Do you believe Global Warming is just another stealth tax?

OK, so I will probably be flamed to hell and back for this, but here goes.
My problems with the whole global warming thing are as follows:
How will taxing me more on the fuel I HAVE to use change the way I use it.
If the government is taking so much money off of me to “combat” global warming, why then aren’t Government engineers using that money to design new engines or leaner burning fuel?
I read an article last year stating that if something wasn’t done soon the river Thames would freeze so badly in winter that you would be able to have parties on it.
It’s a shame these Scientists don’t also study history, because they used to hold a fair on the ice every year a few hundred years ago.
Also the pattern of so called global warming is following exactly the same patterns of the last ice age. (Same thing different name)
I have scoured the history books but I can’t find any mention of a prehistoric Range Rover Sports.
So what caused that one?

Yes i think it is a tax, not really a stealth tax - governments have an additional thing they need to fix so need more funding. Whether they use it for global warming or something else...we will never 100% know...

No, i think scientists do look at historical data.

Don't confuse climate science with government. Read something like RealClimate from top to bottom first. And then accept governments will try anything to fleece and subjugate the bulk of a flock. Doesn't mean you have to comply - in fact it's usually mandatory that you don't.

Its not Global Warming, its Climate Change, the climate has been changing for a long time and the reletively small amount of data we've collected over the last few hundred years doesnt even count in the grand scheme of things.

Yes we should recycle, yes we should run nice eco friendly cars but thats more of a habitat and wildlife thing than a Climate Change thing IMHO.

As for Tax, we'll always get taxed to the balls, be it an obvious tax or a backdoor blame the european union tax, what annoys me is they tax us on everything and say its for this that and the other but you dont see this that and the other improving, we shouldnt be using coal power stations, they burn coal which we buy from abroad and at some point that supply will be stupidly expencive or will dry up totally. We cant use wind farms cos, there crap tbh, and people dont want the bloody things near them as there fugly. We should be using nuclear but no1 wants to be near a nuke station because theres been a few well publisized incidents and people are scared.

I suppose I believe Global Warming is coming and it will be used to generate tax.

The RealClimate is a great site, I lost a lot of respect for Channel 4 after they exposed their so called Global Warming documentary.
RealClimate » Swindled!
also
PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

There's just so much research out there that it's diffucult to be sure, however I found this very simple video quite effective:
YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

In recent news:
Boreholes on the Moon could solve climate puzzle - earth - 05 January 2008 - New Scientist Environment

We also have to remeber there are two parts to this whole argument: climate change and natural resources.

Climate change is debatable, and to be honest I'm not convinced.

On the other hand we have finite natural resources and they are being depleated, especailly hydrocarbons (oil, coal, gas etc.) at an alarming rate.

You could argue that the climate change debate is good for the natural resources problem as they go hand in hand. But there may be a problem, when people are confused by the mnessages and contradictory information, they won't do anything. So in that respect the climate change debate is having a detremental effect on something which is not debatable.

As for applying green taxes, i'm not sure. A companies green credentials have become a marketing tool, this is only going to increase, so the market and us as consumers are likely to be more effective at changing our own future than any government scheme, incentive or penalty.

I have studied the history of quite a lot of Weather change and I do find it plausible that we may be accelerating it by a small amount, but while it is being used as a stick to beat me with, and with no discernable R&D for my tax money, I just see this as a club for certain Governments in a particular geographical area to raise money while not needing to show any output. Dissent isn’t really possible due to Climate change hysteria and political correctness whipped up by Government press officers.

Can I add to this (before I read it all)

Read this

VOLCANO VS MAN

Its also natural for the globe to warm and cool hence the ice age.

are we adding to the warming?

Yes we are, there are no two ways about it but even if we stop the globe will still warm. Global warming is natural even if we cause it... why? Becuase we are from this earth hence anything we do is also natural. If we did this to Mars it would not be natural.

I am not worried about warming I am worried about the loss of animals in the wild caused by over population, destruction of forests and illegal hunting, I think this will have more of a say on how the human population will fair in the future than global warming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jay_oasis

I am not worried about warming I am worried about the loss of animals in the wild caused by over population, destruction of forests and illegal hunting, I think this will have more of a say on how the human population will fair in the future than global warming

---

Nail, head, hammer

I think everyone else has done a good job so far on stressing that climate change is real and well supported, however poorly presented by the media, governments and certain scientists. The RealClimate blog is excellent for discussing this, and the IPCC reports are generally fairly good now. If I'm recalling the name correctly, the Stern report highlights how business, the least flappable major entities on earth, have good cause to worry.

