'Climategate' takes a new turn ...
09 December 2009, 01:05 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK now lets use a real life example or two.
Congestion charging.... Do cars still drive into, and pollute the cities that have CC in place? Answer..... YES.
Higher VED bands... Have people abandoned all cars over a band C-D ? Answer..... NO!
My point, had it not been taken in such a daft way, is.... Tax does not repair the enviroment. Peoples choices and actions do. Can you affect peoples choices through tax? Yes, of course you can. But the point is all it does is says, "if you have the money, you can cause all the harm you want"
Heroin addiction (and other factors of it) kill people, so its banned. Guns, banned, because it was seen the responsible decision.
Cigarettes kill, and cost the NHS a fortune each year.... Oh but they are NOT banned, because they generate too much tax for the government.
So in simple, a responsible decision IF it was proven that we ARE killing the planet, we ARE killing the enviroment, that we ARE causing the extinction of the human race, would be to BAN anything that caused these issues... NOT tax them.
I hope you can understand that point a little better.
The richest man in the world cant buy an eternal life.
The richest country in the world cannot reverse humans changes on the planet by taking money from the public
IF ALL the money being taken was being pumped into hydrogen fuel cell cars, cleaner power stations, wind farms, more efficient public transport etc... Then it WOULD serve a purpose... But its not!
The world is recovering from a recession, and a shed load of borrowing and debt...... What better way to do that, than to hold this conference just as everyone exits recession (except for the UK lol)
[QUOTE=Martin2005;9090141]
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.
Congestion charging.... Do cars still drive into, and pollute the cities that have CC in place? Answer..... YES.
Higher VED bands... Have people abandoned all cars over a band C-D ? Answer..... NO!
My point, had it not been taken in such a daft way, is.... Tax does not repair the enviroment. Peoples choices and actions do. Can you affect peoples choices through tax? Yes, of course you can. But the point is all it does is says, "if you have the money, you can cause all the harm you want"
Heroin addiction (and other factors of it) kill people, so its banned. Guns, banned, because it was seen the responsible decision.
Cigarettes kill, and cost the NHS a fortune each year.... Oh but they are NOT banned, because they generate too much tax for the government.
So in simple, a responsible decision IF it was proven that we ARE killing the planet, we ARE killing the enviroment, that we ARE causing the extinction of the human race, would be to BAN anything that caused these issues... NOT tax them.
I hope you can understand that point a little better.
The richest man in the world cant buy an eternal life.
The richest country in the world cannot reverse humans changes on the planet by taking money from the public
IF ALL the money being taken was being pumped into hydrogen fuel cell cars, cleaner power stations, wind farms, more efficient public transport etc... Then it WOULD serve a purpose... But its not!
The world is recovering from a recession, and a shed load of borrowing and debt...... What better way to do that, than to hold this conference just as everyone exits recession (except for the UK lol)
[QUOTE=Martin2005;9090141]
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.
09 December 2009, 01:05 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 complete 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 daft.
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 complete 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 daft.
Isn't the sun, our biggest cause for concern? Right now the Sun is converting hydrogen into helium at a rate of some 600-MILLION metric tons per second. Once this main fuel source is exhausted, the Sun will begin fusing helium, and once that's gone it will "burn" progressively heavier and heavier elements. Each change in fuel will be accompanied first by a diminishment in size, then a period of swelling. Mercury, Venus, and Earth will be consumed. Finally nothing but iron will be left to burn in the Sun, and since the energy required for that is higher than the Sun can generate, it will gradually dwindle more and more in size until it will become what's called a 'white dwarf' star.
Basically, the sun is expected to die-out in approximately 4-5 billion years from now. That is when the Earth will end. Humans have been around for around 3 million years which I make to approx 0.00075% of the total life time of the planet. If that isn't insignificant, I don't know what is! And I am not saying that we don't need to act because of our insignificance, I am saying it will not make a damn bit of difference. We are due an Ice Age based on scientific models anyway; it could be tomorrow, or in 1000 years. BUT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT!
