The Environment - it needs you to pay more tax.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:

such dubious science

Gore couldn't find a single peer-reviewed article in the journals that brought the science of global warming into question.

Can you? (Reference please.)

Gore Deano?

All records go back 150 years tops against a planet history of how long?

The planet has been very hot and ice age cold at different times without help from man.

It is, of course, typically arrogant of man to think we are the solution.

There are plenty of diverse opinions on the causes and possible outcomes of change.

Also, presumably you bought the same science that told us about the hole in ozone layer - since mysteriously repaired.

Yep, Gore, Stevo. Starring as himself in the film "An Inconvenient Truth".

Peer-reviewed articles please - dissemination is part of the scientific method. Whether I buy it or not is not the issue because I am not the one making assertions that it is dubious science.

That's where we disagree Deano, not on Lawyers though, I notice.

The science has to convince us - not the other way round as we are not trying to establish a case either way, and I'm not. But even if I were, using it as a way to soak individuals for tax while doing nothing about the larger problems still sucks.

You haven't said whether the Ozone hole science was equally convincing.

Steve.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
That's where we disagree Deano, not on Lawyers though, I notice.

Yeah well, I've always said that it's the clients you've got to watch. Lawyers just take instructions.

quote:

The science has to convince, and I'm not.

Which is why I ask; where are you getting your science, Steve(oh)?

From the Ozone hole - or are you in denial that this scare mongering was dubious?

Anyway it's your right to be convinced - I'm not arguing with that. But you often hear "this was the driest month since 1907 (for example) followed by "scientists fear this may be a further sign of global warming".

Sounds like you are happy with such deductions. My question is - what did they blame it on in 1907? Or could this be part of weather patterns that have existed for huge amounts of time compared to your "science".

They may not be proposing more tax in NZ of course.

Steve.

From the ozone hole? Dubious? Not sure whether to believe it or not, actually. The trouble is that I'm not well enough informed on the subject to venture an opinion on the Forum.

But I am assuming that you are well informed. So what are your sources? (Like Marvin, I ask merely for information...)

quote:

Like Marvin, I ask merely for information...)

So am I.

Still no sources?

All assertion; but no argument.

I don't deny your perfect entitlement to be pissed off about your tax-burden; nor do I deny that your reasoning or information is as good as it needs to be for your purposes; it just doesn't convince me.

Forum warming.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam Meredith:
Forum warming.

Solid fuels cause a build up of methane gas. Ask my ex-wife...

quote:

Still no sources?

All assertion; but no argument.

Deano, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm not convinced myself that's all. I don't think any science that takes such a small sample (in this case time) is compelling. The Ozone hole scare, has done nothing to reduce my sceptism that the science is being used by those with a controlling agenda.

What we have in the UK at the moment is a population that is rightly concerned when it hears such fears. Add to this the politicians now seeing this as an opportunity to raise all sorts of taxes and you have quite a cocktail.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of polution causers (irrespective of the climate change claims) will remain unscathed because to take action and put in alternatives is costly and they have no stomach for it.

Steve.

I haven't read the papers or watched the news recently so am not informed as to the government's plan to tax us to the hilt to save the world. It does however strike me as a blatant piece of spin from this government who simply wish to rob us of more of our money. What do they intend to do with this money? Piss it up the wall whilst attending numerous overseas junkets enconsed in their five star surroundings perhaps. Save the world - vote Labour.

Just as you can still find people who deny evolution, you can still find people who deny man-made climate change. The overwhelming scientific body of evidence which supports both theories isn't going to convince everyone and my guess is that there will always be a small bunch of nutters who will continue deny both.

Rich

Interesting view Rich.

But if you were to represent the earth's (known) existance as a 24 hour day, the "overwhelming scientific" evidence is arrived at using the final micro-seconds before midnight!

That in any other field would be regarded as a hopelessly short period in which to make assumptions, never mind claims.

But not if you have a commercial interest or a controlling agenda, of course. Or in the UK governments case an urgent desire to gain social acceptance for revenue raising that would otherwise, quite rightly, cause an outcry.

People are not "nutters" just because they don't buy in quite as easily as others. I think the earth will survive man. Whether man will survive man is another matter.

Steve

Why is there no plan to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and split it into Oxygen and carbon - the energy demand would be huge but nuclear power generators could be used to create the required power.