Global warming is really a misnomer, as has been mentioned. Global warming is all cosy and fuzzy sounding, isn't it? It's like something your grandma might encourage. Climate change is a more accurate name, but again it seems a little "Oh, I think I'll pop outside, I want a climate change" :P

Habitats for many species are already showing signs of being effected by climate change. These small-scale changes are not proven to be down to the effect of man's greenhouse gas emisions, however they are similar to what models tell us to expect. These changes are resulting in species being threatened, predator/prey relationships changing, disease vectors spreading differently, and so on. It is also having effects upon the ability to grow crops, which is perhaps of more significant importance to us.

Natural resource depletion is also a major problem that, unlike climate change, is very much a finite and unpreventable process.

Regarding the Thames freezing over in the past, it once was a major public event, yes. However, it must also be remembered that the Thames is a key waterway for shipping still, with large loads still being moved down the river. There would also be problems with boat-based tourist services. Whilst we can adapt, this takes time, energy and money.

Phillikon wondered why government scientists do not invent better engines or leaner fuel. The answer for this is quite simple and quite simply annoying. Any such inventions would then need to make it out to general public usage, and the most efficient process for this is commercial enterprise. As such, government research would support business. Companies that do not receive this support, for example ones based outside the UK, would be at a disadvantage. It is for that reason that such things are broadly prohibited under international trade agreements. Furthermore, when real customer demand exists for innovation, no government scheme is needed at all. Business will happily respond to this demand themselves, which they are slowly doing.

You might recall that horrid government proposal to track your every mile driven and tax you per mile. Those who have to drive long distances for a living (commuters, sales reps, consultants, etc) would have been worse off under such a system. In fact, regardless of the milage driven, they would have been unfairly discriminated against by a significant factor, when you take into account environmental and congestion aspects. The majority of car journeys are short affairs, a trip to the shops, picking the kids up, driving to work when one could easily even just walk or ride two stops down on a bus. It is these journeys that cause most city congestion. And as you may well know, low speeds for short periods prevent engines reaching their efficiency point, resulting in significantly increased emissions compared to the same mile in a longer journey. It also means more fuel is burnt.

Taxing fuel is a close approximate to an emissions tax, the way any such measure should be done. It encourages the purchase of more efficient cars, and discourages trivial uses for motor vehicles. And by such measures, industry is encouraged to change.

A better question would be not "why do we pay so much for fuel?", but "why do citizens in certain countries (*cough*US*cough*) pay so little?". Certain company practices over here are direct analogues of their US counterparts, and as such people in certain jobs feel the high cost of fuel more than others. The US needs to realistically price this scarce and depleting resource.

Edit: I forgot to comment that the key term in all this is Sustainability. The present is pretty nice, so we want to carry on, right? Everybody needs a certain amount of food a day, which necessitates a certain amount of land to be set aside for crops and rearing cattle. Then you need a roof over your head, warmth, light, water, entertainment, something to get up to each day, which all needs space for buildings and means to generate power and supply water. You will need replacement items from time to time, so the production of these and the acquisition of raw materials must be taken into account. And then there is raising the next generation. The question is, how much total raw inputs does a single adult person need on a daily basis, and as such how many such people can the world support. Current estimates indicate, that at the absolute best, we could squeeze in the entire world's current population to European first world level of living. A US-style lifestyle for all would require more usable resources than we currently have access to or predict that we will gain access to. This is a highly specialist area of consideration (because who wants to hear that their lifestyle is unsustainable?), but it is one which is increasingly worrying, especially since the studies done generally do not take wildlife into account.

A case well put Rosaline.

But even you must agree your point still leaves many unanswered questions.
Yes we would overcome the Thames problem but that really isn't the point here, the point I was trying to make was that one of the advertisements for Global Warming was how awful that the Thames would freeze, and my point as you agreed was "so what" it has always frozen, how will my paying more tax stop this? :angst:

Paying Tax isn't going to solve anything to do with "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" its just the Governments way of making us think were doing something to solve the problem and gives us a warm fuzzy feeling

hmmmmm

The cash raised by "green taxes" isn't directly going to effect anything to do with climate change, but the act of paying them probably will. No-one likes paying taxes and just about everyone will do what they can to avoid paying them. If that means people act more responsably towards the environment to avoid the tax, then they have done their job.