Humans are control freaks and we just can't accept that one day, our little planet will come to an end. GET USED TO THE IDEA AND ENJOY LIFE NOW! :THUMB:
09 December 2009, 01:08 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it isn't. We are talking about maintaining and improving what we have now, for future generations to reap the benefits. What I find most perplexing, is how scientists can actually predict the effect that any change in human behaviour will have on the planet. How many more years are we supposed to get? Is it really going to make a significant difference?
Isn't the sun, our biggest cause for concern? Right now the Sun is converting hydrogen into helium at a rate of some 600-MILLION metric tons per second. Once this main fuel source is exhausted, the Sun will begin fusing helium, and once that's gone it will "burn" progressively heavier and heavier elements. Each change in fuel will be accompanied first by a diminishment in size, then a period of swelling. Mercury, Venus, and Earth will be consumed. Finally nothing but iron will be left to burn in the Sun, and since the energy required for that is higher than the Sun can generate, it will gradually dwindle more and more in size until it will become what's called a 'white dwarf' star.
Basically, the sun is expected to die-out in approximately 4-5 billion years from now. That is when the Earth will end. Humans have been around for around 3 million years which I make to approx 0.00075% of the total life time of the planet. If that isn't insignificant, I don't know what is! And I am not saying that we don't need to act because of our insignificance, I am saying it will not make a damn bit of difference. We are due an Ice Age based on scientific models anyway; it could be tomorrow, or in 1000 years. BUT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT!
Humans are control freaks and we just can't accept that one day, our little planet will come to an end. GET USED TO THE IDEA AND ENJOY LIFE NOW! :THUMB:
Isn't the sun, our biggest cause for concern? Right now the Sun is converting hydrogen into helium at a rate of some 600-MILLION metric tons per second. Once this main fuel source is exhausted, the Sun will begin fusing helium, and once that's gone it will "burn" progressively heavier and heavier elements. Each change in fuel will be accompanied first by a diminishment in size, then a period of swelling. Mercury, Venus, and Earth will be consumed. Finally nothing but iron will be left to burn in the Sun, and since the energy required for that is higher than the Sun can generate, it will gradually dwindle more and more in size until it will become what's called a 'white dwarf' star.
Basically, the sun is expected to die-out in approximately 4-5 billion years from now. That is when the Earth will end. Humans have been around for around 3 million years which I make to approx 0.00075% of the total life time of the planet. If that isn't insignificant, I don't know what is! And I am not saying that we don't need to act because of our insignificance, I am saying it will not make a damn bit of difference. We are due an Ice Age based on scientific models anyway; it could be tomorrow, or in 1000 years. BUT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT!
Humans are control freaks and we just can't accept that one day, our little planet will come to an end. GET USED TO THE IDEA AND ENJOY LIFE NOW! :THUMB:
I just applied logic to the tax argument and the related conspiracy theories.
Whether the science is right in the first place is above my pay grade
09 December 2009, 01:16 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 December 2009, 01:18 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]
Cigarrettes are a great example and one I made earlier. Fewer people now smoke, and fewer people are dying from smoking related illness in part due to successive governments policy of increasing duty on tobacco.
This isn't about banning things, it's about disencentivising certain activities. If it was about banning I'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with you on this.
BTW the fact that congestion charge has had a limited effect upon traffic in London is because they clearly haven't found the price that genuinely forces people out of their cars. The critical cost versus convenience equation hasn't reached a tipping point.
The fact that more people are buying smaller and more economical cars is surely evidence that tax incentives (both positive and negative) do work?
OK now lets use a real life example or two.
Congestion charging.... Do cars still drive into, and pollute the cities that have CC in place? Answer..... YES.
Higher VED bands... Have people abandoned all cars over a band C-D ? Answer..... NO!
My point, had it not been taken in such a daft way, is.... Tax does not repair the enviroment. Peoples choices and actions do. Can you affect peoples choices through tax? Yes, of course you can. But the point is all it does is says, "if you have the money, you can cause all the harm you want"
Heroin addiction (and other factors of it) kill people, so its banned. Guns, banned, because it was seen the responsible decision.
