Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
How politicians screwed up due to CC beliefs
Why officials in Labour government pushed 'dash for diesel'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
As Chancellor Philip Hammond considers tougher budget measures on diesel cars, documents obtained by the BBC reveal how the "dash for diesel" was encouraged by presentational considerations.
The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences..............Mr Brown brought in a sliding scale for car tax or vehicle excise duty (VED), to make it cheaper for cars with lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming. This resulted in lower VED rates generally for diesel cars, which tend to be more fuel efficient. But they emitted greater quantities of other pollutants harmful to health, nitrogen oxides and particulates..................continues.
What a surprise !!!
Why officials in Labour government pushed 'dash for diesel'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
As Chancellor Philip Hammond considers tougher budget measures on diesel cars, documents obtained by the BBC reveal how the "dash for diesel" was encouraged by presentational considerations.
The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences..............Mr Brown brought in a sliding scale for car tax or vehicle excise duty (VED), to make it cheaper for cars with lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming. This resulted in lower VED rates generally for diesel cars, which tend to be more fuel efficient. But they emitted greater quantities of other pollutants harmful to health, nitrogen oxides and particulates..................continues.
What a surprise !!!
turbobloke said:
BBC = evidence-free zone as happens with agw.
"carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming"
Climate model gigo isn't evidence. There's nothing else bar belief, also not evidence.
While being a convinced sceptic I do feel that complete disagreement with that quoted statement is difficult."carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming"
Climate model gigo isn't evidence. There's nothing else bar belief, also not evidence.
It's the implied conclusion jump that is repeated and never questioned - that such warming as CO2 may exhibit is in any way significant, runaway, detrimental or can be discerned from empirical observations and measurements.
It only exists in the minds and models of climate so-called scientists who have designed the models to so behave.
robinessex said:
How politicians screwed up due to CC beliefs
Why officials in Labour government pushed 'dash for diesel'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
As Chancellor Philip Hammond considers tougher budget measures on diesel cars, documents obtained by the BBC reveal how the "dash for diesel" was encouraged by presentational considerations.
The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences..............Mr Brown brought in a sliding scale for car tax or vehicle excise duty (VED), to make it cheaper for cars with lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming. This resulted in lower VED rates generally for diesel cars, which tend to be more fuel efficient. But they emitted greater quantities of other pollutants harmful to health, nitrogen oxides and particulates..................continues.
What a surprise !!!
There are times when the potential problems should be so obvious and any advice to the contrary so questionable that one has to wonder the consequences were indeed "unintended".Why officials in Labour government pushed 'dash for diesel'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
As Chancellor Philip Hammond considers tougher budget measures on diesel cars, documents obtained by the BBC reveal how the "dash for diesel" was encouraged by presentational considerations.
The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences..............Mr Brown brought in a sliding scale for car tax or vehicle excise duty (VED), to make it cheaper for cars with lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming. This resulted in lower VED rates generally for diesel cars, which tend to be more fuel efficient. But they emitted greater quantities of other pollutants harmful to health, nitrogen oxides and particulates..................continues.
What a surprise !!!
If they were then we are simply left with advisors incompetence.
Now, who was the advisor at the time and what else were they involved with that should also be re-assessed for levels of competence?
(A somewhat rhetorical question.)
Camoradi said:
I woke this morning to hear Roger Harrabin on radio 4....
"Climate change is here now. We've already had the 3 hottest years on record"
no s
t Rog.
I suspect we may be heading towards the (predicted) three hottest years not yet experienced but already on the record."Climate change is here now. We've already had the 3 hottest years on record"
no s
t Rog.I have no doubt that people already know when they will happen.
The thing about humanity, from very early in life, is that it likes to be "frightened" by something. The unknown (but dreamable) is also addictive for many, perhaps most.
Latching on to that offers a long term option to promote something ill defined but potentially dangerous. Something we can see ourselves "fighting" in some glorious cause.
There's a reason why myths like St. George slaying the dragon are perpetuated and become lasting iconic stories that survive well past their use by date.
Camoradi said:
I woke this morning to hear Roger Harrabin on radio 4....
"Climate change is here now. We've already had the 3 hottest years on record"
no st Rog.
I try not to watch or listen to anything BBC at the moment, while the 'message' is being relentlessly pushed out during the Bonn party. The bombardment of 'settled' science is truly painful, the power of the media is huge, especially the BBC, and to be allowed to present one side of a debate like this is shameful and mind boggling."Climate change is here now. We've already had the 3 hottest years on record"
no s
t Rog.But I did let my guard down last week and suffered a piece inflicted upon me about rising CO2 accompanied by pictures of smog filled cities, mendaciously inviting me to believe that CO2 is a nasty smog causing pollutant, rather than a naturally occurring trace gas that's essential for life. I guess these pictures will be the new standard images now that the cooling tower images of plumes of steam seem to have been dropped.
On the plus side, at least the global warming party at Bonn has coincided with very heavy early snowfall in parts of Europe.
robinessex said:
Trolleys Thank You said:
robinessex said:
XM5ER said:
I cant believe that this hasn't been picked up on here yet
Labour vows to factor climate change risk into economic forecasts
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/1...
That should go well.
Labour vows to factor climate change risk into economic forecasts
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/1...
That should go well.
The Bank of England are doing similar.
