Where's this global warming???
09 July 2008, 04:32 PM
#121
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, but one is a basic need, the other isn't - Hence the reduced VAT rate on heating bills. (there shouldn't be any by the way)
09 July 2008, 04:33 PM
#122
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's true Pete, it's a done deal as far as politicians go, probably because many see it as the ultimate, undisputable cash cow. After all, who can argue about a tax, if it's "environmental".
I think the big problem now is that without a doubt hundreds of thousands of people are going to die of starvation, as a direct result of the food shortage caused by growing bio fuels.
That's a big responsibility to have if they are wrong!
I think the big problem now is that without a doubt hundreds of thousands of people are going to die of starvation, as a direct result of the food shortage caused by growing bio fuels.
That's a big responsibility to have if they are wrong!
09 July 2008, 04:39 PM
#123
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But really petrol is a basic need these days, isn't it?
All I'm saying is whether it's right or wrong, if these were genuine green taxes, they would reflect the damage done by each type of fuel.
Another example is petrol compared to aviation fuel. Or taxing flights and then building more runways. They are all contradictions!
All I'm saying is whether it's right or wrong, if these were genuine green taxes, they would reflect the damage done by each type of fuel.
Another example is petrol compared to aviation fuel. Or taxing flights and then building more runways. They are all contradictions!
09 July 2008, 04:43 PM
#124
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bio fuels debacle is a prime example of jumping with both feet without actually looking to see what would happen - Hence the government setting the target for 5% Biofuel usage to "at least" 2013 rather then 2010.
I was chuckling when they had a farmer on who had given up half hios land to Biofules saying that it was essential that the UK proceed full steam with bio fuels.... Nothing to do with the fact that Biofuels are far more profitable per acre than any food you care to mention
And therein lies the problem with Biofuels - Why on earth, as a farmer , are you going to grow Potatoes, when Biofuels cost you less to grow, less to harvest and you can sell the crop for more?
Much as some people may hate it - this is exactly what the Common Agricultural Policy is designed to insure against. I.e. make it just as worthwhile growing corn, as it is rapeseed.
09 July 2008, 04:46 PM
#125
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is for lots of people, but, for basic survival, we need food, warmth and shelter - Hence the reduced rate
(Although obviously it didn't stop the government scrapping Miras)
That's where the government leave themselves wide open for criticism - The levies on aviation are an absolute joke, compared to the levies on petrol/VED/showroom tax.
(Although obviously it didn't stop the government scrapping Miras
)That's where the government leave themselves wide open for criticism - The levies on aviation are an absolute joke, compared to the levies on petrol/VED/showroom tax.
09 July 2008, 05:16 PM
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
According to some we have already reached the "tipping point" and to quote the director for Friends of the Earth "If we don't take action soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control." Since when has humans been able to control the global warming? With this in mind why have the G8 nations agreed its reasonable to half CO2 by 2050. Where's the urgency? It gives those governments to squeeze a few more "green taxes" for another 42 years!
"The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming".
I think not .......
Dave
09 July 2008, 06:43 PM
#127
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 July 2008, 07:01 PM
#128
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chinese economy will have to go some before it overtakes the US. Chinese GDP is $3.2bn or there abouts. the US GDP is £14bn; the Chinese economy will have to grow by roughtly 500% to catch up; assuming the US stagnates.
(Of course Chinas GDP will be affected by any US slowdown).
Lets be clear the vast majority of Chinas money is in Manufacturing. They produce goods for other countries; if those countries stop buying, for whatever reason, then the chinese economy suffers.
This is why the Chinese took on RoHS/WEEE at enourmous cost. Western customers demanded it.
And thats the pressure that gets applied - not through political channels, but through business.
I disagree.
(Of course Chinas GDP will be affected by any US slowdown).
Lets be clear the vast majority of Chinas money is in Manufacturing. They produce goods for other countries; if those countries stop buying, for whatever reason, then the chinese economy suffers.