Cigarettes kill, and cost the NHS a fortune each year.... Oh but they are NOT banned, because they generate too much tax for the government.
So in simple, a responsible decision IF it was proven that we ARE killing the planet, we ARE killing the enviroment, that we ARE causing the extinction of the human race, would be to BAN anything that caused these issues... NOT tax them.
I hope you can understand that point a little better.
The richest man in the world cant buy an eternal life.
The richest country in the world cannot reverse humans changes on the planet by taking money from the public
IF ALL the money being taken was being pumped into hydrogen fuel cell cars, cleaner power stations, wind farms, more efficient public transport etc... Then it WOULD serve a purpose... But its not!
The world is recovering from a recession, and a shed load of borrowing and debt...... What better way to do that, than to hold this conference just as everyone exits recession (except for the UK lol)
Congestion charging.... Do cars still drive into, and pollute the cities that have CC in place? Answer..... YES.
Higher VED bands... Have people abandoned all cars over a band C-D ? Answer..... NO!
My point, had it not been taken in such a daft way, is.... Tax does not repair the enviroment. Peoples choices and actions do. Can you affect peoples choices through tax? Yes, of course you can. But the point is all it does is says, "if you have the money, you can cause all the harm you want"
Heroin addiction (and other factors of it) kill people, so its banned. Guns, banned, because it was seen the responsible decision.
Cigarettes kill, and cost the NHS a fortune each year.... Oh but they are NOT banned, because they generate too much tax for the government.
So in simple, a responsible decision IF it was proven that we ARE killing the planet, we ARE killing the enviroment, that we ARE causing the extinction of the human race, would be to BAN anything that caused these issues... NOT tax them.
I hope you can understand that point a little better.
The richest man in the world cant buy an eternal life.
The richest country in the world cannot reverse humans changes on the planet by taking money from the public
IF ALL the money being taken was being pumped into hydrogen fuel cell cars, cleaner power stations, wind farms, more efficient public transport etc... Then it WOULD serve a purpose... But its not!
The world is recovering from a recession, and a shed load of borrowing and debt...... What better way to do that, than to hold this conference just as everyone exits recession (except for the UK lol)
This isn't about banning things, it's about disencentivising certain activities. If it was about banning I'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with you on this.
BTW the fact that congestion charge has had a limited effect upon traffic in London is because they clearly haven't found the price that genuinely forces people out of their cars. The critical cost versus convenience equation hasn't reached a tipping point.
The fact that more people are buying smaller and more economical cars is surely evidence that tax incentives (both positive and negative) do work?
Last edited by Martin2005; 09 December 2009 at 01:22 PM.
09 December 2009, 01:21 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apply logic to the situation, to the debate on here about taxation. I have been entirely consistent on the science element of this issue...I HAVE AN OPEN MIND
Last edited by Martin2005; 09 December 2009 at 01:25 PM.
09 December 2009, 01:26 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I suggest you take a look at what YOU type rather than spouting the same 'Look at what I type!' bollox.
And as for the smoking ban, the government pays out approx £5bn through the NHS for smoking related illnesses. It takes in a staggering £10bn in revenues raised through tax on cigerettes. Food for thought eh?
Last edited by Gear Head; 09 December 2009 at 01:34 PM.
09 December 2009, 01:32 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that you have repeatidy said that the 'science' might be wrong, but you then continue to look at how taxation based on 'green credentials' is justified.
Can I suggest you take a look at what YOU type rather than spouting the same 'Look at what I type!' bollox.
Can I suggest you take a look at what YOU type rather than spouting the same 'Look at what I type!' bollox.
Whether the science is right or wrong, the instrument of taxation as a way of incentivising/discentivising consumer and commercial activities is valid and therefore doesn't in itself invalidate the the whole GW argument.
That's about a concise a way I can descibe my position on this
Last edited by Martin2005; 09 December 2009 at 01:35 PM.
09 December 2009, 01:44 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody hell this is hard work....
Whether the science is right or wrong, the instrument of taxation as a way of incentivising/discentivising consumer and commercial activities is valid and therefore doesn't in itself invalidate the the whole GW argument.
