Global Warming

[buctootim]

To put it bluntly - research dollars. And I'm not saying it's wrong to strive for alternatives to fossil fuels, or to lower emissions, but that's where the bucks are at the moment........Personally I don't have a scoobie, but I would like the opportunity to hear all sides.

 

The bucks are in renewables research simply because the debate on 'is climate change man made' is over, and has been for several years. Seriously, Im not saying this as some blinkered activist. All kinds of vested interests funded research, including organisations like Exxon who tried very hard to come up data to prove anthropogenic climate change wasnt real, wasn't happening. They failed, their own commissioned research came up with the same findings.

 

Climate change is happening and is almost certainly caused by human activity. The real area of debate is how far, how fast and how much do we need to do to manage it. It is true that there are a lot of alarmists out there. Al Gore was great at generating attention a few years ago, less good on veracity. We almost certainly wont see London or New York flooded in the next 50 years. We probably are locked into average temperature rises of 2 degrees over the next 100 years, but will only get 5 or 6 degree rises if we do nothing at all. If we act now in a measured way its a manageable problem. Atmospheric carbon is currently 388parts per million and needs to get back to around 350ppm (its currently increasing by 2-3ppm per year). Insulating my house properly cut the heating bills from £2,100pa (previous owner) to £600 and cost me £4,200 - a payback period of 2.5 years and cut its emissions by 70%. My current diesel car is faster and more powerful than my old petrol one but gets 30% better mileage. Whats not to like?

Edited 21 December, 2010 by buctootim

[Thedelldays]

its all a load of crap..

 

if the powers at be were that serious, they would FORCE visible change in our everyday lives..

 

packaging in supermarkets for example are hillarious...everything is covered in plastic, then you get your plastic bags to put them in..

then you have recycling waste....my wheely bin has been full for a wee while now (after I tried at this game) and YET they dont bother to collect..despite reassurance from the council..

 

to be honest...until we see big changes in society that we individually cannot do..then what we do at home is pointless

 

my eyes really opened up when I spent a short time in Oman (muscat) not so long ago...petrol was about 14p a litre and nearly every single car was a gas guzzling 4x4...yet we get taxed to high heaven for them..

 

can we do more at home...hell yes

is it a convenient cash cow...seems that way to me

[dubai_phil]

To put it bluntly the whole Man Made Global Warming con is about scientists/businesses keeping the gravy train going, and Socialists loving the taxation opportunities - the climate change hoax perfectly fits their ideological desire to control. You've also got the cranky left wingers that love a to have a cause to support. If they weren't getting in a tiz over this they'd be out saving whales or living in tree houses on proposed bypass routes.

 

Unfortunately I agree with the basic premise of this.

 

Gravy train, get on board.

 

Climate change - what does it actually MEAN? OK so much ice melts and waters rise and oops sorry Maldives.

 

Or does it mean the Jet Stream & Gulf Stream stay where they are now and UK & Western Europe get the winters they should get based on Geography not quirks of nature - eg fecking cold in winter & hot in summer

 

Thing is climate change means average global change, but so many people have made assumptions NOT based on science (as we don't HAVE enough Empirical evidence) as to what that COULD mean in terms of LOCAL weather.

 

Pretty sure the idiots running BAA will be trotting out "Global Warming" as their excuse for investing only 500k in snow planning (half the boss's salary) and a fraction of the pain & loss the public have endured, and yet if the Gulf stream moved the WRONG way by only a few hundred miles UK could get like the US East Coast with Ice Storms and all that malarky.

 

But don't mess with the source of funding if you are a Scientist, go with the flow, it's so much easier.

 

I'm in the nobody REALLY knows what Climate change will do on a LOCAL level camp

[aintforever]

I don't think scientists KNOW what change will do on any level, that's why billions is being spent on satellites that measure the thickness of ice and distribution of water around the globe.

 

The effects are potentially catastrophic, but the UK could end up having some positive effects.

[dune]

I don't think scientists KNOW what change will do on any level, that's why billions is being spent on satellites that measure the thickness of ice and distribution of water around the globe.

 

The effects are potentially catastrophic, but the UK could end up having some positive effects.

 

The effects of natural climate change are just something we've got to get used to. Whatever we do will have no influence.

[Johnny Bognor]

Climate change is happening, no doubt about that. Whether it is man made, I need to see more evidence. We had an Ice Age 10,000 years ago and there was a significant change in climate, whilst we were all running around in grass skirts. The planet has been going through climate change since the beginning of time and therefore all previous changes were not down to man. Why should the current change be down to man? Unless we can understand what caused previous changes in climate, it would be difficult to prove the current scenario.