A simple example: In an idea world, the goverment would introduce a 'tax' for every glass bottle you throw away. No-one thows away and glass bottles and recycles them all. This helps the environment, but the government doesn't make any additional cash. Still, job done. I know that is over simplifying things, but you get the general idea

oh god yes!.

have you ever been offshore?
my god its more polluted at sea then it is inland, we have 1000's of diesel drinking boats and 1000's of polluting oilrigs yet that is allowed with nothing ever mentioned on the news about it, but joe blogs and his 3.0 x5 is a polluting communist and must be punished.....

did you know the prius markets itself on being hybrid friendly, but they are made in japan and the amount of CO2 the boat uses to cross from japan to the western world (it also goes the longway round) compleatly cancels out everybody driving them around for about 10 lifetimes!!!.

its all a joke and im happy here in taiwan 3.5 is considered the norm :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smellybumlove

oh god yes!.

have you ever been offshore?

---

I work offshore, mainly in the North Sea (UK and Norway), but also in Nigeria and Egypt. As a company we work in Canada and the middle east too, although I've not been there yet. :)

Shipping is actaully an incredibly efficiant way of moving large amounts of cargo from one place to another. I don't have a problem with cars coming accross from Japan, but i do have issues with the Prius anyway, but thats for another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Funkstar

I work offshore, mainly in the North Sea (UK and Norway), but also in Nigeria and Egypt. As a company we work in Canada and the middle east too, although I've not been there yet. :)

Shipping is actaully an incredibly efficiant way of moving large amounts of cargo from one place to another. I don't have a problem with cars coming accross from Japan, but i do have issues with the Prius anyway, but thats for another thread.

---

I'm curious about the Prius thing, this thread is as good as any to discuss all our dislikes of greenery cash ins. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosaline

Taxing fuel is a close approximate to an emissions tax, the way any such measure should be done. It encourages the purchase of more efficient cars, and discourages trivial uses for motor vehicles. And by such measures, industry is encouraged to change.

---

The trouble is that it doesn't discourage use. It does make (some) people think about the efficiency of the cars they buy. I swapped a 3 liter estate car for a 1600cc MX5 which gives almost double the mileage because 20mpg was unacceptable to me but the sheer numbers of Range Rover Sport and other chelsea tractors you see on the road giving under 12mpg shows that people who can afford it won't care at all.

The nature of society today is one of mobility. Our lives (and livelihoods) depend on being able to travel around. Yesterday my work took me all around Lincolnshire. I had to drive about 150 miles in all. The cost of fuel didn't make me say "Well I can't do that because fuel costs £1.04 per gallon". It just meant that it cost me more to do it. It therefore meant that I have to earn more to pay for it.
That way leads to inflation which leads to higher interest rates wihich leads to higher wage demands and so on and so on.

Everybody has to travel these days. I can't just go to the local shop to do my shopping these days because the local shop either doesn't exist or is so uncompetitively priced that it would cost me considerably more to get my shopping than it does to drive to Tescos 5 miles away on the outskirts of town.

Unless the whole structure of society is changed, and let's face it it won't be, we can't reduce the number of miles travelled by any significant degree, especially by making it more expensive. All that will do is make mobility a prerogative of the rich and further widen the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phillikon

I'm curious about the Prius thing, this thread is as good as any to discuss all our dislikes of greenery cash ins. :)

---

In it you have an engine, electric motors, fuel tank, batteries, heavy duty alternator and other gubbins to make it work as a hybrid.

So you are lugging around all this extra weight and only getting a quoted 45mpg. Why no just get an efficient diesel that will give you a similar mpg?

What is the energy/carbon footprint of the actual car being manufactured? considdering it has all this extra technology and engineering inside it, I wouldsuspect it is going to be a damn sight higher than an equivelant normal car. Are you going to drive it enough, assuming you are going to use less fuel every mile, to offset that increased energy/carbon footprint?

Then there is the question of disposal. you have a crap load of heavy metals and other dangerous substances in the batteries and the additional electrics and electronics to dispose of when the car is finally junk. Sure Toyota might have a recycling program for them, but again this takes more engergy than a regular car. So again, have you driven it enough, assuming you are actually using less fuel, to offset this aditional energy/carbon footprint?

I don't have the figures, but I have a hunch there is zero net benefit in using a prius over a reaonably efficient modern diesel.

If you realy want to help the environment, reduce your bills and save fuel, get a little diesel city run about that can do 60mpg.