That's about a concise a way I can descibe my position on this
Whether the science is right or wrong, the instrument of taxation as a way of incentivising/discentivising consumer and commercial activities is valid and therefore doesn't in itself invalidate the the whole GW argument.
That's about a concise a way I can descibe my position on this
09 December 2009, 01:47 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Bloody hell this is hard work....
Whether the science is right or wrong, the instrument of taxation as a way of incentivising/discentivising consumer and commercial activities is valid and therefore doesn't in itself invalidate the the whole GW argument.
That's about a concise a way I can descibe my position on this
Whether the science is right or wrong, the instrument of taxation as a way of incentivising/discentivising consumer and commercial activities is valid and therefore doesn't in itself invalidate the the whole GW argument.
That's about a concise a way I can descibe my position on this
09 December 2009, 02:02 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 December 2009, 02:03 PM
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Umm. Try reading the link I posted! But I actually did that for you and pasted the relevant bit in. With the even more relevant bit highlighted in BOLD!!! CRU have been funded by oil companies. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to spot the correct names ..... 
Dave
Dave
09 December 2009, 02:20 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Martin2005;9090186]
Cigarrettes are a great example and one I made earlier. Fewer people now smoke, and fewer people are dying from smoking related illness in part due to successive governments policy of increasing duty on tobacco.
But you agree that the "RIGHT" thing to do is ban them yes?
They kill, they cost the NHS money, they are addictive, therefore should be banned for the good of mankind?
[QUOTE=Martin2005;9090186]
I would beg to differ. £40 a week, soon to be £50 is a big old chunk out of the average mans pocket. Surely it would be right to ban cars, if their supposed "IMPACT" is as serious as suggested.
The financial outcasting is very unbalanced, and as with most enviromental taxes etc, its the rich who can ignore it. The rich who drive the big gas gusslers, spend lots of time travelling by air, and dont give two hoots about enviromental impact. So again I say, its about putting a financial price tag on enviromental impact, NOT changing the publics way of behaving towards it all.
Basic rule, if you can afford it, flaunt the rules, and who cares about the impact.
[QUOTE=Martin2005;9090186]
The fact that people are buying smaller cars, is it about taxes and financial incentives, or is it a whole combination of factors. More powerful and better quality smaller cars, smaller areas to park, changes in living habits and so on.
The price of petrol is indeed a driving factor in this, as well as the transfer to diesel being the preferred fuel. But thats where it gets interesting. Because if the government are to be believed they are NOT purposly driving up the cost of petrol, thats the oil companies and groups fault mainly. So I would say the decision to go for smaller cars is not so much a government imposed incentive.
Cigarrettes are a great example and one I made earlier. Fewer people now smoke, and fewer people are dying from smoking related illness in part due to successive governments policy of increasing duty on tobacco.
They kill, they cost the NHS money, they are addictive, therefore should be banned for the good of mankind?
[QUOTE=Martin2005;9090186]
This isn't about banning things, it's about disencentivising certain activities. If it was about banning I'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with you on this.
BTW the fact that congestion charge has had a limited effect upon traffic in London is because they clearly haven't found the price that genuinely forces people out of their cars. The critical cost versus convenience equation hasn't reached a tipping point.
BTW the fact that congestion charge has had a limited effect upon traffic in London is because they clearly haven't found the price that genuinely forces people out of their cars. The critical cost versus convenience equation hasn't reached a tipping point.
The financial outcasting is very unbalanced, and as with most enviromental taxes etc, its the rich who can ignore it. The rich who drive the big gas gusslers, spend lots of time travelling by air, and dont give two hoots about enviromental impact. So again I say, its about putting a financial price tag on enviromental impact, NOT changing the publics way of behaving towards it all.
Basic rule, if you can afford it, flaunt the rules, and who cares about the impact.
[QUOTE=Martin2005;9090186]
The fact that more people are buying smaller and more economical cars is surely evidence that tax incentives (both positive and negative) do work?
