Where's this global warming???
10 July 2008, 04:22 PM
#181
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a new purchase yes, but for a car I currently run and intend to run for several years more, nil affect. Where's the logic other than increase revenue for the Gov'? I'm not going to sell my car because of the higher VED, it doesn't make economic sence. Even if it were to encourage me to sell my car, surely more CO2 would be created in the manufacture and shipment for the new car that if I just ran my existing car.
Agreed, but you have to start somewhere, encouraging people to act ina greeenr way is always goign to require financial incentive - THey have indeed sent out the wrong message with backdating hte VED though.
I don t see it as a revenue raiser though, because as I said previously, the reduced revenue from people living a greener lifestyle .
10 July 2008, 04:40 PM
#182
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameron is utterly commited to Green taxes. He a socialist too? (Not that we have anything even approaching a socialist government)
We don't have the highest personal tax in Europe. We aren't even close. the UK is a low tax economy compared to Europe, and that a direct quote from those less than staunch Labour supporters at the Adam Smith Institute.
But this is getting away from the point I was making. Forget party politics, forget Labour and the Tories (given that they are both commited to a greener agenda) - Why do people think that the IPCC reports are false? Why do people think that the Government are going to use green taxes, which by thier very nature actively encourage people not to pay the taxes, as a revenue raising exercise?
We don't have the highest personal tax in Europe. We aren't even close. the UK is a low tax economy compared to Europe, and that a direct quote from those less than staunch Labour supporters at the Adam Smith Institute.
But this is getting away from the point I was making. Forget party politics, forget Labour and the Tories (given that they are both commited to a greener agenda) - Why do people think that the IPCC reports are false? Why do people think that the Government are going to use green taxes, which by thier very nature actively encourage people not to pay the taxes, as a revenue raising exercise?
nothing approaching a socialist government? come on. here are some clear symptoms marked 'danger - lefties at work':
* a centralised, top-down, target-driven and inefficient public sector
* political micro-management of the public sector
* unprecedented wastage of taxpayer funds with no accountability
* explosion in growth of unelected quangos
* repeated contempt for the primacy of parliamentary democracy
* rampant CCTV surveillance
* attempted destruction of habeas corpus
* publicly-stated, ideological hatred of public & grammar schools
* a politicised police and a weakened judiciary
* a politicised civil service
* bloated and over-resourced government
* overwhelming layers of bureaucracy for business and public sector alike
* obsession with political correctness
* undermining of and rounding-down of state education instead of vice versa
* repeated and endemic undermining of civil liberties
* repeated interference in the lifestyle choices of the individual
if it looks lefty, walks lefty, smells lefty and acts lefty, then it's probably lefty. this is a classic lefty government, with centrist wrap that a lot of sheople bought for a lot of years.
why do people think that green taxes are there as a revenue raising exercise? because they don't trust this government on account of its endemic dishonesty and the way it sticks its venal hands in our pockets with neither shame nor apology because it's spent everything else, that's why. 10p tax rate? revised VED? they don't exactly do much to suggest otherwise ...
Last edited by Holy Ghost; 10 July 2008 at 04:42 PM.
10 July 2008, 04:55 PM
#183
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**
nothing approaching a socialist government? come on. here are some clear symptoms marked 'danger - lefties at work':
* a centralised, top-down, target-driven and inefficient public sector - nothing wrong with targets, most of the NHS reforms have been about decentralisation.
* political micro-management of the public sector - is there any evidence of this, or is the your / Daily Mail view
* unprecedented wastage of taxpayer funds with no accountability - to coincide with unprecedented investment - sure there's wasteage, but there always has been, this has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with the inherent weaknesses in our public sector
* explosion in growth of unelected quangos - no that was John Majors government
* repeated contempt for the primacy of parliamentary democracy - yep, not sure that's got anything to do with socialism though
* rampant CCTV surveillance - again what's this got to do with socialism
* attempted destruction of habeas corpus - well surely that happened when the original terrorism legislation was brought in by Mrs T
* publicly-stated, ideological hatred of public & grammar schools - no that was Dave Cameron
* a politicised police and a weakened judiciary - Evidence?
* a politicised civil service - Yes, but what has this got to do with socialism?
* bloated and over-resourced government - you've made this point already
* overwhelming layers of bureaucracy for business and public sector alike - as above
* obsession with political correctness - that goes for ALL politicians
* undermining of and rounding-down of state education instead of vice versa - RUBBISH
* repeated and endemic undermining of civil liberties - well there is some cause and effect here!!
* repeated interference in the lifestyle choices of the individual - same point
if it looks lefty, walks lefty, smells lefty and acts lefty, then it's probably lefty. this is a classic lefty government, with centrist wrap that a lot of sheople bought for a lot of years.
why do people think that green taxes are there as a revenue raising exercise? because they don't trust this government on account of its endemic dishonesty and the way it sticks its venal hands in our pockets with neither shame nor apology because it's spent everything else, that's why. 10p tax rate? revised VED? they don't exactly do much to suggest otherwise ...
nothing approaching a socialist government? come on. here are some clear symptoms marked 'danger - lefties at work':
* a centralised, top-down, target-driven and inefficient public sector - nothing wrong with targets, most of the NHS reforms have been about decentralisation.
* political micro-management of the public sector - is there any evidence of this, or is the your / Daily Mail view
* unprecedented wastage of taxpayer funds with no accountability - to coincide with unprecedented investment - sure there's wasteage, but there always has been, this has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with the inherent weaknesses in our public sector
* explosion in growth of unelected quangos - no that was John Majors government
* repeated contempt for the primacy of parliamentary democracy - yep, not sure that's got anything to do with socialism though
* rampant CCTV surveillance - again what's this got to do with socialism
* attempted destruction of habeas corpus - well surely that happened when the original terrorism legislation was brought in by Mrs T
* publicly-stated, ideological hatred of public & grammar schools - no that was Dave Cameron
* a politicised police and a weakened judiciary - Evidence?
* a politicised civil service - Yes, but what has this got to do with socialism?
* bloated and over-resourced government - you've made this point already
* overwhelming layers of bureaucracy for business and public sector alike - as above
* obsession with political correctness - that goes for ALL politicians
* undermining of and rounding-down of state education instead of vice versa - RUBBISH
* repeated and endemic undermining of civil liberties - well there is some cause and effect here!!
* repeated interference in the lifestyle choices of the individual - same point
if it looks lefty, walks lefty, smells lefty and acts lefty, then it's probably lefty. this is a classic lefty government, with centrist wrap that a lot of sheople bought for a lot of years.
why do people think that green taxes are there as a revenue raising exercise? because they don't trust this government on account of its endemic dishonesty and the way it sticks its venal hands in our pockets with neither shame nor apology because it's spent everything else, that's why. 10p tax rate? revised VED? they don't exactly do much to suggest otherwise ...
Last edited by Martin2005; 10 July 2008 at 04:57 PM.
10 July 2008, 05:05 PM
#184
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As opposed to the utter neglect we saw under the Tories.
Of course there is accountability, its called the government - Don't like the way they run things? Turf them out.
Now thats red-top talk.
Nothing new there, the Major government did exactly the same in its closing years
Indeed, this hopefully will be reviewed
Think thats a bit strong, but I disagreed with the introduction of the 42 days without charge
Weakend in what way?
Politicised in what way?
Is it? How so?
I wouldn;t say obsession, perhaps a little over zelous at times, but with good intentions. I would rahter have too much political correctness than none at all.
In what way? What can't you do today that you could 10 years ago?
**
why do people think that green taxes are there as a revenue raising exercise? because they don't trust this government on account of its endemic dishonesty and the way it sticks its venal hands in our pockets with neither shame nor apology because it's spent everything else, that's why. 10p tax rate? revised VED? they don't exactly do much to suggest otherwise ...
why do people think that green taxes are there as a revenue raising exercise? because they don't trust this government on account of its endemic dishonesty and the way it sticks its venal hands in our pockets with neither shame nor apology because it's spent everything else, that's why. 10p tax rate? revised VED? they don't exactly do much to suggest otherwise ...
