The Global Warming Megathread

[Greybeard 10]

or use bio diesel.

 

There are millions of people starving in the world and you want to use good agricultural land to grow crops to power you car ?

[Pooch_1 10]

Not all science (not even most science) is funded by the government, so your first point is incorrect.

I'm not sure what 'government equation' you refer to, there is no single equation that has predicted global warming. The warming can be measured directly, there are various hypotheses trying to explain why it's happening.

Water vapour may well absorb CO2, but it's not an endless sink for it. If extra CO2 is placed in the atmosphere then what makes you think that it can be absorbed? Indeed direct measurements of CO2 levels show a massive rise in the last 100 years, no one with a basic grasp on reality would argue this point.

 

There is no cyclical global warming phenomena, there are cycles, 10k years ago would be the end of the younger dryas, a period of time when temperatures were relatively low. Non of which proves either way whether the atmospheric changes we are making are affecting these natural cycles.

 

Watch the video ...... The equation that the government says we are contributing the ridiculous amount of 25% CO2 to the atmosphere. Watch Scientists reduce that figure to .2% using all the data they have to hand collected from satellite stations anb underground plotting stations.

 

The statistics for global warming are provided by government scientists .... so my point about funding is NOT incorrect. FACT.

[Pooch_1 10]

And why exactly would the government want to fabricate evidence of global warming and force scientists to go along with them?

 

Wellllllllll ............... since the advent of global warming and the "Carbon Footprint" we suddenly have taxes on our carbon emissions. I wonder who pays the taxes for the carbon that volcano's, peat fires, natural fires and vegetation put into the atmosphere, as this "Carbon Footprint" is greater, and has been happening long before man inhabited earth, and is still ongoing.

[plekhanov 10]

Raising revenue ?

Cheap energy is what makes our economy work, making energy more expensive will put stress on the economy lowering revenues.

 

Forcing through an unpopular nuclear power generation programme ?

And why would they want to implement an unpopular nuclear power generation programme if they didn't genuinely believe in climate change?

 

Or merely to divert attention from pressing problems like social cohesion.

The measures needed to limit climate change will make improving or even maintaining our standard of living difficult damaging social cohension so that would be a very very bad plan.

 

I'm not a denier of climate change by any means but our present govt. is so mired in mendacity that any kind of emergency measure they advocate for any supposed crisis is now highly questionable.

 

If the govt. were to give a solemn undertaking, accompanied by an independent audit trail, that every pound of revenue they raised on the back of the climate change bandwaggon would be spent on research and development of alternative green energy generation and an improved public transport infrastructure, then I might be a little less cynical.

 

I suspect though that I have more chance of seeing a flying pig

You are looking in entirely the wrong direction for your conspiracy here, there is a conspiracy when it comes to climate change and that conspiracy isn't amongst those concerned about it but the energy companies and their proxies who deny it. And unlike the vague unspecified motives ascribed to those who say climate change is real and caused by humans the deniers motives are all too obvious - money.

 

A brief look into the clear majority of those who deny climate change reveals they are in the pay of big oil usually through 'foundations' and 'think tanks' funded by the energy industry.

[plekhanov 10]

Wellllllllll ............... since the advent of global warming and the "Carbon Footprint" we suddenly have taxes on our carbon emissions.

So you think there's a global conspiracy amongst pretty much all governments to fabricate scientific research which suggests climate change is real and caused by human activity just so that they can switch taxation towards energy consumption? A policy change which the governments know full well will stress our economies which are reliant upon cheep energy thus restriction economic growth.

 

Why exactly would the worlds governments want to restrict economic growth?

 

I wonder who pays the taxes for the carbon that volcano's, peat fires, natural fires and vegetation put into the atmosphere, as this "Carbon Footprint" is greater, and has been happening long before man inhabited earth, and is still ongoing.

Will you please provide some evidence to substantiate these assertions.

[Pooch_1 10]

So you think there's a global conspiracy amongst pretty much all governments to fabricate scientific research which suggests climate change is real and caused by human activity just so that they can switch taxation towards energy consumption? A policy change which the governments know full well will stress our economies which are reliant upon cheep energy thus restriction economic growth.

 

Why exactly would the worlds governments want to restrict economic growth?

 

 

Will you please provide some evidence to substantiate these assertions.

 

 

FACT. "Carbon Footprint" tax on aircraft operators - passed onto the customer.

 

FACT. Increase in road tax for larger engined vehicles. (Despite the fact that carbon emissions have to meet a limit as defined by the DOT's MOT)

 

FACT. "Carbon Footprint" tax imposed on industry, if they emit more carbon than the governments agreed quota, they can purchase "extra" allowances.

 

As you require some evidence to substantiate these assertions, I assume that you do not watch TV or read any news media.

[Grandad.Malky 11]

Bank holiday weather back to normal, wet and windy, fact.

 

I wonder where that fits into the global warming equation.

[plekhanov 10]

FACT. "Carbon Footprint" tax on aircraft operators - passed onto the customer.

 

FACT. Increase in road tax for larger engined vehicles. (Despite the fact that carbon emissions have to meet a limit as defined by the DOT's MOT)

 

FACT. "Carbon Footprint" tax imposed on industry, if they emit more carbon than the governments agreed quota, they can purchase "extra" allowances.

Yes and? I never denied that the government is seeking to use fiscal policy to encourage people away from consuming fossil fuels, what exactly is listing a few such policies and proposed policies supposed to prove exactly?

 

As you require some evidence to substantiate these assertions, I assume that you do not watch TV or read any news media.

You made an assertion about the proportion of carbon human activity is responsible for releasing into the atmosphere, it is your responsibility to back up your claims not mine.

[plekhanov 10]

Bank holiday weather back to normal, wet and windy, fact.

 

I wonder where that fits into the global warming equation.

Quite nicely I expect, atleast I'm not aware of any scientists claiming that climate change will mean it no longer rains on bank holidays.

[Pooch_1 10]

Yes and? I never denied that the government is seeking to use fiscal policy to encourage people away from consuming fossil fuels, what exactly is listing a few such policies and proposed policies supposed to prove exactly?

 

 

You made an assertion about the proportion of carbon human activity is responsible for releasing into the atmosphere, it is your responsibility to back up your claims not mine.

 

In that case the evidence you need is on my facebook, you can see all the evidence by clicking on the link Global Warming in my sig, I am not going to copy paste or bother to move it all into SF, somehow I don't think Geoff or the mods would approve if I did.

[Cyclone 10]

FACT. "Carbon Footprint" tax on aircraft operators - passed onto the customer.

 

FACT. Increase in road tax for larger engined vehicles. (Despite the fact that carbon emissions have to meet a limit as defined by the DOT's MOT)

 

FACT. "Carbon Footprint" tax imposed on industry, if they emit more carbon than the governments agreed quota, they can purchase "extra" allowances.

 

As you require some evidence to substantiate these assertions, I assume that you do not watch TV or read any news media.

 

All you are proving there is that politicians are self serving short termist bar stools.

That proves nothing regarding human contribution to climate change.

 

You also misunderstand carbon allowances in industry, they can trade them, they cannot simply buy extra.

 

Having to put "FACT" on some statement simply makes it less trustworthy, not more.

[Grandad.Malky 11]

Quite nicely I expect, atleast I'm not aware of any scientists claiming that climate change will mean it no longer rains on bank holidays.

 

 

If they did would you believe them though