Correction: Just had a look at the VW Polo. the 3rd 1.4TDI will do 72mpg on Extra Urban, the lowest they quote is 51mpg on urban, so even that beats the Prius. Sure it is a smaller car, but it illustrates my point. Im sure you can fine a car of similar size to the Prius with similar MPG (or even better) for less money, better build quality (the Prius is a rubbish car) and that costs the environment less to build and scrap.

How the hell is it a stealth tax ? Which part of it is stealthy ? It is an open and blatant money-snatching manoeuvre with the implication that it will be controlled if we pay the government a ridiculous amount of money.

They certainly dont spend more than 1% of what they rake in to do anything about it.

Absolute ****ing garbage.

Global warming may or may not be happening. No one has conclusive proof either way - so even if we assume it is happening, there is nothing the goverment is doing that will reduce the "carbon footprint", just rake in more money for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig

Nail, head, hammer

---

what does that mean?

Well, it seems to me that climate change is happening what is at issue is humanity's role in that process; is what's going on entirely natural or are we having an effect? Will the government use it as yet another excuse to wring money out of us - absolutely. Will it actually make a difference - as someone who thinks humanity is probably exacerbating the process - I hope so but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jay_oasis

what does that mean?

---

"hit the nail on the head"
(basically he is saying he agreed with you)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jay_oasis

what does that mean?

---

Quote:

---

how will my paying more tax stop this?

---

How will us paying more tax help stop climate change.

It wont, we could all pay 99.9% tax and climate change would still happen, climate change has always and will always for the life of this planet happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pollaxe

Well, it seems to me that climate change is happening what is at issue is humanity's role in that process; is what's going on entirely natural or are we having an effect? Will the government use it as yet another excuse to wring money out of us - absolutely. Will it actually make a difference - as someone who thinks humanity is probably exacerbating the process - I hope so but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

---

We are having an effect on a natural process, maybe were delaying it, maybe were speeding it up, I dont think that whatever effect we are having is going to totally stop or make something happen thats un-natural or out of place, tax or no tax..

However, we should all recycle and be less wasteful, not because we want to stop climate change but just because we as a race are un-nesseserily wasteful, maybe a tax on rubbish isnt such a bad idea, not to give the government money but to make people be less wasteful, if it costs you to throw stuff away then in theory if you cut down on buying stuff you dont really need you'll save money which will offset whatever tax you would be getting charged. Plus if your not buying stuff theres no fuel costs going to the shops, no waste from packaging etc etc, its all interlinked...

One absolutely key reason that 'Green taxes' levied in the UK are fairly pointless is that we as a nation don't actually produce very much pollution. One has to look to China, India, Russia and the USA, who each contribute a vastly greater proportion of the world's pollution (however you wish to measure it), than the UK.

However, the zeitgeist is that climate change is an emotive and political issue, so all political parties have been quick to jump on the bandwagon with highly inventive ways of combatting it through increased taxation...

1) Regardless of the cause, Global Warming is happening. Sea levels are going up about 1cm a year.
2) Atmospheric science is an incredibly difficult discipline - even with the best supercomputers in the world, it's impossible to predict the weather more than a few days in advance - read up on Chaos theory for a more detailed explanation.
3) Scientists first suggested that human activity may be at least partially responsible for climate change over 30 years ago; although proving the hypothesis 100% is virtually impossible, the consensus amoung the vast majority of scientists is that significant global warming is happening as a result of human activity.
4) For those conspiracy theorists amouny you, please note that most of the 'evidence' against man-made global warming comes from studies funded by major oil companies, who have been running a concerted campaign to rubbish any science seen as a threat to their profits.
5) We are all incredibly dependant on oil - not just for transport, but for fertiliser for our crops, raw material for plastics, etc. Although oil is not going to run out in our lifetimes, easily-extracted oil is already almost exhausted - oil is being used up as fast as it can be pumped out of the ground, and demand is rising, especially from India and China. The cost of extracting the remaining oil will go up significantly; the era of cheap oil is over.
6) The major disaster that climate change may cause for Britain is that the melting of the Arctic, Siberian and Greenland ice sheets could dump enough cold, fresh water into the sea to turn off the Gulf Stream. If this happens, Britain's climate would become like that of Alaska for the next 100 000 years. At present, the last scientific estimate I saw suggested that there is a 50% chance that this will occur in the next 100 years, but it could happen much sooner.
7) Latest scientific opinion is that we need at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to stave off disaster.
8) There are other major risks that are just coming to light, such as the amount of methane trapped in frozen lakes that may be released as they thaw, accelerating the heating process.

As Al Gore said, an inconvenient truth...:surprised:

Quote:

---

... 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.

---

Link to above

Where did you come up with the grossly exaggerated figure of 1cm per year from (3.4cm v 110cm) ? If you are going to correct me, do so with proper scientific references and not links to magazine extracts or newspaper clippings. I would definitely like to read more about the subject and open to discussion.

Short for time right now, so Ill respond to the rest of the points later.

Quote:

---

Where did you come up with the grossly exaggerated figure of 1cm per year from

---

See the graph in this article :

CRU Information Sheet no. 10: Sea level rise

I am quoting the worst-case scenario but have seen similar figures quoted elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenalien

See the graph in this article :

CRU Information Sheet no. 10: Sea level rise

I am quoting the worst-case scenario but have seen similar figures quoted elsewhere.

---

The trouble with Scenario's is they aren’t real, they are just some bodies made up projections and nothing more, how else do you get a "worst case" this comment is just covering all bases when they are not sure
It is exactly this that troubles me; I am being taxed out of all reason on a few people’s stories.

This is the same mentality that allowed a so called child specialist to get Parents incorrectly convicted by watching a TV programs, and found that when scrutinised many of his "stories" didn't hold water.

It is in fact the worst type of populist, bandwagon jumping tripe.

If it is so obvious that the climate is changing because of Mankind, why aren’t all Scientists in agreement? :angst:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosaline

.....

Taxing fuel is a close approximate to an emissions tax, the way any such measure should be done. It encourages the purchase of more efficient cars, and discourages trivial uses for motor vehicles. And by such measures, industry is encouraged to change.

....

---

But it's also regressive. Fuel is relatively price-inelastic. That's why governments stick tax on it. They know that they can do so without significantly affecting demand. Oh sure, some people will cut down a bit, and demand will blip downwards, but after a period, it'll go right back where it was.

You have to consider what the point of a tax is. If it's to raise revenue, you pick a price-inelastic product, because if you don't, a significant price hike (via tax) drops demand sufficiently that you end up with a higher tax rate on much lower sales and tax revenue actually falls. So if revenue was the objective, that would be a bit of an own goal.

If, on the other hand, your objective is to change behaviour, then there's no point in taxing price-inelastic items because the very nature of them being price inelastic means behaviour won't change. That's close to the definition of price-inelasticity.

So what does that tell you about fuel tax? It tells you that the objective isn't a change in behaviour or consumption, but to raise money.

So given that it's inelastic (and it is, which is why successive governments have stuck so much tax on petrol) then if you want to change behaviour, you have to increase price a LOT. And given that most of us have lives where we can't simply or easily change consumption significantly, the result of a large increase in tax is going to be that the cost falls disproportionately on the poorest. And the very poorest may well be priced out of their cars altogether, whereas those driving gas-guzzling large Mercedes or BMWs, or 4x4s, can afford to pay the increase. They won't like it but they can afford it.

So a fuel tax, ultimately, either has little effect on consumption because it's price inelastic, but is a great revenue-raising trick, or it prices the poor clear off the roads leaving them emptier for those with flash expensive gas-guzzlers to enjoy the open roads.

And it was all supposed to be about climate change, wasn't it? ;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenalien

See the graph in this article :

CRU Information Sheet no. 10: Sea level rise

I am quoting the worst-case scenario but have seen similar figures quoted elsewhere.

---

Now you have a scientific source and I have one. Neither of us are qualified to comment on the quality of either. Also you are picking up on the worst case scenario.

Evidently, neither are the scientists themselves, as they keep coming up with wildly different figures each time they do a study. I have a problem when they impose all sorts of measures on us based on some inexact phantom science when all they do at best are guessing.

Quote:

---

The EU should ban the sale of cars that do under 35 miles to the gallon, the ex-chairman of oil giant Shell says.

---

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | EU 'should ban inefficient cars'

:lol: he would say that now he's had his money from Shell wouldnt he...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenalien

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | EU 'should ban inefficient cars'

---

They can piss off. That basically messes with most of the nicer more luxurious cars out there.

Just a few of the delights facing us in the future...:surprised:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate set for 'sudden shifts'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenalien

Just a few of the delights facing us in the future...:surprised:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate set for 'sudden shifts'

---

Yes the icecaps melting is a tipping point, I wouldnt call it human induced climate change tho, were just effecting a naturally occuring thing.

The ludicrous thing is, is that we are all creating more of these greenhouse gasses by having to work all the extra hours to pay the taxes imposed upon us to prevent the same greenhouse gasses in the first place. :confused:

Comical isn't it.

Yeah, also comical is the fact they want us all to use "spare" CPU cycles to predict this stuff, which in turn uses more power, where is it that the power comes from again?

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phillikon

The ludicrous thing is, is that we are all creating more of these greenhouse gasses by having to work all the extra hours to pay the taxes imposed upon us to prevent the same greenhouse gasses in the first place. :confused:

Comical isn't it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig

Yeah, also comical is the fact they want us all to use "spare" CPU cycles to predict this stuff, which in turn uses more power, where is it that the power comes from again?

:lol:

---

Haha! Two good points there! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig

Yes the icecaps melting is a tipping point, I wouldnt call it human induced climate change tho, were just effecting a naturally occuring thing.

---

I keep hearing in reports that climate change as a result of human activities is supported by the 'bulk' of climate scientists. It's in that article about the anticipated 'sudden shifts' in weather systems as well. I'm just wondering where you get your information from that makes you confident to disagree with the majority of climate scientists?

Perhaps you're one of those sucked in by things like this....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBM

I keep hearing in reports that climate change as a result of human activities is supported by the 'bulk' of climate scientists. It's in that article about the anticipated 'sudden shifts' in weather systems as well. I'm just wondering where you get your information from that makes you confident to disagree with the majority of climate scientists?

Perhaps you're one of those sucked in by things like this....

---

How many scientists used to say the world was flat, or the center of the universe?

Just because lots of them say it doesnt mean its right now does it..

Now while I agree with us recycling and stuff like that no amount of tax will change the fact that the climate changes regardless of what we do we wont stop it, its blind ignorance and humans thinking there great that says it will, well that and the fact that ppl think that if they pay there stealth "green" tax that there doing there part and dont have to change things...

If it was the human race that was the cause of all this climate change why was there an ice age however many billions of years ago where were we with our gas guzzling cars, planes and other eco-killing technologies?

Unless of course all of this has happened before and will happen again?
The Earth gives us a billion years to evolve and get ourselves off of the planet before "Mother Nature" resets itself and the planet dies and we have to start all over again?

According to the Mayor many small cars all emitting smaller amounts in London is better for the planet and warms the globe less than one big car. What a bunch of bollocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig

How many scientists used to say the world was flat, or the center of the universe?

---

So you think that scientists today are as capable of huge oversight than a bunch of guys whose sole qualification was the ability to speak latin and wear long robes? You can honestly compare a bunch of medival scholars to modern day scientists with large amounts of scientific information?

And to go around shouting 'but there's been an ice age before' sounds more like one of the 'flat earth' proponents than someone who listens to reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinizter

According to the Mayor many small cars all emitting smaller amounts in London is better for the planet and warms the globe less than one big car. What a bunch of bollocks.

---

And that's just daft. The red ken is saying that lots of smaller cars emitting smaller amounts is better than lots of big cars emitting larger amounts. Why would one person not driving a big car result in lots of people driving small cars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBM

And to go around shouting 'but there's been an ice age before' sounds more like one of the 'flat earth' proponents than someone who listens to reason.

---

So theres not been an Ice Age before then?

What were the 2 films about?

Gee, let me think. Oh yeah, ice ages....of which there have been four by the latest count, the most recent of which occured around 100,000 years ago....No doubt they come around frequently, and maybe we're even overdue for one. But lets go back to the 'Your opinion Vs. Scientific Consensus' concept for a second. What on earth makes you think that you know more than the 'bulk' of environmentalist scientists? Apart from sheer bloody-mindedness of course.

Or maybe you'd just like to shout out Ice Age repeatedly while banging your head against a wall.....which is pretty much what I feel like doing.

And since anything as subtle as a self depreciating comment to remove any insult from my comment would surely sail straight over your head, I shall add :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBM

And that's just daft. The red ken is saying that lots of smaller cars emitting smaller amounts is better than lots of big cars emitting larger amounts. Why would one person not driving a big car result in lots of people driving small cars?

---

Because people who dont have to pay the fee are more likely to drive into the zone. There are smaller cars which do not have to pay.

AND THAT IS WHY THERE WILL BE MANY SMALL CARS ..... FOR ONE OR TWO PEOPLE WHO MIGHT GIVE UP THEIR LARGER CARS DUE TO THE HIGHER CHARGE.