This is why the Chinese took on RoHS/WEEE at enourmous cost. Western customers demanded it.
And thats the pressure that gets applied - not through political channels, but through business.
I disagree.
no problem - however, there's a wider picture ...
i take your point about commercial pressures but countries will only stop buying IF they don't like the products and/or the price points. and those are easily adapted because that's the market. if governments intervene regardless, then you have a damaging trade war. and can you see the US renouncing china's most favoured trading partner status over an environmental argument that remains blurred and equivocal? not in the near future, that's for sure ...
ultimately, the successful transfer of cleaner energy technologies is the only long term way to alleviate - en masse - the environmental impact of the rapid commercialisation and industrialisation in the developing world. and the 'cleaning up' operation in the first world too. to my mind, that's no bad thing if done with sufficient circumspection to keep dual-purpose technologies out of the hands of the (by our terms) mad, bad and dangerous.
09 July 2008, 07:45 PM
#129
Tipping point? So go see Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
"The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming".
I think not .......
Dave
"The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming".
I think not .......
Dave
Besides come December 21st 2012 its the end of the world, doomsday, end of days, apocalypse etc. Tax that and smoke it in your pipe!!
09 July 2008, 07:56 PM
#130
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm amazed this thread has got so far without the biggest issue facing us all which is the out of control population growth 6bn today - forecast 9bn by 2040. sod everything else, we're an out of control population in a closed system. no chance of anyone giving up their 'basic right' to breed so we're all doomed.
09 July 2008, 08:58 PM
#131
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm amazed this thread has got so far without the biggest issue facing us all which is the out of control population growth 6bn today - forecast 9bn by 2040. sod everything else, we're an out of control population in a closed system. no chance of anyone giving up their 'basic right' to breed so we're all doomed.
well, there you go, you spotted the elephant in the room. it's a whole new pressure factor. expand please!
10 July 2008, 01:25 AM
#132
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See now your very last word is the crux of it. If i'm imagining this whole thing then sure, dismiss us tree huggers till your head caves in. But whilst i continue to see and experience what i do, i think it's breathtakingly arrogant to label the viewpoint as "truely (sic) ignorant". Let's move on. 
According to the IPCC, it's just the last 150 years which are responsible for this "tipping" point of climate due to Co2. Can you tell what else has changed in, on and around our planet in 150 years that actually can, and does, affect climate?
10 July 2008, 01:29 AM
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to your last point, clearly it will be political simply by allowing Govn't to impose limits of personal freedoms (Which China already does significantly).
10 July 2008, 01:56 AM
#134
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you know that of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, 0.6% is caused by vehicle emissions?
That means every, car, plane, bus, train journey etc. that is made, anywhere in the world (and that's a lot of journeys) has contributed just over half of 1% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Once you have your head round these figures, it puts into perspective the amount of difference it will make if you buy something like a Toyota Prius. It wouldn't make a jot of difference if everyone in the country bought a Toyota Prius, let alone one person!
That means every, car, plane, bus, train journey etc. that is made, anywhere in the world (and that's a lot of journeys) has contributed just over half of 1% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Once you have your head round these figures, it puts into perspective the amount of difference it will make if you buy something like a Toyota Prius.
It wouldn't make a jot of difference if everyone in the country bought a Toyota Prius, let alone one person!Of this 100ppm, over 150 years of human activity, in particular fuel for cars has been blamed. Problem with this is that the mfg and use of concrete in the UK currently contributes more Co2 than ALL transport put together.
The anomolies just keep coming.
10 July 2008, 01:59 AM
#135
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See now your very last word is the crux of it. If i'm imagining this whole thing then sure, dismiss us tree huggers till your head caves in. But whilst i continue to see and experience what i do, i think it's breathtakingly arrogant to label the viewpoint as "truely (sic) ignorant". Let's move on.
Tell me, how will Govn't "save the planet" when our Sun dies?
10 July 2008, 02:00 AM
#136
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly!! How these people can claim "tipping points" and "runaway effect" are ludicrous though they are headline grabbing. The only thing that is certain are death and taxes and more taxes!!
Besides come December 21st 2012 its the end of the world, doomsday, end of days, apocalypse etc. Tax that and smoke it in your pipe!!
Besides come December 21st 2012 its the end of the world, doomsday, end of days, apocalypse etc. Tax that and smoke it in your pipe!!
10 July 2008, 07:40 AM
#137
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does rhetorical bull$hit get us anywhere? No. So i'll ignore your meaningless question if it's all the same to you, cheers.
10 July 2008, 07:49 AM
#138
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christ i don't think you want to listen to anyone else's point of view do you. Your assertion that you DO know what is happening is laughable, it really is. It's based purely on other people's numbers. Great, if that's what you want to focus on. For those of us who want to take a more holistic point of view, your endless stream of statistics is at best frustrating, and at worst a total distraction from the issue at hand. Condescend all you want, i'm getting used to it now, but numbers are just one small part of this. Do you think you'll ever be able to acknowledge that? I seriously doubt it, if you've been entrenched in your views for decades, by your own admission. As i've said before, i think your rose tinted views are wrong, not least because of the basis on which you've formed them.
10 July 2008, 08:47 AM
#139
The only way they know how, to bring in a new tax!
Thing is who will you beleive? A bunch of scientists funded by Governments who's interest is to promote "man made global warming" or the independent "crack pot" scientists who's own research shows global warming is a natural process.
Either way, there's an undeniable fact that there's a huge amount of money being generated through promoting "global warming" for the "policy makers"!
Thing is who will you beleive? A bunch of scientists funded by Governments who's interest is to promote "man made global warming" or the independent "crack pot" scientists who's own research shows global warming is a natural process.
Either way, there's an undeniable fact that there's a huge amount of money being generated through promoting "global warming" for the "policy makers"!
10 July 2008, 08:54 AM
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Christ i don't think you want to listen to anyone else's point of view do you. Your assertion that you DO know what is happening is laughable, it really is. It's based purely on other people's numbers. Great, if that's what you want to focus on. For those of us who want to take a more holistic point of view, your endless stream of statistics is at best frustrating, and at worst a total distraction from the issue at hand. Condescend all you want, i'm getting used to it now, but numbers are just one small part of this. Do you think you'll ever be able to acknowledge that? I seriously doubt it, if you've been entrenched in your views for decades, by your own admission. As i've said before, i think your rose tinted views are wrong, not least because of the basis on which you've formed them.
Dave
10 July 2008, 09:12 AM
#141
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, thanks for chipping in. I can find statistics to back my opinion as well you know, i just choose not to. That's the difference. Numbers and statistics are all that the "global green tax scam" mongers have. We've been over this countless times before.
10 July 2008, 09:36 AM
#142
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm amazed this thread has got so far without the biggest issue facing us all which is the out of control population growth 6bn today - forecast 9bn by 2040. sod everything else, we're an out of control population in a closed system. no chance of anyone giving up their 'basic right' to breed so we're all doomed.
10 July 2008, 11:08 AM
#143
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the above is a slanderous post, you should be ashamed to state such a thing and then choose not to explain yourself or to back it up in any way. It is certainly outside SN rules for posting.In my opinion this demonstrates not only that you shot your mouth off unwisely and inaccurately, but also that you deserve to lose any credibility that you might think you have.
Les
10 July 2008, 12:24 PM
#145
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christ i don't think you want to listen to anyone else's point of view do you. Your assertion that you DO know what is happening is laughable, it really is. It's based purely on other people's numbers. Great, if that's what you want to focus on. For those of us who want to take a more holistic point of view, your endless stream of statistics is at best frustrating, and at worst a total distraction from the issue at hand. Condescend all you want, i'm getting used to it now, but numbers are just one small part of this. Do you think you'll ever be able to acknowledge that? I seriously doubt it, if you've been entrenched in your views for decades, by your own admission. As i've said before, i think your rose tinted views are wrong, not least because of the basis on which you've formed them.