 

However, if I gave the beleivers the benefit of doubt, fair enough, but for me the issue is more about the finite natural resources we are consuming and the rate we are consuming them. This for me will be mans destruction (possibly in our lifetime), so the issue of climate change is immaterial because we won't be around long enough as a species to find out. The next world war will be over resource.

 

What can we do? I would like to see us go more into renewable energy, thus moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels, giving us security of supply and more control over our destiny as a nation. If there is man made climate change, renewables would help this too. We could then export this technology thus putting us back on the map with regards to being an economic powerhouse.

Edited 21 December, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Sheaf Saint]

However, if I gave the beleivers the benefit of doubt, fair enough, but for me the issue is more about the finite natural resources we are consuming and the rate we are consuming them. This for me will be mans destruction (possibly in our lifetime), so the issue of climate change is immaterial because we won't be around long enough as a species to find out. The next world war will be over resource.

 

What can we do? I would like to see us go more into renewable energy, thus moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels, giving us security of supply and more control over our destiny as a nation. If there is man made climate change, renewables would help this too. We could then export this technology thus putting us back on the map with regards to being an economic powerhouse.

 

Now this I wholeheartedly agree with. Even if it is proved that man-made carbon emissions have zero affect on the atmosphere (which is surely impossible), we still need to invest heavily in renewable energy in readiness for the time when all the fossil fuels this planet has to offer have been exhausted. The way I see it, we have two options.... We can either bury our heads in the sand, pretend that everything is OK and wait for the inevitable day when there is no more oil left to burn; or we can start making the transition now so that the technology can be perfected in plenty of time.

[View From The Top]

Climate change is happening, no doubt about that. Whether it is man made, I need to see more evidence. We had an Ice Age 10,000 years ago and there was a significant change in climate, whilst we were all running around in grass skirts. The planet has been going through climate change since the beginning of time and therefore all previous changes were not down to man. Why should the current change be down to man? Unless we can understand what caused previous changes in climate, it would be difficult to prove the current scenario.

 

However, if I gave the beleivers the benefit of doubt, fair enough, but for me the issue is more about the finite natural resources we are consuming and the rate we are consuming them. This for me will be mans destruction (possibly in our lifetime), so the issue of climate change is immaterial because we won't be around long enough as a species to find out. The next world war will be over resource.

 

What can we do? I would like to see us go more into renewable energy, thus moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels, giving us security of supply and more control over our destiny as a nation. If there is man made climate change, renewables would help this too. We could then export this technology thus putting us back on the map with regards to being an economic powerhouse.

 

Which is what I said earlier.

 

Only an idiot cannot see the benefits of energy security.

 

Some of our more dumb posters seem to think it's a good thing that the markets dictate that we import our coal from Poland, our gas from Russia and increasingly by sea from Nigeria and our oil from the Middle East.

 

The really dumb one(s) fail to understand that prices are only going in one direction, and it isn't down.

 

If nothing else a drive to greener energy stops us being hostage to others.

[Johnny Bognor]

Which is what I said earlier.

 

Only an idiot cannot see the benefits of energy security.

 

Some of our more dumb posters seem to think it's a good thing that the markets dictate that we import our coal from Poland, our gas from Russia and increasingly by sea from Nigeria and our oil from the Middle East.

 

The really dumb one(s) fail to understand that prices are only going in one direction, and it isn't down.

 

If nothing else a drive to greener energy stops us being hostage to others.

 

But those that argue for renewables go on about climate change. The very fact you call it greener energy proves this. If it is greener, great, but the emphasis should be on renewable (as opposed to finite). Ditch the green / climate change argument and look at security of supply (it wasn't that long ago that the ruskies turned off the gas pipes), the economic benefit (we import electricity from the french, what a waste of centuries of dominating the froggies) and the potential to sell this technoogy so that the nation's wealth improves.

 

Add the fact that we have more natural energy than many other nations of our size, it is a no brainer for me.

 

When the world runs out of oil, water and food, watch the **** hit the fan. The pacific part of WW2 was started due to oil. Do we never learn from history?

 

As I said earlier, we'll wipe ourselves out long before this panet is inhabitable

Edited 21 December, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Sheaf Saint]

its all a load of crap..

 

if the powers at be were that serious, they would FORCE visible change in our everyday lives..

 

The problem with that though is that we as a society have become totally dependent on coal/oil/gas. The technology to replace carbon-based power production is nowhere near being ready to implement fully, so it has to be done gradually. Imagine if the government ordered everyone to stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, what do you think would happen? A massive majority of the country would be without power and the economy would grind to a standstill because transport would be shut down completely. Shops would not be able to take deliveries of food so there would be riots in the streets by starving people. We would have no armed forces and I am sure that you understand, better than anyone on this forum, the implications of that.

[buctootim]

Climate change is happening, no doubt about that. Whether it is man made, I need to see more evidence. We had an Ice Age 10,000 years ago and there was a significant change in climate, whilst we were all running around in grass skirts. The planet has been going through climate change since the beginning of time and therefore all previous changes were not down to man. Why should the current change be down to man? Unless we can understand what caused previous changes in climate, it would be difficult to prove the current scenario.

 

However, if I gave the beleivers the benefit of doubt, fair enough, but for me the issue is more about the finite natural resources we are consuming and the rate we are consuming them. This for me will be mans destruction (possibly in our lifetime), so the issue of climate change is immaterial because we won't be around long enough as a species to find out. The next world war will be over resource.

 

What can we do? I would like to see us go more into renewable energy, thus moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels, giving us security of supply and more control over our destiny as a nation. If there is man made climate change, renewables would help this too. We could then export this technology thus putting us back on the map with regards to being an economic powerhouse.

 

Our climate doesnt vary randomly. Throughout time it has pretty much been affected by only two variables - concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and by particulates from volcanos or meteorite strikes. We need some CO2, without any temperatures would be around 20 degrees C lower than now. During the last ice age atmospheric CO2 was around 190ppm, during the pre industrial period around 280ppm and it is now 388ppm. Ultimately we need to manage atmospheric carbon to suit us - around 350ppm - whether it comes from natural events like volcanic eruptions, increases or decreases in forestation, or by people burning fossil fuels.

 

Resource exhaustion is a huge issue. Access to freshwater is another. Much of our food is grown in places like Spain which rely heavily on irrigation using water pumped up from underground aquifers. Water that took thousands of years to accumulate is being pumped out so fast the water will be gone in 12 years. Some think the next war between Pakistan and India will be over water from the Indus and other rivers fed by Himalayan melt water - not a problem when global warming is increasing that flow, but a major problem when most of the ice has gone and the flows dry up in 30 years or so.

Edited 22 December, 2010 by buctootim

[dune]

Climate change is happening, no doubt about that. Whether it is man made, I need to see more evidence. We had an Ice Age 10,000 years ago and there was a significant change in climate, whilst we were all running around in grass skirts. The planet has been going through climate change since the beginning of time and therefore all previous changes were not down to man. Why should the current change be down to man? Unless we can understand what caused previous changes in climate, it would be difficult to prove the current scenario.

 

However, if I gave the beleivers the benefit of doubt, fair enough, but for me the issue is more about the finite natural resources we are consuming and the rate we are consuming them. This for me will be mans destruction (possibly in our lifetime), so the issue of climate change is immaterial because we won't be around long enough as a species to find out. The next world war will be over resource.

 

What can we do? I would like to see us go more into renewable energy, thus moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels, giving us security of supply and more control over our destiny as a nation. If there is man made climate change, renewables would help this too. We could then export this technology thus putting us back on the map with regards to being an economic powerhouse.

 

I agree to an extent, but am more inclined towards nuclear power.

[dubai_phil]

Our climate doesnt vary randomly. Throughout time it has pretty much been affected by only two variables - concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and by particulates from volcanos or meteorite strikes. We need some CO2, without any temperatures would be around 20 degrees C lower than now. During the last ice age atmospheric CO2 was around 190ppm, during the pre industrial period around 280ppm and it is now 388ppm. Ultimately we need to manage atmospheric carbon to suit us - around 350ppm - whether it comes from natural events like volcanic eruptions, increases or decreases in forestation, or by people burning fossil fuels.

 

Resource exhaustion is a huge issue. Access to freshwater is another. Much of our food is grown in places like Spain which rely heavily on irrigation using water pumped up from underground aquifers. Water that took thousands of years to accumulate is being pumped out so fast the water will be gone in 12 years. Some think the next war between Pakistan and India will be over water from the Indus and other rivers fed by Himalayan melt water - not a problem when global warming is increasing that flow, but a major problem when most of the ice has gone and the flows dry up in 30 years or so.

 

Sorry, error in your first line. Which is often ignored by Warmists.

 

There is also the argument regarding the output of the Sun which will have an impact.

 

"Greenhouse gases" and "Particles" will be a part of the machinery. At the end of the day if the amount of energy hitting the earth's atmosphere decreases then the impact of what is in the atmosphere is also affected.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

 

The intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth has been relatively constant throughout the last 2000 years, with variations of around 0.1-0.2%.[8][9][10] The combination of solar variation and volcanic effects are likely to have contributed to climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. Apart from solar brightness variations, more subtle solar magnetic activity influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded although confirmation is not at hand since physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed

 

The point is that it needs a Holistic approach to ALL factors, not just ones that support one side of a debate. The data on Solar fluctuations is not yet "Good Science" yet there is enough "known unknowns" for it to have a probable impact.