And no, I did not forget where the caps lock key was.

You do realise that the congestion/emmision charge is already in place, and the number of cars who are elligible for free access to the zone is negligible compared to the total number of cars on the road? And you do realise that people aren't going to all go out and buy Prius because you can get into London for free? And you do realise that the number of cars affected by the new charge is rather more than 'ONE OR TWO'? And do you realise that the use of the caps key is reserved for the slow and the childish who have no other way of conveying an argument effectively?

Nighty Night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBM

Gee, let me think. Oh yeah, ice ages....of which there have been four by the latest count, the most recent of which occured around 100,000 years ago....No doubt they come around frequently, and maybe we're even overdue for one. But lets go back to the 'Your opinion Vs. Scientific Consensus' concept for a second. What on earth makes you think that you know more than the 'bulk' of environmentalist scientists? Apart from sheer bloody-mindedness of course.

Or maybe you'd just like to shout out Ice Age repeatedly while banging your head against a wall.....which is pretty much what I feel like doing.

And since anything as subtle as a self depreciating comment to remove any insult from my comment would surely sail straight over your head, I shall add :D

---

I didnt say I knew more, but, as you've just said there have been at least 4 previous ice ages, so by that we know that the climate changes on its own...
Look at how long scientists have been collecting data on Climate Change and its such a small insignificant amount in the grand scheme of things is it not?
And when you think about the earth being over 4 billion years old what is a few hundred years worth of data on the rainfall and yearly temperature levels, what is that really, its like taking a syringe full of water out of the Ocean and predicting what the water is like in the entire ocean..

Can we agree on that part?

Yes or no?

If no, then you might as well stop here.

If yes, then explain how the previous ice ages occured, what was the cause, what were the indicators that an ice age was coming.
Now, unless in the (say for now) 100,000 years in between ice ages the human race can evolve to the point its at now how can humans be the cause of climate change, were there people similar to us driving round in eco-unfriendly cars?

Now, while I'm saying we are not the cause of climate change I am not and never had said we are having no effect, but if we take the 100,000 years as our rough guesstimate at ice age recurrance I'd say that with our effects taken into hand that 100,000 years would become something more like 95,000 years.

What I will also say, which is on the OP's topic is that no amount of tax will change "Global Warming", I dont think Global Warming is even the right phrase for it, its Climate Change as its not like everywhere is warming up, if it were then where's the Ice Age comign from, surely we'd have more a Desert Age, but anyways, tax, the Government will sit on its happy horse and tax us, not because that tax actually stops Climate Change but because it gives people that feel good factor, I'm rich, I drive a big car, I recycle the odd bits and bobs but nowhere near as much as I could but I pay my tax so I'm doing my bit...
Erm no, thats not true...

What we should be doing is making sure recycling is easy and the same all over the country, not just giving people the option to pay a bit more tax and carry on being eco-nasty...
We should recycle and look after our surroundings and the envoronment, not because we want to stop Climate Change, as theres an Ice Age coming whatever we do but to just be nicer to the planet and leave it in at least a half decent state for our grandkids...

But anyway, I'm sure you'll carry on focusing on the fact I'm no scientist and just carry on beating my head against an ice age wall...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBM

You do realise that the congestion/emmision charge is already in place, and the number of cars who are elligible for free access to the zone is negligible compared to the total number of cars on the road? And you do realise that people aren't going to all go out and buy Prius because you can get into London for free? And you do realise that the number of cars affected by the new charge is rather more than 'ONE OR TWO'? And do you realise that the use of the caps key is reserved for the slow and the childish who have no other way of conveying an argument effectively?

Nighty Night.

---

Its entirely clear to me that you refuse to even consider someone else's point of view and are completely convinced that you are right.

People who had smaller cars before who did not drive into the zone, will do so now. People with the big expensive cars are not going to buy smaller cars, but they are going to continue driving in if they need to do so. This measure will not reduce emission and will increase congestion. It is a cash cow and nothing else.

But explaining all that you was a complete waste of time.

Are you a scientist Sinizter, if not then you dont know what your talking about ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig

Are you a scientist Sinizter, if not then you dont know what your talking about ;)

---

Are you ? Is IBM ?

And if anyone here is a scientist, are you involved in the research to do with climate change ? If not everyone here is equally qualified. Or maybe we should just shut this thread down as people here lack the scientific qualifications ? Not that scientists are coming out with anything accurate with regard to climate change.