Hence the Tories got absolutely annihilated in '97 and 2001 and 2005.
However things have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous - We have gone from nothign to too much. Hopefully the next government will strike a balance.
10 July 2008, 05:52 PM
#185
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my friends, it's pointless fisking your responses because you miss the fundamental point here. and it's a simple one. they are all symptoms of the ever-grasping desire for state control over the individual (and civic institutions) that sits unspoken at the ideological heart of the socialist political model - which in itself is merely an outer ring of totalitarianism.
this is a socialist government in all but name. that we do not have a viable and electable libertarian alternative is deeply troubling.
this is a socialist government in all but name. that we do not have a viable and electable libertarian alternative is deeply troubling.
10 July 2008, 06:48 PM
#186
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this thread was about the great global warming swindle?
Anyway back on track for what its worth. I liken Global warming to religion. Not a shred of evidence just hearsay and superstition, but if enough people say that its true then it obviously must be.
Anyway back on track for what its worth. I liken Global warming to religion. Not a shred of evidence just hearsay and superstition, but if enough people say that its true then it obviously must be.
10 July 2008, 07:30 PM
#187
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is, this whole issue didn't just appear one day out of thin air. I think that there well meaning people on both sides of the debate. Why are people worried about this issue & why are government acting on this issue? So to simply dismiss the whole thing as some sort of conspiracy is just a convenient way of not having a proper discussion on the issue.
How could this possibly be a conspiracy, how could that actually of been hatched, get some serious scientist to collude with every major nation on earth, i mean this is just fantasy.
Could they have just got wrong, then yes that is clearly a possibility.
10 July 2008, 07:38 PM
#188
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my friends, it's pointless fisking your responses because you miss the fundamental point here. and it's a simple one. they are all symptoms of the ever-grasping desire for state control over the individual (and civic institutions) that sits unspoken at the ideological heart of the socialist political model - which in itself is merely an outer ring of totalitarianism.
this is a socialist government in all but name. that we do not have a viable and electable libertarian alternative is deeply troubling.
this is a socialist government in all but name. that we do not have a viable and electable libertarian alternative is deeply troubling.
This whole civil liberities and state control guff is just sensationalised Daily Mail tripe, give me some specific example where your civil liberties have been in anyway limited in the last 10 years.
Sorry but the basic facts simply do not support a single part of your arguement
10 July 2008, 07:45 PM
#189
Well not to boost their coffers to fund a war no one wanted for a start! How much CO2 is produce from that?! or not used to pay for their "John Lewis" ministerial expenses. How about assist in researching creating a viable alternative to the combustion engine, or financial incentives/grants for car manufacturers to research/produce/sell less polluting cars, or subsidising joe public to encourage him buy less polluting cars, or more spent on improving public transport for more frequent services and making them cleaner, more grants for joe public to make it more attractive to install renewable energy sources for their homes with solar panels/ wind mills, or give joe public a financial reward for scrapping their existing polluting motors to buy a cleaner motor, or grants for home builds to build greener houses.....
Yes it is a bit of a con. Imagine the if Gov' decided that council tax should now based on the the Government's Standard Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings, and not the value of the house. Because your house that you've been living in for several years is in a certain band, your council tax goes up several thousand pounds!! They would do it if they could!!
There are other ways other than taxing people to encourge people to be "greener", see above.
In the short to medium term and certainly whats left of this Governments term, there would be no reduced revenue, only an increase. Its not as if everyone will suddenly sell their cars and buy a VED band A car. Like you said they have to start somewhere, but at least start where it's fair for everyone.
In the short to medium term and certainly whats left of this Governments term, there would be no reduced revenue, only an increase. Its not as if everyone will suddenly sell their cars and buy a VED band A car. Like you said they have to start somewhere, but at least start where it's fair for everyone.
10 July 2008, 10:39 PM
#190
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just nonsense, are you suggesting that Tony Blair is a socialist? How many Nationalisations have taken place under this government, how much has your basic rate of income tax increased?
This whole civil liberities and state control guff is just sensationalised Daily Mail tripe, give me some specific example where your civil liberties have been in anyway limited in the last 10 years.