The price of petrol is indeed a driving factor in this, as well as the transfer to diesel being the preferred fuel. But thats where it gets interesting. Because if the government are to be believed they are NOT purposly driving up the cost of petrol, thats the oil companies and groups fault mainly. So I would say the decision to go for smaller cars is not so much a government imposed incentive.
09 December 2009, 02:23 PM
#105
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxation of larger vehicles is serisouly flawed and just shows how cynical Govt attitudes towards 'Green' policies are.
Taxation can dissuade, of course it can, but realistically business still has to run, so it is just going to cost a lot more to do anything. Where is that money going to go? It certainly doesn't seem to be going to fund an viable alternative.
People still have to travel, so again, it's just going to cost them more. To reduce people's need to travel, what are they supposed to do? Move? Find a job closer to them? It's just simply presposterous to expect the population to simply change their way of life like that, as well as it being not practical from for various reasons.
Even if I were to accept AGW, the way it is (allegedly) being tackled has little to do with reducing emissions. Tax raising and carbon trading do nothing to help the climate.
My mother always used to say "why don't you finish that? There are people in Africa who are starving". Well finishing a plate of food won't help the starving in Africa any more that me paying more money to the govt will reduce or prevent climate change. If it's true, then real action is required, and that is not what Copenhagen is about (nor any of it, seemingly).
Geezer
Taxation can dissuade, of course it can, but realistically business still has to run, so it is just going to cost a lot more to do anything. Where is that money going to go? It certainly doesn't seem to be going to fund an viable alternative.
People still have to travel, so again, it's just going to cost them more. To reduce people's need to travel, what are they supposed to do? Move? Find a job closer to them? It's just simply presposterous to expect the population to simply change their way of life like that, as well as it being not practical from for various reasons.
Even if I were to accept AGW, the way it is (allegedly) being tackled has little to do with reducing emissions. Tax raising and carbon trading do nothing to help the climate.
My mother always used to say "why don't you finish that? There are people in Africa who are starving". Well finishing a plate of food won't help the starving in Africa any more that me paying more money to the govt will reduce or prevent climate change. If it's true, then real action is required, and that is not what Copenhagen is about (nor any of it, seemingly).
Geezer
09 December 2009, 02:29 PM
#106
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Would a 3rd runway reduce the level of Co2 emitted within the confines of the UK, or increase it?
09 December 2009, 02:33 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it make more sense if the airlines operated A380s, thus being able to transport more passengers with less flights? (I'm assuming that an A380 uses less fuel per passenger than a smaller aircraft).
09 December 2009, 02:33 PM
#108
As far as I can see there is no dispute between the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Alarmists and the so called 'Climate Skeptics' on the very basics of the measurements...
1) Over the last 100 years global temperature records show on average 0.6 ºC warming
- that means average warming of 0.006ºC per year! - How anyone can 'feel' this amount of warming is beyond me
2) Over a period of 10 years the variation in 'global temperature anomaly' can be anything from 0.5 ºC to 1.3 ºC
- simply from looking at the charts...
The major point that the AGW alarmist scientists have which leads to all the concern is that they contend that warming will accelerate. There is no evidence that this will happen! I cannot think of any other natural processes (apart from nuclear fission) that run with positive feedback.
There is evidence that the earth was warmer in the past with no man-made CO2
There is evidence that 'Alarmist Climate Scientists' in their desire to prove their theories correct have used data sources inverted as long as they fit the line.
There is evidence that a rise in CO2 follows as rise in climate warming NOT the other way round.
There have been complaints from skeptics for years about not being allowed access to the data that AGW scientists are using - and lo and behold comments supporting this pop up in the very dodgey emails released recently.
Polar bear populations have increased from 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today
Recent reports by the BBC and other mass media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a furious pace. A new report by a senior Indian glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite intact. For example the 30-kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters) a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007 Gangotri has been “practically at a standstill,” according to Raina's report.
None of the alarmist temperature rise predictions have been correct yet.
If the 'science' was purely science with no hidden agenda there is no reason not to release the data and models that have been run to get this 'proof' - no other field of science works like this.
