OllyK

In this thread Martin has suggested that the SN viewpoint (complete denial of GW) does not match that of the general public, which is that GW is happening, but it's a natural occurence.

Places your votes above!

RB5_245

Could you try adding a poll then

OllyK

Yeah yeah, the thread gets created before you get a chance to create the poll, it should be there now!

fast bloke

Do we not get an option about it being a cynical conspiracy to raise taxes then?

RB5_245

I waited at least a few seconds, must've been climate change that caused the confusion

Sonic'

If it is happening, I wish it would hurry up, its fooking freezing out at the moment, and taking 10 mins to de-ice and warm up the car every morning

OllyK

That would be option 1

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

As with all polls, none can be made perfect.

However, its just too hard to really answer. In the last few decades there has been warming, but the concept of global warming if one of constant steady increases in temperature.

The effects we have seen could simply stop in the next few years for reasons we just don't understand. As for the cause, who really knows?

I am going for the last option.
1) I don't really know if long term global warming is really occurring, and nor do any of the scientists...we simply don't have enough data. Records only exist for the last few hundered years, the planet is millions of years old. The planet may just be going through some natural cycle.
2) If we do have global warming, we don't really know if humans have anything to do with it.
3) If we do have global warming, and we do have something to do with it, I still don't care. Its just too damn cold anyway

PeteBrant

It's happening and it's partially down to humans.

Sonic'

How do we know, is there sufficient evidence ?

PeteBrant

Yes, and this is probably not the thread to go into it, because there a whole other one here

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...ming-help.html

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

But humans are naturally occuring? As are the materials we use?

Cattle farting affects climate change alledgedly, now is CMGW natural - or don't tell me those nasty humans breeding them purposely for our comsumption is the catalyst for melting ice caps?

If man has an influence on climate change then I believe its due to evolution of the biosphere that is planet earth.

Humans are breeding too much and using resources at an unsustainable rate, but that happensin the the foxes and the hares study at pre GCSE level, nature will previal. There needs to be a human cull, there are many types of natural disasters that can and will do that for us.

Saving energy is a good thing, but targeting the motorist whilst building Heathrow T5 shows the true colours of government attitude to climate change.

Ahem

Its just a clever conspiracy to raise taxes TM

PeteBrant

The problem with this assertion is that your taxes haven't gone up significantly as a result of tackling climate change.

Certain duties have, such as the Vehicle license fee on new cars in the top emissions bracket, but they are entirely optional.

There is a difference between a tax, and a duty.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Yes I realise that Pete, but a CO2 polluting car is a CO2 polluting car that needs fuel.

If goverments want to succeed in reducing carbon then we need an alternative form of propelling transport. Then you can can call a tax on carbon based fuel a duty.

PeteBrant

Well, no one forces you to buy an uneconomical car.

You can buy a car that costs you £35 a year to tax and does 60 MPG.


Or, you can spend the money you would have used on your holiday to Greece on a the running costs of an uneconomical car, your overall footprint will still reduce. And thats the thinking behind it -You price things in order to encourage people sacrifice certain things, be it flying or driving an uneconomical car.

It's not a tax because you have the choice whether to spend the additional money or not - no one is forcing you to.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

I believe if the fuel duties on aviation fuel and petrol were reversed, I'd be driving to the South of France for my hols and reducing my carbon footprint!

Geezer

Of course, a car doing 60mpg doing 12k miles a year is going to use half as mcuh fuel as one at 30mpg (average family car) doing the same mileage. However, I do own a car that does 60mpg and I can fit me and my cat in it, which leaves options for families rather limited.

Also, my 60mpg car produces 109g/km of CO2, whereas the family car we have produces 165g/km co2. All I'm doing is halving my fuel costs. Not really halving my effect on the environment (supposedly). It's such an obvious con.

Also, I use the family car for business travel, so not only does the government not induce me to be less polluting, the daft tw@ts pay me for the privelege of using it!

You couldn't make it up.

Still, we all have so many optons, right?

Er, that's like saying VAT is not a tax because you could choose to live on cake, which is VAT free!


Geezer

David Lock

A petrol car gives out about 2.31 kgs of CO2 for every litre used.

If I have my sums right then a 60 mpg car means 21 km per litre meaning CO2 output is roughly 110 g/km.

This is halved for a car doing 30 mpg.

===========

If goverment took a hard line then they could ban use of private vehicles which do less than say 45 mpg. This would need to be done over a period (10 years?) and would cause an outcry and I can't see a government that only has a 5 year life bringing it in. They would also lose the caravan vote

PeteBrant

Buy a bigger more econimical car -there's loads out there.
The more economical car produces less carbon over the same distance - So of course when you drive that car you are reducing your emissions.


Surely that;s down to you.

of course we do


Look, at the end of the day, the government is incentivising people to live ag reener lifestyle. If people do, then the supposed "tax raising" issue is non-existant, i.e. less tax will be raised than is now.

The "it just a tax raising exercise" statement is completely nonsensical.