Sorry but the basic facts simply do not support a single part of your arguement
This whole civil liberities and state control guff is just sensationalised Daily Mail tripe, give me some specific example where your civil liberties have been in anyway limited in the last 10 years.
Sorry but the basic facts simply do not support a single part of your arguement
did i mention tony blair? no. and no, i don't think he was or is a socialist. i don't think he has any belief system at all. he is the ultimate political chancer. his break was to see that he could present the electable face of labour. and he spent 13 or 14 years being the party's fig leaf. a trojan horse if you like.
you cannot rely on simple braille markers like 'nationalisation' and 'personal income tax' to assess a given political ideology. it's much more complex than that.
my (your) civil liberties? ID cards ... national DNA database ... 42 days detention ... abuse of RIPA ... rampant CCTV surveillance. police state legislation is either being planned or underway. and it's a socialist symptom. always has been, always will be. take your pick. "guff" it is not - "if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" [sic] is a satirical line by george orwell.
let's politely agree to differ and leave it there.
10 July 2008, 11:10 PM
#191
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**
did i mention tony blair? no. and no, i don't think he was or is a socialist. i don't think he has any belief system at all. he is the ultimate political chancer. his break was to see that he could present the electable face of labour. and he spent 13 or 14 years being the party's fig leaf. a trojan horse if you like.
you cannot rely on simple braille markers like 'nationalisation' and 'personal income tax' to assess a given political ideology. it's much more complex than that.
my (your) civil liberties? ID cards ... national DNA database ... 42 days detention ... abuse of RIPA ... rampant CCTV surveillance. police state legislation is either being planned or underway. and it's a socialist symptom. always has been, always will be. take your pick. "guff" it is not - "if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" [sic] is a satirical line by george orwell.
let's politely agree to differ and leave it there.
did i mention tony blair? no. and no, i don't think he was or is a socialist. i don't think he has any belief system at all. he is the ultimate political chancer. his break was to see that he could present the electable face of labour. and he spent 13 or 14 years being the party's fig leaf. a trojan horse if you like.
you cannot rely on simple braille markers like 'nationalisation' and 'personal income tax' to assess a given political ideology. it's much more complex than that.
my (your) civil liberties? ID cards ... national DNA database ... 42 days detention ... abuse of RIPA ... rampant CCTV surveillance. police state legislation is either being planned or underway. and it's a socialist symptom. always has been, always will be. take your pick. "guff" it is not - "if you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" [sic] is a satirical line by george orwell.
let's politely agree to differ and leave it there.
11 July 2008, 03:23 AM
#192
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 July 2008, 03:37 AM
#193
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Geezer, is it meaningless to attempt to do something just in case? Look me in the eye and tell me it isn't. The only reason people don't, is because it's costing them money, usually against their will. And personal finances are more important than saving the planet for many people, that's the bottom line.
How about "doing something" to prevent asteroids from striking the Earth? Far far more risky to humans than "dangerous" Co2 emissions.
How about "doing something" to stop the Moon from drifting away at 1" per year which does affect the cliamte.
How about "doing something" to stop plate techtonics which also affects climate.
How about "doing something" to stop the magnetic field of Earth from "flipping" as it too affects climate.
How about "doing something" to stop vlucanoes errupting as these too affect climate.
The reminds me of the "Bear Tax" Simpsons episode. By all means reduce your "impact" on the environment, or in my day, it was called "Tread Lightly". But to tax the air we breathe, c'mon, who's conning who?
11 July 2008, 03:41 AM
#194
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not true. We have "climate change" as a result of "Global Warming", or more specifically AGW. Earth HAS warmed, just appears the rate of increase has "flattened" since 1998 even though Co2 emissions have soared in the same time which clearly contravenes current "science" on the subject.
11 July 2008, 03:45 AM
#195
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 July 2008, 03:49 AM
#196
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't tax aviation fuel unless every country in the world taxes it. Otherwise you'll see thousands of flights stopping every day in the country with the lowest tax, filling up and then continuing on their way. The amount of fuel burnt during the second departure plus the extra fuel burnt carrying all the extra fuel would be so high it would have a serious negative effect on CO2 levels. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant. That's against the Scoobynet rules
11 July 2008, 03:55 AM
#197
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How so?
So you mean green taxes will go towards all the things that taxes are used for - Public services, defence and health.
Things is, of course, that the revenue raised does not necessarily increase the overall take.
If you have more people living a greener life style, then the green taxes do not come in, and whats more, your petrol/VED take and take on VAT on heating bills etc reduces
All those things you list are happening. But the change will be slow - You can't just tell companies that they have to change they way they work next week - The change will be gradual so companies can adjust and absorb the cost of change. But it is happening, the RoHS example I gave earlier in thread took years to implement.
I went to a meeting this monring, where my company is going into bid for supply a component part for Wind turbines for use in wind farms. This contract inparticualr is for China, where they are going to build an absolutely enourmous wind farm
There are thing shappenign to reduce CO2 emissions, but you can't expect it to happen overnight.
Look at how long it took to get Lead out of products, which is a horrible substance . Change is slow.
And the reaosn the man in the street is hit (companies, are of course hit at a corporate level too) is because it is the most effective way to bring about change - Change the way people live, and companies will be forced to adapt.
So you mean green taxes will go towards all the things that taxes are used for - Public services, defence and health.
Things is, of course, that the revenue raised does not necessarily increase the overall take.
If you have more people living a greener life style, then the green taxes do not come in, and whats more, your petrol/VED take and take on VAT on heating bills etc reduces
All those things you list are happening. But the change will be slow - You can't just tell companies that they have to change they way they work next week - The change will be gradual so companies can adjust and absorb the cost of change. But it is happening, the RoHS example I gave earlier in thread took years to implement.
I went to a meeting this monring, where my company is going into bid for supply a component part for Wind turbines for use in wind farms. This contract inparticualr is for China, where they are going to build an absolutely enourmous wind farm
There are thing shappenign to reduce CO2 emissions, but you can't expect it to happen overnight.
Look at how long it took to get Lead out of products, which is a horrible substance . Change is slow.
And the reaosn the man in the street is hit (companies, are of course hit at a corporate level too) is because it is the most effective way to bring about change - Change the way people live, and companies will be forced to adapt.
China still makes (American) products which contain lead. So they still haven't "given in to pressure" yet!
11 July 2008, 04:01 AM
#198
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
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.
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.
11 July 2008, 04:02 AM
#199
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, what ***** me off is the whole "green tax" policy.
Taxing better off people who can afford higher emission vehicles is not, under any circumstances, going to save the planet. Its not even going to have an effect.
If we want to cut CO2 we have to cut emissions generally. That means we have to use less fuel. And cars are just the tip of that iceberg.
Oh, and if we really want to make a difference, we have to ask India, China and the USA to stop doing what they are doing.
Taxing better off people who can afford higher emission vehicles is not, under any circumstances, going to save the planet. Its not even going to have an effect.
If we want to cut CO2 we have to cut emissions generally. That means we have to use less fuel. And cars are just the tip of that iceberg.
Oh, and if we really want to make a difference, we have to ask India, China and the USA to stop doing what they are doing.
11 July 2008, 04:27 AM
#200
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True and that's what it boils down to, Rich. The thing i think a lot of people have a hard time accepting is that there ARE greener alternatives that avoid tax, they're just not quite so comfy, so it's perceived as a non-alternative. It's a case of re-education in my opinion.
11 July 2008, 04:28 AM
#201
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Illegal dog fights don't affect everyone and everything we do.
11 July 2008, 05:19 AM
#202
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
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.
I don't quote statistics, I quote facts. Without measures (Other than your own anecdotal observations) one cannot form a reliable position on any given subject. And I agree, the numbers are a very small part of the bigger picture, anyone with an ounce of sense would be able to determine that, shame about the IPCC however. When you look at the raw data, temperatures do not match Co2 emissions over geological timeframes, even over human time frames (Medievil Warm Period). When you look at the raw data, there is currently a "flattening" of temperature and has been since 1998, completely at odds with Co2 emissions. The IPCC are examining this now, and with good reason too.
For someone who ha snot offered up one tangible fact or plasusible solution, 'tis a bit like the pot calling the lettle black and it's certainly not me who's wearing tinted glasses.
11 July 2008, 05:21 AM
#203
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But can you find facts to form an informed opinion?
11 July 2008, 05:23 AM
#204
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
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.
11 July 2008, 05:27 AM
#205
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
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.
11 July 2008, 05:33 AM
#206
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang about, I could post up graph after graph from the IPCC site that shows :
(i) a steady increase in temperature - Rising more rapidly in the 20th century
(ii) A steady increase in CO concentrations - Rising more rapidly in the 20th century.
I don't know if we caused it, or whether therei sa link, but I'm not going to dissmiss it out of hand, I don't know enough about climate (and I suspect no one else here does) to make an informed decision.
(i) a steady increase in temperature - Rising more rapidly in the 20th century
(ii) A steady increase in CO concentrations - Rising more rapidly in the 20th century.
I don't know if we caused it, or whether therei sa link, but I'm not going to dissmiss it out of hand, I don't know enough about climate (and I suspect no one else here does) to make an informed decision.
11 July 2008, 05:44 AM
#207
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my friends, it's pointless fisking your responses because you miss the fundamental point here. and it's a simple one. they are all symptoms of the ever-grasping desire for state control over the individual (and civic institutions) that sits unspoken at the ideological heart of the socialist political model - which in itself is merely an outer ring of totalitarianism.
this is a socialist government in all but name. that we do not have a viable and electable libertarian alternative is deeply troubling.
this is a socialist government in all but name. that we do not have a viable and electable libertarian alternative is deeply troubling.
Anyway, enjoy your w/e all...I've commented enough on this topic. About 18 months ago, I predicted the price of petrol would "go through the roof", and it has. I now predict a, sort of, mini Maunder Minimum around about from 2012 onwards (If the world doesn't end before then) for something like 30 years or more, and I'll sit here and chuckle while I see the IPCC and Govn'ts wriggle like a dead eal trying to back-track on their "save the world" fallacy!
Last edited by Klaatu; 11 July 2008 at 06:18 AM.
11 July 2008, 07:10 AM
#208
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure anyone can realistically say that there isn't a shread of evidence.
The thing is, this whole issue didn't just appear one day out of thin air. I think that there well meaning people on both sides of the debate. Why are people worried about this issue & why are government acting on this issue? So to simply dismiss the whole thing as some sort of conspiracy is just a convenient way of not having a proper discussion on the issue.
How could this possibly be a conspiracy, how could that actually of been hatched, get some serious scientist to collude with every major nation on earth, i mean this is just fantasy.
Could they have just got wrong, then yes that is clearly a possibility.
The thing is, this whole issue didn't just appear one day out of thin air. I think that there well meaning people on both sides of the debate. Why are people worried about this issue & why are government acting on this issue? So to simply dismiss the whole thing as some sort of conspiracy is just a convenient way of not having a proper discussion on the issue.
How could this possibly be a conspiracy, how could that actually of been hatched, get some serious scientist to collude with every major nation on earth, i mean this is just fantasy.
Could they have just got wrong, then yes that is clearly a possibility.
My compariosn based on how religions grow is a valid point. Most church goers have never read the bible or probably just the good bits the preachers want them to read. But they believe what they are told whole heartedly because a figure of authority has told them its true and they never question it. Global warming is the same how many people around the world accept it as fact because the goverment told them so without even looking at both sides of the argument. The government don't put out both sides of the argument as it not in their interests so they can rape the tax payer even more! Now that is a fact!
11 July 2008, 08:01 AM
#209
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Klaatu, i'm bored with you, sorry. "Sheer ignorance" you condescending ****. You focus on your numbers, and i'll pray on your behalf that you're completely right and i'm completely wrong. Cheers.
11 July 2008, 10:04 AM
#210
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have to accept no such thing martin, not least because 'socialist conservative' is an oxymoron. i would loosely accept cameron as a 'social conservative' as it reflects the party's change of tack since he took over. however, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. for the sake of all, one hopes it is not a chocolate coated turd.