There is NO scientific consensus. Currently 31,486 scientists have signed a petition Global Warming Petition Project that they are "convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
I hope some of these points might be helpful
Mick
1) Over the last 100 years global temperature records show on average 0.6 ºC warming
- that means average warming of 0.006ºC per year! - How anyone can 'feel' this amount of warming is beyond me
2) Over a period of 10 years the variation in 'global temperature anomaly' can be anything from 0.5 ºC to 1.3 ºC
- simply from looking at the charts...
The major point that the AGW alarmist scientists have which leads to all the concern is that they contend that warming will accelerate. There is no evidence that this will happen! I cannot think of any other natural processes (apart from nuclear fission
) that run with positive feedback.There is evidence that the earth was warmer in the past with no man-made CO2
There is evidence that 'Alarmist Climate Scientists' in their desire to prove their theories correct have used data sources inverted as long as they fit the line.
There is evidence that a rise in CO2 follows as rise in climate warming NOT the other way round.
There have been complaints from skeptics for years about not being allowed access to the data that AGW scientists are using - and lo and behold comments supporting this pop up in the very dodgey emails released recently.
Polar bear populations have increased from 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today
Recent reports by the BBC and other mass media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a furious pace. A new report by a senior Indian glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite intact. For example the 30-kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters) a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007 Gangotri has been “practically at a standstill,” according to Raina's report.
None of the alarmist temperature rise predictions have been correct yet.
If the 'science' was purely science with no hidden agenda there is no reason not to release the data and models that have been run to get this 'proof' - no other field of science works like this.
There is NO scientific consensus. Currently 31,486 scientists have signed a petition Global Warming Petition Project that they are "convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
I hope some of these points might be helpful
Mick
09 December 2009, 04:04 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's why are oil companies funding AGW research, then I guess we'll need to understand exactly how much they funding they provide, I supspect just enough to get credited on that list.
So ff they get credit from amongst other, people like you, who do their bidding for them, then I guess it''s money well spent.
09 December 2009, 04:23 PM
#110
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why people have sucha problem with oil companies. Oil is a finite resource, and even if we cut back on our usage, it ain't gonna make it last that much longer.
No company is just going to blindly go on with a product like that knowing that it will go out of business the day it runs out. It's in their interests to be in early on the alternatives so they can carry on trading.
The idea that skeptics are in the pay of oil companies is utterly ridiculous, they have nothng to gain!
Your assertion that they only fund AGW is so that they can get a mention smacks of the very conspircay theory you pupport! Oh the irony
Geezer
No company is just going to blindly go on with a product like that knowing that it will go out of business the day it runs out. It's in their interests to be in early on the alternatives so they can carry on trading.
The idea that skeptics are in the pay of oil companies is utterly ridiculous, they have nothng to gain!
Your assertion that they only fund AGW is so that they can get a mention smacks of the very conspircay theory you pupport! Oh the irony
Geezer
09 December 2009, 04:24 PM
#111
We have a third political party that has held office and also were the only party out of the three that acuartely prediced the financial crash.
The liberal democrats.
I mean labour have proved they are a bunch of f--- ups
I mean conservatives have proved they are a bunch of f--- ups
Why not give the third party a chance?
I guess they propbably will f--- it up
But given that the rest arent fit to govern surely give the the other lot a chance.
...but all we will get from the bbc ect etc is labour ...conservative...labour...conservative ...labour and the mindless sheep will go and vote for one or the other
Not directed at you personaly Les - just a general point
09 December 2009, 04:33 PM
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why people have sucha problem with oil companies. Oil is a finite resource, and even if we cut back on our usage, it ain't gonna make it last that much longer.
No company is just going to blindly go on with a product like that knowing that it will go out of business the day it runs out. It's in their interests to be in early on the alternatives so they can carry on trading.
The idea that skeptics are in the pay of oil companies is utterly ridiculous, they have nothng to gain!
Your assertion that they only fund AGW is so that they can get a mention smacks of the very conspircay theory you pupport! Oh the irony
Geezer
No company is just going to blindly go on with a product like that knowing that it will go out of business the day it runs out. It's in their interests to be in early on the alternatives so they can carry on trading.