You have not offered one shred of evidence to show that the climate has changed significantly in the last 50,100, 150 however many years. All you have to go on is figures funnily enough! Perceptions are meaningless, as most people remember better summers, or whatever, but the figures simply do not back that up.
Geezer
10 July 2008, 12:30 PM
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Geezer, I was about to say the same. I'd rather look at statistics of temperatures that have happened and are insisputable, rather than predictions of temperatures in 20 years time.
I've seen nothing in this thread in the way of evidence to say that temperatures are going up and that it is caused by CO2.
I've seen nothing in this thread in the way of evidence to say that temperatures are going up and that it is caused by CO2.
10 July 2008, 01:00 PM
#147
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer, i'm not saying i've totally disregarded figures. Of course the whole issue would never have come to light if it hadn't been for measurements. What i'm saying though is that what i perceive to be going on backs up the figures indicating global warming, and i could find numbers to support my perceptions too, as you know. The argument against that is purely a raft of data designed, to a large extent i believe, to discredit the whole thing. But you could find statistics to back up any point of view. If you're convinced the whole thing is a big con designed to rip you off in the name of global warming then of course one particular set of data is going to suit. If, like me, you think there's a real shift in the Earth's weather patterns, you set about doing something about it, not wait till the numbers categorically prove your case. I don't think i can summarise it more concisely than that.
Last edited by TelBoy; 10 July 2008 at 01:04 PM.
10 July 2008, 01:25 PM
#148
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer, i'm not saying i've totally disregarded figures. Of course the whole issue would never have come to light if it hadn't been for measurements. What i'm saying though is that what i perceive to be going on backs up the figures indicating global warming, and i could find numbers to support my perceptions too, as you know. The argument against that is purely a raft of data designed, to a large extent i believe, to discredit the whole thing. But you could find statistics to back up any point of view. If you're convinced the whole thing is a big con designed to rip you off in the name of global warming then of course one particular set of data is going to suit. If, like me, you think there's a real shift in the Earth's weather patterns, you set about doing something about it, not wait till the numbers categorically prove your case. I don't think i can summarise it more concisely than that.
I agree that anyone can cheery pick data to suit their own argument, but, the data for AGW is no conclusive by any means, and is now starting to look decidely dodgy as we have no increase in temperatures and no increase in extreme weather.
That allied to hard evidence from Earths past that quite violent climate change has happened without our intervention, and quite contradictoy conditions have existed to what AGW doom mongers say will happen and their position look weaker all the time.
That said, obviously I think that recycling and prudence in usage of resources is a good thing, for lots of reasons, but not at the cost of the world's economy.
Geezer
10 July 2008, 01:46 PM
#149
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Loads of evidence of global warming happening and being connected to carbon emissions here.
What I am yet to understand, is why the skeptics will (and they will) say "ahh, but thats the IPCC, that doesn't count"...Well.....um.. Why not?
Loads of evidence of global warming happening and being connected to carbon emissions here.
What I am yet to understand, is why the skeptics will (and they will) say "ahh, but thats the IPCC, that doesn't count"...Well.....um.. Why not?
10 July 2008, 01:48 PM
#150
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But any approach is flawed, Geezer, like i've said and which (with one or two exceptions on here, lol) most people would agree. It's the total reliance on numbers that frustrates the hell out of me. About two years ago i was sorely tempted to start an "On Record" thread detailing all the various wettest, driest, hottest, coldest etc etc events around the world. The list is staggering in recent years. Yes my perception is going to be different from the next person's, but unless i'm going totally senile, things have changed, and that's sufficient for me to sit up and take notice.