Not too bothered about paying a green or greenish tax as it is part of the price I pay for living in the UK. I'm not too sure how excersising control over polution produced within the UK via a price mechanism will contribute to saving the World when mesured against the pollution output from USA, China and India? Is this not much more than a feel good or me to excersise partly designed to make it look as if something meaningful is being done or as a little something to salve the collective consciousness?

Surely it's a debate that will continue for as long as there are vested interests in the forms of careers, empires and philosophical ways of life on both sides, just as with many religions, economic preferences and Hifi brand loyalties. Trouble is, lobbying to some degree is an ever present in today's instantly available 'have it now' information driven society and we will never see an informed, reasoned and completely unbiased report either way 'cos someone will have to pay for it and they'd be upset if their money was spent proving something they didn't agree wth.

Either way it curently gives various factions an ideology to be fundamental, agnostic or aethiest about and we will never be convinced either way in our lifetimes 'cos any changes over the next few years will be put down by the opposing camps from a 'Wait & see' perspective.

Personally, as in all things in life, I feel moderaton is key. If every person on the planet does what they think is right within their understanding, means and ability, I suspect all will be well. Some will continue to over indulge, some will be purer than the driven, most of us will just be middle of the road farties. Over time, smart folks will come up with means of aiding the balance just as in sanitation, medicine, economics and social justice before now. There will be others who take the piss. In the mean time, the few will continue to be taxed to ever greater extremes to allow the government to continue to govern the masses, because that's what they do. Whether the immediate justification for higher taxes is war (and to do them right, they are bloody expensive), global warming, bendibusses or social redistribution of wealth, the means may differ but the end doesn't. (And by the way, increasing taxation on goods and services doesn't help reduce pollution. Any basic economic model will show that higher prices means that although many consumers may buy less of that heavily taxed item, they simply move on to buying another and, if the other is half the price, they'll buy two of them. And I bet two smaller, older Fiesta's are more damaging to the planet and our way of life on a local and a grand scale than one bigger newer Mondeo. Of course, if consumers stop buying something, industry comes up with an alternate and /or government steps in to encourage spending again 'cos without it we're all doomed. It's yer basic inflation/interest rate model innit. So it's never going to go away while the idiots are in charge but the idiots will always be in charge 'cos no-one who is sensibly rational would want to govern in the first place. Knew what he was talking about that Jo Heller.

quote:

But if you were to represent the earth's (known) existance as a 24 hour day, the "overwhelming scientific" evidence is arrived at using the final micro-seconds before midnight!

That in any other field would be regarded as a hopelessly short period in which to make assumptions, never mind claims.

Let me just check this. So if I am diagnosed with cancer at age 60, it can't be right because I will have had it for too short a time?

quote:

Let me just check this. So if I am diagnosed with cancer at age 60, it can't be right because I will have had it for too short a time?

So a change in climate against unknown min/max is the same as a diagnosis of malignancy against known tumour markers?

Like the emotive analogy though, that makes your argument so much stronger.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:

quote:

Let me just check this. So if I am diagnosed with cancer at age 60, it can't be right because I will have had it for too short a time?

So a change in climate against unknown min/max is the same as a diagnosis of malignancy against known tumour markers?

Like the emotive analogy though, that makes your argument so much stronger.

But Steve S1, the only argument you have provided is analogous. And brief. You can hardly claim to have brought any intellectual rigour to the table so it seems a little hypocritical to criticise others for the lack thereof.

If you scratch the surface of the science of global warming you will find that the conclusions are based on a great deal more than 150 years of data.

So go ahead. Scratch the surface. Go to your library and get a few scientific journals that contain peer-reviewed articles about global warming. You should have around 700 (peer-reviewed) articles to choose from. See if you can find one that disputes global warming.

Just imagine how many quangos this government could open with the tax revenue raised. how much would be used on reducing greenhouse emmisions still further. <0 methinks>

Until these concerns go global absolutely anything we do in the UK is akin to taking a leak into a hurricane. (Not saying we should do nothing - but why oh why is it ALWAYS the tax sledgehammer that is needed to do the job)

Next we will be told that it is going to cost *^"*^ per night extra to keep our HiFi powered up...

Perhaps Tony should have a word with George.

Far more effective than raising our taxes. Oh, and what will these taxes be used for? Can someone answer that?