Atleast I have some training to interpret scientific papers and not just take it for granted that newspaper articles are correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinizter

Are you ? Is IBM ?

And if anyone here is a scientist, are you involved in the research to do with climate change ? If not everyone here is equally qualified. Or maybe we should just shut this thread down as people here lack the scientific qualifications ? Not that scientists are coming out with anything accurate with regard to climate change.

Atleast I have some training to interpret scientific papers and not just take it for granted that newspaper articles are correct.

---

Absolutely. Which is why you can only do your best tracking down information from the people in the relevant fields, who are willing to be communicative and neither hysterical nor intransigent. Which is why portals like RealClimate are valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinizter

Are you ? Is IBM ?

And if anyone here is a scientist, are you involved in the research to do with climate change ? If not everyone here is equally qualified. Or maybe we should just shut this thread down as people here lack the scientific qualifications ? Not that scientists are coming out with anything accurate with regard to climate change.

Atleast I have some training to interpret scientific papers and not just take it for granted that newspaper articles are correct.

---

:lol: you cant say tha the scientists are coming out with inaccurate data unless your a scientist and can prove that they are wrong, or so IBM reckons anyways..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig

:lol: you cant say tha the scientists are coming out with inaccurate data unless your a scientist and can prove that they are wrong, or so IBM reckons anyways..

---

If the scientist cant take all they know and atleast come up with a model that predicts the current climate more or less accurately, or come up with something which will predict the next 5-10 years worth accurately, anything they come up with is just hypothesis - unproven. I dont want the government grabbing my wallet and stuffing bull**** down my throat based on hypotheses which have not predicted anything with any degree of anything resembling accuracy.

If they cant figure the current few years with all the data at hand, why would their prediction for the next 20-50 years be anything more than guesswork ? Some of the papers on global warming, the data predicted is so inaccurate that I could come with more accurate predictions using a dartboard, a few darts and a blindfold.

For every study which conclusively (very very loosely used) proves this so called warming, there is another which says that there has been none, or three more which says that data is inconclusive.

Even the scientists involved in this dont even have a consensus. Adding a "I believe some global warming is happening" in the beginning or end of the paper when the results of the paper indicate otherwise does not make it more scientifically credible, and only indicates the researcher bias.

I am sorry if I came on too strong with some of the stuff earlier, but been having similar discussion in some other places and this one just happened to be the one where I lost it.

I dont believe the Mayor of London is doing anything to save the planet or improve air quality. The whole exercise just revolves around how to get the most money out of it. While some of this may indeed go back to public transport or environmental causes - the vast majority of it does not. Where does the rest of it go ? And why are we paying out for environmental reasons if the money is not being used as such ?

People who have larger more luxurious cars will just take it on the chin and continue coming in to London when they have to. It would be silly to get rid of the current car and get a new one just to get rid of the charge. People with smaller cars who previously did not come in to London LEZ will now do so much much more readily because they get in for free. End result - increase in congestion. More cars driving around = higher emissions.

As for people driving Prius-es and the like, the car needs to run for 10+ yrs, maybe upto 18 years (I have been unable to verify this) to actually reduce the carbon footprint. Because the production of these cars use more energy and the batteries need to be replaced/reconditioned, etc. How many people drive these around for 10+ years? Fair enough most of them might make it to the 10yr mark through the 2nd hand market. But the majority of them are very unlikely to hit the 18yr mark - if that is what is needed to make it carbon neutral. And if your carbon footprint is not being reduced by using these - then its just an ago massage for environmentalist in you. With no gain for anyone but the manufacturer. Diesels are apparently more efficient in terms of emissions and longer journeys. Again this is not something I have verified personally as the car/environment interface is not something I am particularly interested in.

If the entire UK's cars stopped, the developing Asian countries will take up the slack in a few days. Whats the point of being taxed through the nose if you're not even going to make a ripple ?

Yay someone that's saying the same as me, wonder where IBM's gone now, probably gone to beat someone elses head against a wall :lol:

People feel good if they pay tax, it makes them feel like there doing something while not actually doing anything about the problem at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig

Yeah, also comical is the fact they want us all to use "spare" CPU cycles to predict this stuff, which in turn uses more power, where is it that the power comes from again?

:lol:

---

I am playing Crysis at the moment.

I guess what I am trying to say is I don't have any "Spare" CPU cycles right now.:laugh: