don't think I could argue thats their full motivation. However, it is possible that good science (i.e. proving MMGW), has been hijacked by governments, causing resentment. Which means that the science itself is now questioned, as opposed to the actions of the governments.

[LuS1fer]

It's tax, James. Get over it. Any bandwagon is an excuse to tax us and it pays the government to keep the bandwagon rolling. There is no certainty about global warming or it's causes. There is massive certainty about using it as an excuse to tax people and take it out of my pocket - and I mean tax people not once but several times over - they tax your earnings, they add tax to every single thing you buy, including cars and petrol so in retort to paying for your CO2 emissions, I rather feel I've paid significantly over the odds already, thanks very much.

Funnily enough, I have 3 cars - a V8 that barely sees 3000 miles a year, a daily driver that does maybe 12000 a year and a spare for when we need two cars which does 3000 a year. Strange that although we generally use only one at a time, I have to pay VEL for 3 - around £600 a year and the biggest "polluter" is the "cleanest" one. Go figure.

You know, it might even be sort of credible if they weren't encouraging diesels and I for one am sick of following sdiesels chugging out sh*t from the exhaust.

[Tafia]

SamHH said:

HRG said:

And Tekta, the scientists don't believe in MMGW, it's the lobbying organisations and politicians who do!

That's a bit of a blanket statement isn't it? Are you genuinely saying that no scientists believe that MMGW is happening or are you just making that up in order to support your argument?

Edited by SamHH on Saturday 26th April 10:29

What some politically-funded scientists say and what they believe is not the same thing

[Tafia]

_James said:

I guess balance was a bit too much to ask. Whilst everyone on here is very welcome to spout as many scientific facts as they like about temperatures in different time periods, the fact of the matter is, NONE OF US UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Even slightly. Even the climate scientists are only making their best approximations, since we, as a species, do not fully understand what is happening.

Suffice to say, however, there are scientists who believe that MMGW is happening. There are also those that believe it isn't. However, the existence of the latter does not make the former wrong. And vice versa.

What I am trying to say is that the debate continues, and NONE OF US, on this forum, are even capable of having an educated opinion. We are not, in any way, qualified to say it isn't happening. In fact, standing up and saying it isn't happening is stupid, because your only proof can be something you read on the internet - the majority of research, that is published, can't be accessed via Google (and again, that applies both ways).

On the note of governments taking advantage of it, I'd almost be inclined to agree. There is an argument that if we don't start reducing emissions now, the costs later will be higher, but I don't think I could argue thats their full motivation. However, it is possible that good science (i.e. proving MMGW), has been hijacked by governments, causing resentment. Which means that the science itself is now questioned, as opposed to the actions of the governments.

James, Reply to my China coal post please Cheers, T

[_James]

LuS1fer said:

It's tax, James. Get over it. Any bandwagon is an excuse to tax us and it pays the government to keep the bandwagon rolling. There is no certainty about global warming or it's causes. There is massive certainty about using it as an excuse to tax people and take it out of my pocket - and I mean tax people not once but several times over - they tax your earnings, they add tax to every single thing you buy, including cars and petrol so in retort to paying for your CO2 emissions, I rather feel I've paid significantly over the odds already, thanks very much.

Funnily enough, I have 3 cars - a V8 that barely sees 3000 miles a year, a daily driver that does maybe 12000 a year and a spare for when we need two cars which does 3000 a year. Strange that although we generally use only one at a time, I have to pay VEL for 3 - around £600 a year and the biggest "polluter" is the "cleanest" one. Go figure.

You know, it might even be sort of credible if they weren't encouraging diesels and I for one am sick of following sdiesels chugging out sh*t from the exhaust.

Precisely, which is why I was trying to separate the resentment about the tax element from the actual science of climate change. As you say, there is no certainty, but there is also no certainty that it isn't happening.

My problem is that people express their resentment about green taxes by arguing against MMGW - for no good reason other than that they're pissed off about being taxed.

[Tafia]

_James said:

LuS1fer said:

It's tax, James. Get over it. Any bandwagon is an excuse to tax us and it pays the government to keep the bandwagon rolling. There is no certainty about global warming or it's causes. There is massive certainty about using it as an excuse to tax people and take it out of my pocket - and I mean tax people not once but several times over - they tax your earnings, they add tax to every single thing you buy, including cars and petrol so in retort to paying for your CO2 emissions, I rather feel I've paid significantly over the odds already, thanks very much.

Funnily enough, I have 3 cars - a V8 that barely sees 3000 miles a year, a daily driver that does maybe 12000 a year and a spare for when we need two cars which does 3000 a year. Strange that although we generally use only one at a time, I have to pay VEL for 3 - around £600 a year and the biggest "polluter" is the "cleanest" one. Go figure.

You know, it might even be sort of credible if they weren't encouraging diesels and I for one am sick of following sdiesels chugging out sh*t from the exhaust.

Precisely, which is why I was trying to separate the resentment about the tax element from the actual science of climate change. As you say, there is no certainty, but there is also no certainty that it isn't happening.

My problem is that people express their resentment about green taxes by arguing against MMGW - for no good reason other than that they're pissed off about being taxed.

I argue aganst it because I bloody well hate being lied to by THE MAN.

[Polrules]

_James said:

Precisely, which is why I was trying to separate the resentment about the tax element from the actual science of climate change. As you say, there is no certainty, but there is also no certainty that it isn't happening.

My problem is that people express their resentment about green taxes by arguing against MMGW - for no good reason other than that they're pissed off about being taxed.

But that's the whole point isn't it? We're pissed off with the taxes, rightly so, as you state yourself the science is far from settled. Does it not seem unjust to be expected to cough up hundreds, maybe thousands of pounds per year in the name of something that "MAY or MAY NOT" be happening?

[_James]

Polrules said:

_James said:

Precisely, which is why I was trying to separate the resentment about the tax element from the actual science of climate change. As you say, there is no certainty, but there is also no certainty that it isn't happening.

My problem is that people express their resentment about green taxes by arguing against MMGW - for no good reason other than that they're pissed off about being taxed.

But that's the whole point isn't it? We're pissed off with the taxes, rightly so, as you state yourself the science is far from settled. Does it not seem unjust to be expected to cough up hundreds, maybe thousands of pounds per year in the name of something that "MAY or MAY NOT" be happening?

BUT, if the science IS correct, then the cost of repairing the damage grows with every year we try not to tackle the problem.

If it turns out the science is incorrect, then we'll have spent a fortune reducing the world's consumption of fossil fuels.

[Jasandjules]

_James said:

BUT, if the science IS correct, then the cost of repairing the damage grows with every year we try not to tackle the problem.

What science? There is evidence of computer models.

Apart from that, the science indicates the big fiery ball in the centre of our solar system is the source of heat on this planet.

[SamHH]

Tafia said:

What some politically-funded scientists say and what they believe is not the same thing

No doubt, as is probably the case in any field of science where there is a political interest. That doesn't mean however, that, as HRG was implying, there are no scientists who believe MMGW is happening.