The idea that skeptics are in the pay of oil companies is utterly ridiculous, they have nothng to gain!
Your assertion that they only fund AGW is so that they can get a mention smacks of the very conspircay theory you pupport! Oh the irony
Geezer
But of course a bit of fun at Dave's expense is one of life few and still untaxed pleasures
I agree we need businesses to diversify, let's face it the cost of energy today is high, if we don't start sorting out the sustainability issue, it's going to be astronomical in the future - this is just another piece of logic that appears lost on most
09 December 2009, 05:35 PM
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
On the subject of 'conspiracies'. I know you don't believe in them Martin, but take a listen to our new President, the one Gordon reports to now we're just a province of the EU. Relevant bit is from about 1.50 in ....
YouTube - bbc - eu president herman van rompuy on global governance and global management
Still don't think there's a conspiracy going on? Still think we live in a democracy???
Dave
09 December 2009, 08:26 PM
#114
I wouldnt vote for either bunch of self serving gits in grey suits. However why does everyone inculding the media always talk about it/assume it is a two horse race.
We have a third political party that has held office and also were the only party out of the three that acuartely prediced the financial crash.
The liberal democrats.
I mean labour have proved they are a bunch of f--- ups
I mean conservatives have proved they are a bunch of f--- ups
Why not give the third party a chance?
I guess they propbably will f--- it up
But given that the rest arent fit to govern surely give the the other lot a chance.
...but all we will get from the bbc ect etc is labour ...conservative...labour...conservative ...labour and the mindless sheep will go and vote for one or the other
Not directed at you personaly Les - just a general point
We have a third political party that has held office and also were the only party out of the three that acuartely prediced the financial crash.
The liberal democrats.
I mean labour have proved they are a bunch of f--- ups
I mean conservatives have proved they are a bunch of f--- ups
Why not give the third party a chance?
I guess they propbably will f--- it up
But given that the rest arent fit to govern surely give the the other lot a chance.
...but all we will get from the bbc ect etc is labour ...conservative...labour...conservative ...labour and the mindless sheep will go and vote for one or the other
Not directed at you personaly Les - just a general point
09 December 2009, 08:32 PM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
If you're making the assumption that I meant Phil Jones had personally pocketed the cash, then again, please point out where I said that.
I do admit that it would be interesting to see how that money was spent.
09 December 2009, 08:47 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you care to explain which part is not factual? Phil Jones recieved £13m in grants over a 10 year period. I'd say that's doing very nicely out of being a warmist.
If you're making the assumption that I meant Phil Jones had personally pocketed the cash, then again, please point out where I said that.
I do admit that it would be interesting to see how that money was spent.
If you're making the assumption that I meant Phil Jones had personally pocketed the cash, then again, please point out where I said that.
I do admit that it would be interesting to see how that money was spent.
Phil Jones certainly profited to the tune of some £13m over a 10 year period.
And here's the context for your response
Originally Posted by Martin2005
Well taxing the **** out of us is very different from personally profitng from the issue is it not?
Can you think another way I or anyone else could interpret your remark?
Man you might at the very least stand by what you say
Last edited by Martin2005; 09 December 2009 at 08:53 PM.
09 December 2009, 08:47 PM
#117
I wouldnt vote for either bunch of self serving gits in grey suits. However why does everyone inculding the media always talk about it/assume it is a two horse race.
We have a third political party that has held office and also were the only party out of the three that acuartely prediced the financial crash.
...
We have a third political party that has held office and also were the only party out of the three that acuartely prediced the financial crash.
...
09 December 2009, 09:29 PM
#118
Does it matter? The Government doesn't think so either way just as long as the extra runway will allow Heathrow to handle a further 68million people per year, which means more revenue generated through Air Passenger Duty, Airport Departure Tax and possibly a new global tax on aviation hammered out at the COP15 conference.
09 December 2009, 09:35 PM
#119
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can see there is no dispute between the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Alarmists and the so called 'Climate Skeptics' on the very basics of the measurements...
1) Over the last 100 years global temperature records show on average 0.6 ºC warming
- that means average warming of 0.006ºC per year! - How anyone can 'feel' this amount of warming is beyond me
2) Over a period of 10 years the variation in 'global temperature anomaly' can be anything from 0.5 ºC to 1.3 ºC
- simply from looking at the charts...
The major point that the AGW alarmist scientists have which leads to all the concern is that they contend that warming will accelerate. There is no evidence that this will happen! I cannot think of any other natural processes (apart from nuclear fission) that run with positive feedback.
There is evidence that the earth was warmer in the past with no man-made CO2
There is evidence that 'Alarmist Climate Scientists' in their desire to prove their theories correct have used data sources inverted as long as they fit the line.
There is evidence that a rise in CO2 follows as rise in climate warming NOT the other way round.
There have been complaints from skeptics for years about not being allowed access to the data that AGW scientists are using - and lo and behold comments supporting this pop up in the very dodgey emails released recently.
Polar bear populations have increased from 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today
Recent reports by the BBC and other mass media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a furious pace. A new report by a senior Indian glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite intact. For example the 30-kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters) a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007 Gangotri has been “practically at a standstill,” according to Raina's report.
None of the alarmist temperature rise predictions have been correct yet.
If the 'science' was purely science with no hidden agenda there is no reason not to release the data and models that have been run to get this 'proof' - no other field of science works like this.
There is NO scientific consensus. Currently 31,486 scientists have signed a petition Global Warming Petition Project that they are "convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
I hope some of these points might be helpful
Mick
1) Over the last 100 years global temperature records show on average 0.6 ºC warming
- that means average warming of 0.006ºC per year! - How anyone can 'feel' this amount of warming is beyond me
2) Over a period of 10 years the variation in 'global temperature anomaly' can be anything from 0.5 ºC to 1.3 ºC
- simply from looking at the charts...
The major point that the AGW alarmist scientists have which leads to all the concern is that they contend that warming will accelerate. There is no evidence that this will happen! I cannot think of any other natural processes (apart from nuclear fission
) that run with positive feedback.There is evidence that the earth was warmer in the past with no man-made CO2
There is evidence that 'Alarmist Climate Scientists' in their desire to prove their theories correct have used data sources inverted as long as they fit the line.
There is evidence that a rise in CO2 follows as rise in climate warming NOT the other way round.
There have been complaints from skeptics for years about not being allowed access to the data that AGW scientists are using - and lo and behold comments supporting this pop up in the very dodgey emails released recently.
Polar bear populations have increased from 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today
Recent reports by the BBC and other mass media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a furious pace. A new report by a senior Indian glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite intact. For example the 30-kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters) a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007 Gangotri has been “practically at a standstill,” according to Raina's report.
None of the alarmist temperature rise predictions have been correct yet.
If the 'science' was purely science with no hidden agenda there is no reason not to release the data and models that have been run to get this 'proof' - no other field of science works like this.
There is NO scientific consensus. Currently 31,486 scientists have signed a petition Global Warming Petition Project that they are "convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
I hope some of these points might be helpful
Mick
mb
09 December 2009, 09:39 PM
#120
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NotoriousREV
Phil Jones certainly profited to the tune of some £13m over a 10 year period.
And here's the context for your response
Originally Posted by Martin2005
Well taxing the **** out of us is very different from personally profitng from the issue is it not?
Can you think another way I or anyone else could interpret your remark?
Man you might at the very least stand by what you say
Phil Jones certainly profited to the tune of some £13m over a 10 year period.
And here's the context for your response
Originally Posted by Martin2005
Well taxing the **** out of us is very different from personally profitng from the issue is it not?
Can you think another way I or anyone else could interpret your remark?
Man you might at the very least stand by what you say
Phil Jones secures £13m in grants in order to run Hadley CRU for at least 10 years. As part of running the CRU for 10 years, Jones gets paid a not inconsiderable wage. Jones has clearly personally profited. To be honest, I clearly credited you with more intelligence.