Its called prudence.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Trolleys Thank You said:
robinessex said:
XM5ER said:
I cant believe that this hasn't been picked up on here yet
Labour vows to factor climate change risk into economic forecasts
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/1...
That should go well.
Labour vows to factor climate change risk into economic forecasts
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/1...
That should go well.
The Bank of England are doing similar.
Its called prudence.
turbobloke said:
News item: apparently the impact from human climate change will be felt by the end of the century, according to hot air in Germany. That's interesting...nothing as yet (OK) and a long wait lies ahead so the current generation of alarmists can retire and disappear. Cool.
And it must be comforting for you to know that you can never be proved wrong.Making a political splash out of old policy decisions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4201...
UK apparently leading the world (with Canada) to move away from coal for energy generation.
Oh well, clearly political as the content of the piece identifies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4201...
UK apparently leading the world (with Canada) to move away from coal for energy generation.
Oh well, clearly political as the content of the piece identifies.
LongQ said:
Making a political splash out of old policy decisions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4201...
UK apparently leading the world (with Canada) to move away from coal for energy generation.
Oh well, clearly political as the content of the piece identifies.
Amazing how much CC on the Beeb in the last few days. Oh hang on, there’s some sort of CC shindig going on in Fiji I believe. What a coincidence! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4201...
UK apparently leading the world (with Canada) to move away from coal for energy generation.
Oh well, clearly political as the content of the piece identifies.
Here’s a picture of the most gullible politicians on the planet
steveT350C said:
Germany is burning too much coal
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-14...
Priceless! Thanks for the link.https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-14...
robinessex said:
Amazing how much CC on the Beeb in the last few days. Oh hang on, there’s some sort of CC shindig going on in Fiji I believe. What a coincidence!
Here’s a picture of the most gullible politicians on the planet
the bbc you say ? remember professor joanna haigh being allowed to state blatant lies regarding increasing extreme weather events a week or so on the bbc ?Here’s a picture of the most gullible politicians on the planet
here is the reply i received when i challenged them on this. note not one single refutation of the point i made regarding no global data sets support the claimed increase in extreme weather events.
"Thanks for contacting us regarding the BBC News channel on 4 November.
As you acknowledge, the remarks you mention were made by interviewee, Professor Joanna Haigh, Imperial College, a specialist in climate change – and the discussion was about the findings of the climate change report in the US that the White House was attempting to downplay.
Our News editors do seek to ensure that, over a reasonable period of time, we reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends etc on particular issues. But our published Editorial Guidelines also explain that not every issue or viewpoint necessarily has to be included in each individual broadcast or report.
Judging when to interrupt a guest or challenge them on a point they’ve made is also an art, not a science. In interviews, it’s inevitable that guests will make comments that aren’t all picked up on or challenged, in keeping the discussion and broadcast on track.
Ultimately, we allow the audience to draw their own conclusions from the comments and claims made by interviewees, by framing them with other views and news items in the long run.
That said, we thank you again for your feedback and appreciate that you may take a different view to Prof Haigh and this US climate change report. We’ve included your comments in our overnight reports for the benefit of news teams. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC ensuring that complaints are seen quickly by the right people.
so proof, if it were needed, the bbc allow opinion to be presented as fact and in relation to climate change are indeed full of s
t and less well informed than someone that left school with 5 o levels . anyone want to disagree ?I feel that for the purposes of transparency if you’re to quote a letter from the BBC you should redact your name and address and post the actual letter in this thread.
You typing it in is not something most people would accept as proof of anything.
I’m not calling you a liar as the letter - as typed by you above - seems legit but we can’t know that you’ve not edited it, adding or omitting bits.
Your initial letter to them would also be helpful.
Without those we just have your word for all this. So I doubt anyone would be happy to comment on it as presented.
Cheers.
You typing it in is not something most people would accept as proof of anything.
I’m not calling you a liar as the letter - as typed by you above - seems legit but we can’t know that you’ve not edited it, adding or omitting bits.
Your initial letter to them would also be helpful.
Without those we just have your word for all this. So I doubt anyone would be happy to comment on it as presented.
Cheers.
That Bonn IPCC meeting - 16000 delegates. Chaired by Fiji but located in Bonn.
Have a look at the list - there's more eco charity bods than I ever knew existed, including just 58 from Greenpeace and 27 from FoE, (even 11 from Oxfam)...
Major boondoggle.
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced...
Have a look at the list - there's more eco charity bods than I ever knew existed, including just 58 from Greenpeace and 27 from FoE, (even 11 from Oxfam)...
Major boondoggle.
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced...
gadgetmac said:
I feel that for the purposes of transparency if you’re to quote a letter from the BBC you should redact your name and address and post the actual letter in this thread.
You typing it in is not something most people would accept as proof of anything.
I’m not calling you a liar as the letter - as typed by you above - seems legit but we can’t know that you’ve not edited it, adding or omitting bits.
Your initial letter to them would also be helpful.
Without those we just have your word for all this. So I doubt anyone would be happy to comment on it as presented.
Cheers.
How do we know for sure that you didn't get somebody else to type that reply, or that you actually think that the entire BBC thing is genuine but want to muddy the waters? You typing it in is not something most people would accept as proof of anything.
I’m not calling you a liar as the letter - as typed by you above - seems legit but we can’t know that you’ve not edited it, adding or omitting bits.
Your initial letter to them would also be helpful.
Without those we just have your word for all this. So I doubt anyone would be happy to comment on it as presented.
Cheers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff