NotoriousREV

Olly, my post was tongue in cheek but all of the statements I made have been scientific "fact" at some point in history. My point was that "fact" in cases such as these is very much a moveable feast.

As for Mr Brant's assertion that the debate is over, the very fact that we are debating it right now and that there is no clear answer (even the people, including scientists, staunchly with a foot in either camp have to use vague qualifiers to ensure they don't look too foolish when proved wrong) makes a total mockery of that statement.

Geezer

Not at all. If the temperatures start to drop again( which plenty of people think they will, based on good evidence), and consistently do for the next 20-30 years, the debate will be well and truly be open.

More and more people are questioning this, and it is possible that some political party could pick it up and use it to get power (oh the irony!).

I know plenty of people who have questioned this and now believe it's rubbish, and would vote for a party that reversed this madness.

Never say never.

Geezer

Martin2005

I'm sorry but non of the 2 polls you copied show that I'm wrong (quite the contray in fact)
There are loads of other polls, which you for some reason decided not to includes..I wonder why?

Here's the result from one of the polls you included. Please enlighten me as to how this shows that I'm wrong.


Although 45 per cent of those questioned placed global warming at the top of a list of the most serious threats to mankind, when placed in a national context it came behind race and immigration, the NHS and crime.
Locally people were more concerned about traffic, litter, graffiti, parks, noise and dogs fouling the pavement.
While more than two thirds - 68 per cent - believe we are seeing climate change only 38 per cent thought it would have an impact while more than half - 51 per cent - thought it would have little or no effect.
But 90 per cent agree it would have a significant impact on future generations.

Just nine per cent thought global warming was caused by natural events while a total of 41 per cent thought it was caused partly caused by both natural and human activity. These figures have not changed since a previous survey in 2002.
Opinion was divided on whether climate change was too complex and uncertain for scientists to make useful forecasts. 40 per cent agreed and 38 per cent disagreed.
More than half - 56 per cent - thought experts were still divided over whether human activity is contributing to global warming while 21 per cent disagreed.
Asked if climate change was exaggerated and 'caused too much fuss' 75 per cent disagreed and 22 per cent agreed.
Almost 46 per cent thought a solution could be found to the problems caused by climate change while 32 per cent disagreed.
70 per cent agreed that the Government should take the lead in combating climate change even if it means using the law to change people's behaviour and consumers are looking to business to take greater action on climate change.
37 per cent admitted they were doing nothing about climate change while 23 per cent said there main effort was through recycling. The survey concludes that there is a need to bring home to the individual the realities of climate change and although public understanding is increasing the facts need reinforcing.

Judging by this thread I would suggest that there is a very large majority on here the are at least sceptical, most in fact deny (even though they cannot possibly know enough to deny) you will find no poll public that is consistant with the views on here.

So over to you again, why do you think that SN isn't representative of the public as a whole on this issue?

Martin2005

This is exatly the kind ill considered BS I was talking about. If you think the government is creating false fears simply to fiddle their expenses then you are off with the fairies.

You state this as fact when of course it's not fact at all, it's just opinion!

PeteBrant

Again, in any meaningful way, the debate is over.

People on the periphery can argue, indeed scientists can argue. But it won;t change the course the industrialised world has decided on.

NotoriousREV

Defeatist attitude. If those on the periphery argue and that influences their vote, then the direction will change.

PeteBrant

That isn't just on this issue though. SN as a collective is right wing. Out of kilter with the mainstream which is just about centre.

Then you have the likes of me, Brendan, Rannoch etc out of kilter but to the left.

PeteBrant

Vote??? Which mainstream party is not following a green agenda, then?

jonc

Lets face it, its not the first time the governments have created "false fears" in order to meet an agenda is it!. Just because they say it's so doesn't necessarily mean its actually true.

Why is it that whenever there is what is considered by many as "freak weather", eg hurricane Katrina, flash floods in north England, heat waves a couple of summers ago, tornados in England and devastating storms etc etc. pro MMGW camp quickly claim its all attributed by man made global warming?

Yet the US have experienced hurricanes with the same intensity as Katrina in past couple of hundred years nor are they increasing in frequency. England has experienced floods, storms, tornadoes and heatwaves again on a simlar scale many times in the past. No body ever points this out, least of all the MMGW camp.

NotoriousREV

Believe me, one of them will flinch soon enough when they see an opportunity to pick up some votes.

Your assertion that the debate is over is wrong. There will be a backlash sooner or later.

PeteBrant

Oh i don't buy into to all that - it's the bigger picture that has me *mostly" convinced. Freak weather will alwasy happen.


The Pro lobby don't do themselves any favours at all by blaming every single disaster to climate change.

In fact, forget disaster, it seems the blame anythign that os slightly irritating on climate chage.

Car wont start? Climate change
Lots of rain? Calimate change
Half way through an enourmous turn out and realise you have no toilet roll? Climate change.

PeteBrant

Oh i don't buy into to all that - it's the bigger picture that has me *mostly" convinced. Freak weather will alwasy happen.


The Pro lobby don't do themselves any favours at all by blaming every single disaster to climate change.

In fact, forget disaster, it seems the blame anythign that os slightly irritating on climate chage.

