Well if I can't be rude to anyone, I'm going to bed.
Bon soir tout le monde.
ps. where is the fun in simplicity?

 

Phil Jones certainly profited to the tune of some £13m over a 10 year period.

 

If someone with a pro-clmate change disposition posted up a 'fact' like that you and half the members of this site would be all over them like a rash!

Assuming that Jones has done anything wrong in the first place, he certainly has not profited to the tune of £13M. He gained research grants to the tune of £13m which is something quite different.

sO it's OK to dis 1000's of scientist findings but then quite acceptable to post up deliberately misleading 'facts' like this?

 

The science is not settled despite what they want us to believe and their studies are riddled with inconsistancies and, as exposed recently, a prominent group of IPCC scientists have been caught with their pants down, with cherry picking and manipulating data to suit their theory, massaged statistics, deletion of data, denying freedom of information etc, etc. Are these the studies on which Government, indeed, the world should base their policies on? Shouldn't COP15 confernece be postponed until a thorough investigation is carried out before outlining policies are signed and agreed? The climate has been changing for eons, do you seriously think that any of these policies or that mankind has the power to prevent/stop the world's climate from changing?

Telboy, I agree with you to a certain extent. We should be less wasteful and be more efficient with the resources we have left and encourage people to have cleaner and dare I say it, a "greener" way of living. Perhaps the Governments policy will move us and for some dragging and kicking in that direction. But I dont' think that these are real objectives of the Government. If they were serious, why agree to build a third runway at Heathrow?, why encourage people to buy new car with the scrappage scheme? For them to push policiies on us and create a "carbon tax" and create a carbon trading economy based on an unproven anthropogenic global warming theory is out of order.

It's like their National ID Card scheme where they want everyone to enrol and pay £30 (currently capped) for the privilege because we are led to believe, despite the lack of evidence, it will cut crime and terrorism. Do you have yours? If not, why not? How many studies does it take before you enrol on to prevent crime and terrorism?

 

So you accept he didn't profit to the tune of £13M?

The reason that I don't post up the contray 'evidence' is a, I'm not a 'warmist' despite your best efforts in characterising my views and b, what good does that do, you must surely be familiar with it anyway, I'm mean how could you only of looked at one side of the argument!!

 

No you've lost me here

 

Come on Tel, are you actually advocating that the Pro-AGW community has received equal or less funding than the 'skeptics'?

Or that Green Taxes and the proposed economy crippling measures at Copenhagen are equal to anything that has been done in the favour of the opposite view?

Or how many conferences have been held by governments to discuss the skeptic point of view?

I could go on, but is there really any need?

Geezer

 

Is the climate actually warming?

Is the science sound and therefore a legitimate cause for concern?

Is the majority of the scientific community wrong on this issue?

If they are wrong is it because they lied or because they just got it wrong?

Are the governments of the world in cahoots with the scientific community?

And then I guess the obvious question to the last 2 would be WHY?

The reason I ask these simple questions is because some of you seem to be all over the place on this issue, one minute claiming that the planet isn’t warming, the next claiming that CO2 isn’t responsible, let’s face it, it can’t be both can it?

If it some sort of carefully orchestrated conspiracy then obviously there has to be some sort of reason behind it all? If it’s all about raising taxes then that’s would appear a completely illogical and expensive way of going about taxing us more. I mean why not just raise taxation, why do you need to construct this issue to do so. BTW I do believe that this issue can and has been somewhat exploited by politicians, but that’s a far cry from saying their all just lying to us about it.

Our taxes are about to go up anyway, after the next election taxation has to rise to pay for the huge deficit, using some of your arguments one could easily dismiss the deficit 'not being real', a lie and a convenient excuse to raise taxation.

It’s so easy to be cynical on this issue, but consider for a moment what the government should do if it truly believe what the scientist are telling them. Taxation is the only really big lever a government can pull to change behaviour, fundamental economics shows this to be true.
A good example would be cigarettes, now successive governments have increased tobacco duty steadily. Now what was their motivation, to collect more tax from those who smoke, well maybe? To financially disincentivise people from smoking, and help reduce a major public health issue, probably? (let us not forget that it is not actually in the governments interest to reduce smoking as smokers pay in far more than they take out of the public purse). Now of course this has all been done in conjunction with research from the experts and supported by public information campaigns, propaganda if you like.
What’s the result been? Well a steady and significant reduction in smoking and smoking related disease. The point being that us who smoked moaned year after year about the tax we paid on ****, but in the end the message got home and many of us stopped.

Consider sustainability for a minute, one absolute benefit that will surely come out of this issue is a more sensible approach to sustainable energy. We absolutely have to reduce our reliance on oil and gas for our own very good and very selfish reasons. I find it interesting to read on here lots of comments about how we are being ‘taxed to death’ because of climate change, but this supposed increase in tax pales into insignificance next to the cost of energy in future years unless we change our ways, as the oil supply peaks and the likes of Russia flex their refound muscles prices will go skyrocketing. Surely this alone is a good reason for reducing our reliance on carbon based/limited supply energy sources?

Being sceptical on this issue is definitely the RIGHT approach, and I am (you'll be surprised to learn) sceptical about the actual extent of the problem and it's likely impacts. Being cynical though I think is just a cop out and an excuse to close your mind and not allow in both side of the debate

Now of course I find my own argument entirely compelling, logical and rational, I suspect that I'll be in a minority of about 1 on here though

 

Well even if there was a "need", you obviously can't prove it one way or another. But your assumption is yet another demonstration that pro green MUST be wrong, anti green MUST be right. I'm trying to think of anything i'm as dogmatic in my opinion, but i'm struggling!! "Economy crippling". Listen to the words you're using! Yes they're ALL going to Copenhagen to shaft themselves and send us back to the Dark Ages, of course they are. They must be. Why on EARTH would they do anything with best intentions at heart? I mean, any of them? How ridiculous!!


Two sides, Geezer, two sides.

 

The other thing that does not tie up is the sale of so called "Carbon Credits) That will of course make a lot of money for those in charge of the sales, but surely if we are in such dire danger and there is no time left to save the world, "Carbon Credits" sales should not be even considered but all savings of CO2 emissions should be retained instead of being used by those who can afford to pay.

Its similar to telling us how critical CO2 emissions are and then officially approving the
3rd runway at Heathrow which is forecast to double the throughput of passengers by the airport! How can they possibly justify that on aircraft emission grounds?

I suppose they can always go into denial as usual.

Les

 

No, you are assuming, not me. I simply do not think the evidence is clear cut, is open to interpretation, does not match the observable data. It's not that they MUST be wrong, but the refusal to enter into a dialogue with thousand of highly qualified and respected scientists who dispute the findings is what I find worrying. There are well documented cases of where the IPCC has doctored the data and changed reports after final sign off from the scientists they got to produce them.


Politicians are no different form the rest of us, but they are susceptible to pressures we are not, rightly or wrongly.

If you truly believe that we only have two weeks to save the planet, then the only option at Copenhagen is to effectively dismantle modern industry/society, whatever.

No politician is going to do that, so what's the alternative? The nonsense that will now transpire. A lot of shifting about whereby the Western nations don't have to collapse and can still produce huge amounts of CO2 but manage to offset it or pay enough money to anyone willing to accept it.

At the end of the day, if AGW is real, then there is only one way to combat it. Copenhagen won't even come close.

I'm sure alot of the politicians there believe they are doing good, but are you honestly saying that all things done with good intentions have turned out good? If those intentions are based upon (possibly) incorrect advice ro science, then the consequences can be disasterous.

Geezer

 

For somebody who claims not to be MMGW 'warmist', you seem to do your very best to make people think otherwise!

 

I just think a well-intentioned initiative is better than no initiative at all. You can always rip it up and go back to reckless polluting if it does indeed turn out to be complete nonsense. I just don't see enough downsides to argue against it.

 

No I'm challenging the wisdom of claiming it's all about taxation.
The science could be wrong and I've said that at least 20 times on various similar threads.

 

Being more efficient is a no brainer. However, we do not make the technology that is advertised to death on the box. The smart solution would be to pass on the money made through 'green' taxes, to companies that research and develop such areas.

This isn't happening.

And shouldn't Xmas lights be banned? They serve no purpose but it is perfectly acceptable to turn your dwelling into a power wasting nightmare!

Also, shouldn't the PM now be running around in Toyota Prius? (even though they are far more damaging to the enviroment than a Range Rover, but we won't go there will we!)

 

Not if the initiative is hugely damaging.

As has happened in this country, once the industry has gone, you cannot simply start it up again. OK, it has been slightly different here because the industry has moved out, not been closed down. However, the US for example, would suffer terribly. If you impose on them the measure necessary (according to IPPC evidence) to reverse or even keep AGW at it's current level, then it will will cripple them. If it turns out to be a lot of hot air (no pun intended), then the cost of re-starting is huge.

I imagine places like China would be able tp pick it up fairly quickly as they don't give a **** about much and are pretty ruthless, so they would get going without much ado.

Now, if AGW is true, then surely that is a price worth paying, no sane person would deny it.

But, it is not clear cut. It's not a few nuts saying it, it's thousands of eminent and highly respected people, who before AGW was the new thing, their papers and opinions were not really questioned. Strangely, now they take a opposite view, suddenly they are 'flat earthers'. Why are governments so reluctant to enter into a dialogue with them?

Geezer

 

So, please demonstrate how "carbon trading", "carbon offsets" reduce consumption and reduce CO2 emissions without making stuff more expensive (Thus reducing said consumption)?

FAIL!!!!

Try living in Africa where stuff is already more expensive relative to income even before "CO2" trading has begun (Worldwide that is).

FAIL!!!!

 

If CO2 is the pollutant you claim it is then, turn your computer off and all electrical appliances, stop drinking fizzy stuff, and eating bread. Do not use concrete, don't drive, don't fill your waste bin and expect it to be emptied. Don't rely on power to light your night, don't expect service at hospitals or expect drugs that work, don't expect the food you like all year around (Unless you go and get it from a CO2 contamiated (~5000ppm) greenhouse grower) etc etc etc etc...

You are funny if not laughable...

 

Well as with many things in life; it's all about balance.

btw if you're asking me should we be investing in new technology then absolutely. And if you're asking me if green taxes should be offset by green incentives then again yes, I think that carrot and stick are equally valid and effective.

 

OMG - you are priceless

When did he say CO2 was a pollutant, your debaing style becomes more tragic by the day.

Try reading what people actually type, not what you want them to have typed!

 

Yeah, as long as the (Bank) balance is on the side of those who control the (Energy) market.

Classic example being the "energy" markets in California and those in the "control" of said energy able to power down a power plant to, I dunno, boost energy prices.

Sounds like a win:win solution (For those, soon to be, in control of said energy supplies). NOT!

If I was an oil company, I too would want someone else (Us) to pay for liquid CO2 collection and (Oh, bugger, I forgot I have these "unused" (Peak Oil) oil fields where you can bury that nasty CO2) sequestration.

Result = CO2 taxes, each and evry one of us (Unless you are the elite of course).

 

Errrmm...he said "reckless pollution"! Ok, he didn't say CO2 specifically, but this is the main topic, no? Or did you not read properly (Again)?

 

But the balance already is in favour of those who control the energy markets

 

Absolute rubbish. If the world really is going end because of us, we need to act NOW NOW NOW! Surely you can see the logic in that? The MMGW supporters have no problem telling is to drive 5 miles less a week, what's the point in that? It will make naff all difference. If the world is serious about it, we need to, as Klaatu said, turn off our computers now! Oh hang on, that isn't exactly 'fair' is it? Ok, well fit an energy saving light bulb instead, that will save the planet!

 

Well I'm sure Tel will be along in minute, he can answer this, I suspect there may be some irony at work in Tels words though

 

I think regardless of blame, reason damage etc there is one glaring fact.

Paying more taxes on things deemed "harmful to the enviroment" will NOT make any difference to global warming, climate change, air quality etc.

I think that is the biggest issue for most people.
The summit is likely to find more ways to take money from the public (in most countries) than provide solutions and alternatives to the situation they are discussing.

As for the facts and figures..... laughable to say the least. The fact that there is a huge qualified group of scientists DISMISSING the claims suggests there is grounds to question the whole thing.

 

Who said the world was ending, I can pretty much gaurantee one thing, that no matter what we do the world will still be here at the end of it.

The issue is about how much do we mitigate the implied future downside of GW / Climate Change with current and future actions, which is why I said it's about balance. Clearly turning everything off would completely destroy our economies and plunge us back into the dark ages, an impact far worse than the dangers from global warming. In other words that would be a completely disproportionate response, and using this argument is therefore daft.

 

[QUOTE]


Well lets use a flippant and cheeky example shall we...

If the government put a £5,000 tax on buying a Rottie would you be more or less likely to buy one?

Do you think the sale of Rottweilers would increase, or reduce over time? What would happen to the sales of dogs that didn't have this added tax, would they go up or come down?

So it seems strange to suggest that price/taxation cannot have an impact upon behaviour, becasue it demonstrably does.