 

To base decisions affecting the economy and the human race on only one piece of a jigsaw is wrong. Equally to implement policies and plans that damage the competitiveness of a Nation or Continent under the guise of "being green" without taking the rest of the world with it is also wrong.

 

So mix Bad or incomplete Science with Michael Crichtonesque State of Fear mentality and you end up screwing yourselves over.

 

The argument - someone has to make a start. Good examp[le the extra Green Airline taxes for flights through UK - reduce flights you all say, save the planet. Rubbish, 40% of passengers through Uk are transit passengers going somewhere else. They simply stop using UK and spending money with airports and airlines and fly on routes that don't attract the taxes. Your economy suffers and you don't have enough income to implement other more important changes or research into alternative energy.

 

Holistic approach and an integrated approach. Don't take only ONE thing all the time.

[dune]

Sorry, error in your first line. Which is often ignored by Warmists.

 

There is also the argument regarding the output of the Sun which will have an impact.

 

Tims arguments are riddled with errors, but neglecting the sun (the giver of life to our planet) is a basic mistake made by the climate comrades. They ignore the correlation between sun spot activity and mean temperatures in favour of sooth saying. It's all about agenda and having a cause. Believing MMGW is the ultimate in left wing hobbies so they're not going to let historical facts, figures and precedents get in the way of being good eco warriors.

[Sheaf Saint]

Tims arguments are riddled with errors, but neglecting the sun (the giver of life to our planet) is a basic mistake made by the climate comrades. They ignore the correlation between sun spot activity and mean temperatures in favour of sooth saying. It's all about agenda and having a cause. Believing MMGW is the ultimate in left wing hobbies so they're not going to let historical facts, figures and precedents get in the way of being good eco warriors.

 

Still wearing the blinkers and spouting the same old drivel I see. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post....

 

To put it bluntly the whole Man Made Global Warming con is about scientists/businesses keeping the gravy train going, and Socialists loving the taxation opportunities - the climate change hoax perfectly fits their ideological desire to control.

 

OK dune, let's for one moment, hypothetically, assume that you are right and that Climate change is just one big hoax invented by socialists in order to impose higher taxes on everyone. How do you explain this?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Now this I wholeheartedly agree with. Even if it is proved that man-made carbon emissions have zero affect on the atmosphere (which is surely impossible), we still need to invest heavily in renewable energy in readiness for the time when all the fossil fuels this planet has to offer have been exhausted. The way I see it, we have two options.... We can either bury our heads in the sand, pretend that everything is OK and wait for the inevitable day when there is no more oil left to burn; or we can start making the transition now so that the technology can be perfected in plenty of time.

 

I can remember dune posting once that we will need a war to decide who has control over the last remaining natural resources...so I know what option of yours he would choose.

[dune]

I can remember dune posting once that we will need a war to decide who has control over the last remaining natural resources...so I know what option of yours he would choose.

 

One can only assume you're a denier of the theory "survival of the fittest" and you deny that "only the fittest organisms will prevail". With a depletion of resources to the extent that there isn't enough to go around of course there would be conflict. This may not sit well with your "we're all in this together" ideology, but it's a fact. Can I suggest you do a bit of historical research of wars and why they often happened (from competing city states to larger conflicts) because your knowledge appears rather lacking.

[dubai_phil]

I can remember dune posting once that we will need a war to decide who has control over the last remaining natural resources...so I know what option of yours he would choose.

 

Actually - you lot lost that one already.

 

You all demand cheaper and cheaper goods because "The Western Life" can be generalised as "Must go shopping every week for the latest fashion/gizmo"

 

You all work (or use Dole money in skatemuff) to buy your MP3 players & Iphones or latest Primark goodies.

 

Which all goes to China

 

Who have then been running around the world buying up farmland, natural resources and the like, There's a global recession yet commodity prices stay high. They worked that one out years ago.

 

BTW just so others clearly understand. You SHOULD ignore The Sun. It's a rubbish paper.

 

But don't ignore Solar Fluctuations.

 

And as for bad science, anyone remember all those awful floods and devastating weather in latin America about 15 or 20 or more years ago? First time we ever heard the name El Nino.

 

Where is the science that actually says the UK should be warm and habitable? Look at Scotland and the valleys made by Glaciers during the ice age. Where is the proof that atmospheric emissions haven't actually made the UK habitable?

 

Left Right. Green Warmist Capitalist Communist. All "positions or ideals" that affect people. The left are (apparently) those seeking to protect the planet more than the right. And yet the heaviest polluters and destroyers of the environment were the old Communist system and now the "Socialist System" in China. (Although they are getting much better these days, it's good for PR so they can get more of your money to buy more Natural Resoources in advance)

[badgerx16]

Linked from the WIKI article DP quoted in post #263 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variation )

"Variations in solar output have been the cause of past climate changes. The effect of changes in solar forcing in recent decades is uncertain, but small, with some studies showing a slight cooling effect,[/url] while others studies suggest a slight warming effect."

 

So quoting solar influence, particularly from WIKI articles, is not really reliable evidence either way.

[badgerx16]

One can only assume you're a denier of the theory "survival of the fittest" and you deny that "only the fittest organisms will prevail". With a depletion of resources to the extent that there isn't enough to go around of course there would be conflict. This may not sit well with your "we're all in this together" ideology, but it's a fact. Can I suggest you do a bit of historical research of wars and why they often happened (from competing city states to larger conflicts) because your knowledge appears rather lacking.

Most wars in the last 1000 years have been fought on religious grounds.

[Thedelldays]

The problem with that though is that we as a society have become totally dependent on coal/oil/gas. The technology to replace carbon-based power production is nowhere near being ready to implement fully, so it has to be done gradually. Imagine if the government ordered everyone to stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, what do you think would happen? A massive majority of the country would be without power and the economy would grind to a standstill because transport would be shut down completely. Shops would not be able to take deliveries of food so there would be riots in the streets by starving people. We would have no armed forces and I am sure that you understand, better than anyone on this forum, the implications of that.

ok...I will stop burning oil..then what, I die..?

[dune]

Actually - you lot lost that one already.

 

I've never known Thorpie win an argument yet.

[dune]

Most wars in the last 1000 years have been fought on religious grounds.

 

Wrong.

 

That was just a convenient excuse. Most wars have always been fought over land and resources.

[dubai_phil]

Linked from the WIKI article DP quoted in post #263 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variation )

"Variations in solar output have been the cause of past climate changes. The effect of changes in solar forcing in recent decades is uncertain, but small, with some studies showing a slight cooling effect,[/url] while others studies suggest a slight warming effect."

 

So quoting solar influence, particularly from WIKI articles, is not really reliable evidence either way.

 

Which is what I said

 

The CLimate is a highly complex system with MANY factors influencing it, and we do NOT understand all the influences.

 

Global Warming - a fear of a SLIGHT increase in average temperatures...

 

The Government and Industry (especially BAA) think Global Warming so invest the money in a certain direction.

 

But they make the decisions on something without complete data. Global warming could mean the Gulfstream stays in the mid Atlantic and you get these winters for the next 20 years. (I said that as well) while the Maldives still get flooded.

 

The Warmist argument is incomplete and it is Bad Science.

[dune]

The Warmist argument is incomplete and it is Bad Science.

 

It is bad science, and over time (as the global cooling is recognised) we'll see a gradual backtracking and distancing from the cranky MMGW view. It will take time though because Scientists hate having to admit they were wrong almost as much as their left wing disciples.

[Sheaf Saint]

One can only assume you're a denier of the theory "survival of the fittest" and you deny that "only the fittest organisms will prevail". With a depletion of resources to the extent that there isn't enough to go around of course there would be conflict. This may not sit well with your "we're all in this together" ideology, but it's a fact.

 

But it doesn't need to be that way though does it dune? Surely if we can end our dependence on fossil fuels and resources then there will be no need to enter into conflict about it. Surely not even you could argue that if there is a way that we can avoid conflict then we should pursue that option.

 

Still waiting for your response on the current government's green policies by the way.......

[Thedelldays]

But it doesn't need to be that way though does it dune? Surely if we can end our dependence on fossil fuels and resources then there will be no need to enter into conflict about it. Surely not even you could argue that if there is a way that we can avoid conflict then we should pursue that option.

 

Still waiting for your response on the current government's green policies by the way.......

 

ok..so ending out dependence on oil etc...why do we need to be taxed for it.?..taxed at a level that does not really put us off but just enough to rake in the coin..?

 

car tax for example..

[doddisalegend]

Most wars in the last 1000 years have been fought on religious grounds.

 

oh really? I'd like to some stats on that. Religon makes a suitable excuse but is rarely the main reason. The crusades (both holy land and baltic) and the Hussite wars and to a degree the thirty years war prehaps but most is a bit strong.

[Verbal]

Which is what I said

 

The CLimate is a highly complex system with MANY factors influencing it, and we do NOT understand all the influences.

 

Global Warming - a fear of a SLIGHT increase in average temperatures...

 

The Government and Industry (especially BAA) think Global Warming so invest the money in a certain direction.

 

But they make the decisions on something without complete data. Global warming could mean the Gulfstream stays in the mid Atlantic and you get these winters for the next 20 years. (I said that as well) while the Maldives still get flooded.

 

The Warmist argument is incomplete and it is Bad Science.

 

You can't simply declare something 'bad science' - unless you either are a scientist of some standing (are you? If so, what are your qualifications? And what is it about the results or the methodology that you find 'bad'?); or you can quote respected scientists' contrary studies (not ravings, opinion etc) published in respected journals. Frankly, internet warriors declaring a broad scientific consensus as 'bad science' simply, I strongly suspect, because you don't like the results is a bit, well, bad. And since you're so certain of this, what exactly is 'incomplete'?

[dune]

But it doesn't need to be that way though does it dune? Surely if we can end our dependence on fossil fuels and resources then there will be no need to enter into conflict about it. Surely not even you could argue that if there is a way that we can avoid conflict then we should pursue that option.

 

There is no way we can avoid future conflicts over resources whilst the global population is increasing so fast. Food, Water, and shelter (including a means to keep warm) are the basic needs of the human race. They are all finite resources and with medical advances hindering natures ability to keep population levels at a sustainable figure then it's only a matter of time until survival of the fittest is seen. You, like so many left wingers, are wearing blinkers and you fail to see the truth. It's ironic that the production of bio fuel, at the expense of food, is accelerating the process.

[Sheaf Saint]

ok..so ending out dependence on oil etc...why do we need to be taxed for it.?..taxed at a level that does not really put us off but just enough to rake in the coin..?

 

car tax for example..

 

I don't have all the answers to that. Perhaps though, the taxes are imposed in order to raise funding to research new renewable technologies? Makes sense to me, but you would need to email the gov. and ask them.

[Thedelldays]

I don't have all the answers to that. Perhaps though, the taxes are imposed in order to raise funding to research new renewable technologies? Makes sense to me, but you would need to email the gov. and ask them.

or they could be raised to make up the short fall in cigarette duty..

or, the recession

[sadoldgit]

Do we not deserve an update from the experts on why we have had several bitterly cold winters?

 

THis is yet to be as cold as the winetr of 62/63 and back then the winters were colder than of late. Up to recently the winters have been much milder. The term Global warming seems to make people think that they won't get cold winters. In fact what it does is change the climate so that parts of the planet will actually have periods o worse weather. Some people don't believe that Man have influenced weather (which to be fair does change over time) but there is plenty of evidence to show that Man has accelerated change in weather patterns by over use of fossil fuels, farming (methane from large cattle stocks) etc. Very simplistic response but don't take the phrase literally. The planet is warming up in general causing shifts to weather patterns.

 

I should add that I have been on ths planet for the best part of 6 decades. When I was younger we had definate seasons, now we just seem to have weather, if that makes sense?

Edited 22 December, 2010 by sadoldgit

[dune]

oh really? I'd like to some stats on that. Religon makes a suitable excuse but is rarely the main reason. The crusades (both holy land and baltic) and the Hussite wars and to a degree the thirty years war prehaps but most is a bit strong.

 

The crusades were partly about religion, but even they were mostly about land and resources. Asia minor was at the time a hugely important trading region. Control of this trade was the underlying reason for Christendoms battle with the Barbarians.

[Johnny Bognor]

Most wars in the last 1000 years have been fought on religious grounds.

 

As far as the UK is concerned, the Norman invasion was nothing to do with religion. Nor was Hitler's attempt to dominate the globe. Japan started on the septics after they turned off their oil. Many wars are over power, politics, domination, resourses and of course religion.

[Sheaf Saint]

There is no way we can avoid future conflicts over resources whilst the global population is increasing so fast. Food, Water, and shelter (including a means to keep warm) are the basic needs of the human race. They are all finite resources and with medical advances hindering natures ability to keep population levels at a sustainable figure then it's only a matter of time until survival of the fittest is seen.

 

I agree with you to an extent (wow, never thought I would find myself typing that!) that issues such as food and water will become a big issue if the population continues to increase at its current rate. But if we have the means to avoid conflict over fuel resources, why would we want to ignore that and go to war anyway? That doesn't make sense on any level.

 

STILL waiting for you to comment on the Coalition government's green policies BTW dune. In your own time......

[buctootim]

ok..so ending out dependence on oil etc...why do we need to be taxed for it.?..taxed at a level that does not really put us off but just enough to rake in the coin..?

 

car tax for example..