Car wont start? Climate change
Lots of rain? Calimate change
Half way through an enourmous turn out and realise you have no toilet roll? Climate change.

jonc

You posted twice, damn that climate change!!

warrenm2

Air Passenger duty?
Ordinary light bulbs (will be taxed at an infinite rate ie banned in 2009)

SJ_Skyline

This is very similar to the line trotted out almost nightly by the BBC. I won't be at all surprised if people suffer from green-fatigue.

SiPie

OllyK

Brave words. Where science is concerned, the door is always open and there is a chance that somebody could come up with another explanation that better fits the observations or perhaps even more likely that what is being observed is actually no big deal anyway, in otherwords who can say when or at what temperateure the post glacial period would top out without AGW, it could be the same point, just a few years later.

OllyK

Yes, I did edit to make the TIC point, however, the point still stands that they weren't "scientific fact" in any sense of the word, although I do agree that science is always open to re-evaluation in the presence of new evidence.

The modern scientific process is largely attributed to Aristotle (384-322 BC), the round nature of the Earth was well known to the acient Egyptians several thousand years before that.

PeteBrant

Well Air passenger duty has gone up by a tenner - Hardly a significant raise, and the simple answer is not to buy ordinary light bulb.

There is a different between a tax and a duty. There is an alternative to ordinary bulbs, you do not have to buy them.

In other words a duty is applied to those that refuse the alternative - If you conform you do not pay the duty - Its the whole reasoning behind it. You dare not *forced* to pay the extra, you have a choice.

OllyK

Why? Oh maybe because it was your claim and so up to you to substantiate it not me, if I do your homework, I may do it badly and fail to make your point for you, that's what I was getting at.

It depends how you want to cherry pick your data. If I do that I can pick out things like:

Damn, the majority is unsure about AGW.

Sceptisism about the how bad things really are

Not too high on the worry list then



And yet if you cherry pick it differently the message is the majority are not convinced and think it is being overhyped to raise taxes, pretty consistent with this thread.

Both camps are represented in this thread with a quite a few saying we don't know enough to pass comment. Now if you want to do your own homework this time and show me a poll where the majority is convinced that AGW is a reality and isn't being overhyped to raise taxes then I'd say you'd have a point.

OllyK

Car tax to penailse the highest emission vehicles
Increased parking charges for high emission cars

Chris L

I think that global warming as a news subject attracts a lot of coverage as a 'bad news subject' - it was very interesting to note the huge coverage dedicated last year to the very poor snow falls seen in many ski resorts in Europe - this was touted as real evidence of the affects of climate change.

And yet this year, the snow falls across Europe's ski resorts have been some of the earliest and best in living memory, but how much of this have you seen on the evening news?

OllyK

Wow!! I don't have to buy them? Well no, if I change ALL the light fittings in my house so that they are a) big enough to get the damn bulb in in the first place and b) open at the top to allow sufficient ventilation that the bulbs actually last anything like time they are supposed to.

Also you have to consider the increased environmental damage in their initial manufacture and the problems with disposal of mercury vapours when they expire. All in all they're a really bad idea from an environental perspective. As a home owner they may save you a couple of quid a year in electricity.

PeteBrant

Dont buy a high emission car

Geezer

The fuel escalator increases the price of fuel faster than inflation. What do you do then? Not buy a car?

The high cost of fuel will drive up the cost of public transport.

If you think that GW is not driving up costs then your head is in the sand. EVERYTHING is affected by GW, fuel, the cost of reducing carbon emissions on industry is passed to consumers, it just goes on and on. However, the govt. just rakes it in, yet take no real initiatives to stop us using anything that supposedly worsens GW.

Geezer

PeteBrant

The fuel escalator hasnt been in use since 2000.

I see no evidence of higher prices with no alternative.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

B*llocks. My office is in a rural area with next to no public transport.

Nevertheless, by car it takes me about 20 minutes each way. But by public transport, according to Transport Direct, I should catch a bus, then walk to the railway station and catch a train, then change trains, then walk to another bus stop and catch another bus, then another walk at the end. Total time 1hr 40 mins, and not even possible before 9am. So I'm inevitably late for work too.

In what meaningful sense is that an 'alternative'?

Bear in mind, of course, that even if I personally change jobs, someone else will take my place - it's the location of the workplace that's the issue, and the lack of public transport links to it that are the problem.

Geezer

Yes, sorry you are correct, I had missed that one completely!



That simply isn't true. If the bandwagon continues on it's present course, then the governemt will have to either a) start taxing the hell out of things like fuel b) fund alternative non CO2 power sources.

The money for b) will probably come from a), but I doubt b) will follow a) !

The government constantly makes noise about initiatives to reduce the amount of CO2 we omit, be it road pricing, reducing carbon emissions form industry or using lower temperatures to wash our clothes!

These things cost to do. Even building clean energy plants costs, and who do you think has to pay for them? Why do you think hybrid cars cost so much more than petrol ones? They have to recoup their development costs. Long life bulbs. Apart from the environmental damage they cause to make and dispose of as pointed out by OllyK, they cost more, and not necessarily for a great benefit.

OK, buying a lower emissions car is a perfectly valid point, but to say that there are always alternatives is just simply wrong. Actually, it's not, but it would mean us returning to stoneage times.

Geezer