OllyK

BBC NEWS | Politics | Brown unveils 'green' tax plans
BBC NEWS | UK | Miliband draws up green tax plan
BBC NEWS | UK | Green taxes 'would hit poor most'

Bit of reading

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

I voted "It's happening and it's partially down to humans"; however, I would have rather answered "It's happening and its possibly partially down to humans" because I'd rather be cautious - but the only option that I believe 100% is "It's happening but it's a natural occurrence".

Just goes to show how good *any* poll is.

Geezer

They are not incentivising really. Only a few cars really are cheap to tax and run, and they are generally not suitable for alot of peoples uses.

What they are doing is putting punitive taxes on normal and high usage vehicles. It's a subtle but important difference.

If they were really serious about emissions, then they could pump billions from car and taxation into viable alternatives, and people may have a bit more respect for them, but it simply isn't so. The treasury coffers just get bigger, we still have to travel, just pay more for the privelege.

Although I don't believe GW is caused by us, I could easily swallow having to pay more for my fuel if I knew the money was going to provide a replacement for petrol as it won't last for ever. But this clearly isn't the case.

As for bigger more economical cars, there isn't a choice. All the family sized cars are roughly the same for fuel/emissions. The only other choice is to go diesel, and the fuel costs more. Considering your apparent green stance, I don't even want to start on the horrors that diesel fumes are full of.....

As for the quote about petrol engines producing a certain amount per km, that may well be true, but the figures I got were from the manufacturers websites, I didn't just make them up!

Geezer

r32

Its all crap ............ see below, I am lead to believe the numbers are correct


CO2 has been declared public enemy number one. And true to political form, the agenda is now in the hands of the fanatics.Perhaps I should consider doing the London marathon next year. For once in my life take an active part in the annual emissions fest in celebration of margarine. Three and a half hours of hurtling myself down the streets of London, gasping my way through 8 m3 of air every hour - showing a finger to the environmentalists to the tune of 53 grams of CO2 per kilometer.Alternatively - I could jump on the CB90, ride the marathon, emit less CO2, save 2.5 hours and not end up wrapped in tinfiol.Consider thisA human beings CO2 emission levels are directly related to the level of activity in which the human is enganged. A few hours spent on the web won't reveal much, but it is possible to put together the necessary raw facts with a bit of patience.Based on numbers published on the engineering toolbox website - the measured respiration and CO2 emission rates for a human is as follows (all numbers in grams/hour):Sleeping 25.54Resting/Low Activity 39.29Normal Work 157.14 - 255.36Hard Work 648.21 - 746.43See http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ons-d_691.html for reference.Consider 30,000 people running the London marathon. The total amount of CO2 emitted by the runners themselves comes to:30,000 [runners] * 3.5 [hours hard work] * 746 [gram of CO2/hour] = 78 ton of CO2My personal emission level would be:3.5 [hours hard work] * 746 [grams CO2/hour] / 46.195 [kilometers] = 53 [gram/kilometer]No - to save the world I need to make some serious changes to my life:1 - Skip the marathon, slouch down in front of the telly for the three hours. That would reduce my CO2 emissions from 2,200 g to 120 g. Three hours of TV would add another 50 g to the emissions resulting in a total of 170 g of CO2 for three hours. In one move I will have reduced my CO2 emissions by over 90% on the day.2 - Cancel the gym membership and sleep for an extra hour. It will save me a bundle and my CO2 emission levels will drop from 2,515 g/day to 1,800 g/day. A 28% reduction - far in excess of the 20% reduction that the government is seeking.3 - Perhaps there is a grant I could get my hands on. I wouldn't have to work and could spend my time sleeping or watching telly. That would be another 1,200 g of CO2 saved daily Monday to Friday. My carbon footprint would drop by over 40%.In shortHuman activity result in CO2 emissions - there is no zero emission option, unless you are willing to consider extinction.When people offer you the earth, remember the old saying "If something sounds too good - it probably is."

Leslie

I agree with that.

Don't you ever fart Jay?

Les

Dan W

If anyone is wondering who thinks it isn't happening its me.

Argue all you like.

davegtt

Whats Global Warming? never heard of it

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Agreed.

Geezer

You're denying the planet is getting warmer, or just saying argue all you like because you will be as awkward as can be?

Geezer

stilover

The Sun gets hotter, our planet gets hotter
The Sun gets cooler, our planet gets cooler.

The Sun fluctuates in heat thus getting hotter and cooler. Overall the Sun is always getting hotter and larger as it consumes it's fuel.
Scientists know that in Millions of years time the Sun will be larger and hotter to an extent that our whole planet will become Molten rock, and eventually be consumed by our Sun.

Maybe extra Tax will stop this? Maybe not.

Abdabz

It's happening (ever so slightly) and it has diddly squat to do with humans

Does anyone have any footage of a slightly perturbed and forlorn polar bear? Hard evidence indeed for anyone in doubt of the effects of climate change