 

Blame government cynicism and a credulous electorate. We have had fuel duty and road tax for decades and it has generally gone in one direction - up. Successive governments have used it for general expenditure. Trying to now pin the blame on 'saving the planet' so that voters wont kick up about another tax rise is just weak imo.

Edited 22 December, 2010 by buctootim

[dune]

STILL waiting for you to comment on the Coalition government's green policies BTW dune. In your own time......

 

I'm a right wing Conservative and a member of the UKIP. My views are the same as my partys.

[Verbal]

I agree with you to an extent (wow, never thought I would find myself typing that!) that issues such as food and water will become a big issue if the population continues to increase at its current rate. But if we have the means to avoid conflict over fuel resources, why would we want to ignore that and go to war anyway? That doesn't make sense on any level.

 

STILL waiting for you to comment on the Coalition government's green policies BTW dune. In your own time......

 

It doesn't make any sense because he's weirdly fixated by what he calls the 'theory of the survival of the fittest' - which isn't a theory at all but the incoherent and racist ramblings of a Victorian sociologist. There is no iron law that says that war will result. And besides, we have been having scares about human numbers since Thomas Malthus in the late eighteenth century, when the world population was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

[Sheaf Saint]

I'm a right wing Conservative and a member of the UKIP. My views are the same as my partys.

 

That doesn't even come close to explaining why David Cameron and the Conservative-led coalition government are continuing the commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK. I want to know how you reconcile this fact with your assertion that the whole global warming issue is just a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes.

[dubai_phil]

You can't simply declare something 'bad science' - unless you either are a scientist of some standing (are you? If so, what are your qualifications? And what is it about the results or the methodology that you find 'bad'?); or you can quote respected scientists' contrary studies (not ravings, opinion etc) published in respected journals. Frankly, internet warriors declaring a broad scientific consensus as 'bad science' simply, I strongly suspect, because you don't like the results is a bit, well, bad. And since you're so certain of this, what exactly is 'incomplete'?

 

The Wiki article shows that there are huge gaps in the research and the data. With global warming, there are huge gaps in the data (like the previous history of the actual climate data for the previous several million years compared to the last 40 as a VERY simplistic example)

 

I am arguing that MUCH MORE needs to be added into the equations.

 

Examine a dead skin cell under a microscope. A scientist then cannot produce a photogrpah of what you looked like from that dead cell. he can INTERPRET what you looked like.

 

Science is about recording facts and making interpretations. IF you have not included every possible variable in your initial research that is Bad Science. OR if you do not STATE what variables you have not been able to include then that is also bad Scientific Practice.

 

Global Warming may be very real. It may be very false. The impact on the insignificant blob of the planet that is The UK is totally NOT understood.

 

So you take incomplete data to make a decision - in business people get sued or arrested for that (read about Ernst & Young being sued in US for not including ALL possible data about Lehmans)

 

Just IMHO it is wrong to use Global Warming as the excuse for decision making. That does NOT mean that I do not believe that The World should not work on Holistic and Integrated solutions and take care of the planet. FFS I run a Green Company trying to reduce Toxic Waste poisoning!

 

Climate change has been proven to occur, the Earth Cooled and Heated up regularly. Global Average temperatures have been proven to be increasing. But that does NOT mean it is ONLY greenhouse gases. It is like saying Saints lost their last game because they scored less than the opposition. It may be true but it doesn't EXPLAIN the result! And making critical decisions based on incomplete science is NOT wise.

[buctootim]

Which is what I said

 

The CLimate is a highly complex system with MANY factors influencing it, and we do NOT understand all the influences.

 

Global Warming - a fear of a SLIGHT increase in average temperatures...

 

Global warming could mean the Gulfstream stays in the mid Atlantic and you get these winters for the next 20 years. (I said that as well) while the Maldives still get flooded.

 

The Warmist argument is incomplete and it is Bad Science.

 

Global surface temperatures will rise by at least 2 degrees by 2100, maybe up to 5 degrees if we do nothing. You will struggle to finds a single credible natural scientist worldwide who disputes that. Yes its true no-one knows exactly how that will impact currents and wind patterns so the exact weather for each country is not known. It is known that gains in land temperatures will be higher than ocean surface temperatures and that the northern hemisphere will warm more than the south.

 

Claiming something is bad science because no-one yet knows exactly what the weather will be like in Hampshire in July 2060 under every possible population growth / ghg emissions /gdp growth / deforestation scenario is weak posting imo.

[buctootim]

Climate change has been proven to occur, the Earth Cooled and Heated up regularly. Global Average temperatures have been proven to be increasing. But that does NOT mean it is ONLY greenhouse gases. It is like saying Saints lost their last game because they scored less than the opposition. It may be true but it doesn't EXPLAIN the result! And making critical decisions based on incomplete science is NOT wise.

 

 

You have a 1 bar electric fire in your house. The temperature inside varies throughout the year. Next year you add a lot of insulation. The temperature inside still varies but it is a lot warmer than before. You have no idea why it is warmer.

[Verbal]

The Wiki article shows that there are huge gaps in the research and the data. With global warming, there are huge gaps in the data (like the previous history of the actual climate data for the previous several million years compared to the last 40 as a VERY simplistic example)

 

I am arguing that MUCH MORE needs to be added into the equations.

 

Examine a dead skin cell under a microscope. A scientist then cannot produce a photogrpah of what you looked like from that dead cell. he can INTERPRET what you looked like.

 

Science is about recording facts and making interpretations. IF you have not included every possible variable in your initial research that is Bad Science. OR if you do not STATE what variables you have not been able to include then that is also bad Scientific Practice.

 

Global Warming may be very real. It may be very false. The impact on the insignificant blob of the planet that is The UK is totally NOT understood.

 

So you take incomplete data to make a decision - in business people get sued or arrested for that (read about Ernst & Young being sued in US for not including ALL possible data about Lehmans)

 

Just IMHO it is wrong to use Global Warming as the excuse for decision making. That does NOT mean that I do not believe that The World should not work on Holistic and Integrated solutions and take care of the planet. FFS I run a Green Company trying to reduce Toxic Waste poisoning!

 

Climate change has been proven to occur, the Earth Cooled and Heated up regularly. Global Average temperatures have been proven to be increasing. But that does NOT mean it is ONLY greenhouse gases. It is like saying Saints lost their last game because they scored less than the opposition. It may be true but it doesn't EXPLAIN the result! And making critical decisions based on incomplete science is NOT wise.

 

You're doing it again! Phil, I am personally sending you to the naughty step until you can provide evidence of what you call 'bad science'. You can't just run out, yell, 'bad science' and run away again. Spell out your qualifications for rubbishing the methodology of climate research, or quote those scientists, published in respected journals, who do and why.

 

By the way, the clue that you have no scientific qualifications to make such a declaration of bad science is your bizarre claim that science, to be good, has to look at all the variables and from all possible ways. Actually, a lot of science proceeds in the opposite direction, by trying to isolate variables and study them. That, small step by small step, is how progress is made. It is the accumulation of these small steps that makes the results of climatology so worrying - aside from the evidence around the world of global warming.

[Whitey Grandad]

Phew, just think how cold it would be were it not for Global Warming!

 

And in the interests of 'balance':

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17RkN9TLU

 

It's in the Mail so it must be true, eh?

[Verbal]

Can we please have a filter that stops people posting ravings from the Daily Dumbass?

[dubai_phil]

Over 90 years the average temperature will increase by 2C and maybe 5C.

 

And during the next 90 years what other factors are there that could impact onto that scenario?

 

Here is one - China's economic bubble bursts, the Yuan rises and the world can no longer afford cheap goodies. The Chinese factories will reduce their emissions (remember the build up to Beijing)

 

Or maybe the Sunspot cycle will reduce the amount of radiation hitting the atmosphere?

 

OK

 

Let me try a different route.

 

Emerging Markets pollute far more than the developed world (apart from maybe the Yanks) For every Carbon Offset you guys do, some factory in China pours more krap into the eco-system.

 

An EXAMPLE of The British solution to global warming is to tax airport passengers. That (as I argued above) is stupid as those transit passengers fly using other routes.

 

How about THIS as a better solution. Ban ALL imports from countries that continue to exploit cheap labour, build factories that cause FAR more environmental damage smog etc than the entire UK.

 

Ban all trade and aid to countries that continue to destroy the one REAL solution to Greenhouse gas growth - The RAIN FORESTS.

 

but oh no, you all drink your Brazilian coffee, buy your wooden furniture and your Gizmos.

 

UK is making an effort but WHY does it have to be targetted at YOU. You have already learnt that you need to take care and recycle, but China? Parts of Belarus & Ukraine? Parts of Vietnam? The precious metals and rare earths being clawed from under forests in West africa or in China?

 

No the answer is not to make the people raping and causing the greenhouse gases STOP, you idiots all SUPOORT it by buying new tablet & Smartphones!

[buctootim]

Anyone who like Phil doubts the science without having read it can get a good pulling together of all data here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1 (Its written by 833 research grant driven scientists from 186 socialist countries around the world).

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The crusades were partly about religion, but even they were mostly about land and resources. Asia minor was at the time a hugely important trading region. Control of this trade was the underlying reason for Christendoms battle with the Barbarians.

 

So many things wrong with this

[dune]

So many things wrong with this

 

Such as?