Don't shoot the messenger if you don't agree with the message. But let's look at
other feedback on the article you mentioned :
https://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007 ... ting_.html
The BIGGEST problem with trying to get the general public to buy into ANY climate change theory is that the answer to it seems to be "raise taxes". Somehow, if I pay my government (UK) more money, the world will be a better place. I'm utterly unconvinced, as are the majority of my peers - due to the hypocritical waste our leaders and industrialists produce themselves.
As a reasonably intelligent member of the public (degree educated), I have yet to see a single, reasoned scientific debate on the FACTS of climate change. Showing me 40-year snippets of CO2 rise just makes me question the author, not accept the theory. Singling out transportation, be it car or aircraft, makes me question the goal (tax income), not my own travelling habits.
Trying to get the general public to seriously question their CO2 footprint will NOT be solved by taxation alone - and I object strongly to any suggestion otherwise.
Posted by: MikeH | March 12, 2007 at 11:13 AM
------------------
Its interesting that the pro global warming lobby rubbish the skeptics argument that selects 'only' 7000 years of data from 650,000 years that supports their argument. Then suggests that the last hundred years proofs positive that they are right!
I dont think anyone disputes that CO2 levels have gone up considerably since the industrial revolution ( it doesnt really matter how much is natural or man made).
I dont think anyone disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas likely to increase temperatures.
But the fact that they are both going in the same direction at the moment is in NO WAY proof that they are cause and effect.
If the historical and statistical data tells us anything, its that the
doom mongers case for global warming is no better than the skeptics case for 'coincidence'. Climate changes are far too complicated and long term to draw any conclusions for recent data, its just too weak.
I think some people need to step back and try to see the wood for the trees.
Posted by: Herold | March 12, 2007 at 08:25 PM
i think the documentary's greatest revelation is that the IPCC is a political body. it is a panel wth political motiviations which has cited scientists as 'contributers' when they have disagreed wholly with the conculsions published by the panel.
and yet, you cite the IPCC as being the source for irrefutable facts about CO2 levels in your first response. unreal.
Posted by: DanO | March 12, 2007 at 08:47 PM
re "The Great Climate Swindle" documentary
GG_Fan wrote:Hi Faceless. It would be a carte-blanche for restrictions & taxations, c.f. my earlier posting re :
---------------------
"Another area of focus is likely to be green taxes - now that global warming is the new religion, Mr Brown no longer needs to rack his brains for more obscure stealth taxes. The magic words "reduce CO2 emissions" will enable him to justify just about any new assault on our wallets he cares to make."
---------------------
As I said - you consume less, you pay less. It's really as simple as that.
Ok this is getting tedious. Anybody can comment on the articles ("As a reasonably intelligent member of the public (degree educated)...") try reading the actual articles. So far your sources are two people who admit to know nothing about climate science or science in general and a corporate lobbyist. try again.
I wish it was as such a simple choice. e.g. the number of people living in freezing environments (I believe George mentioned on TS about the number dying from cold).faceless wrote:As I said - you consume less, you pay less. It's really as simple as that.
Also, people have to work for a living, e.g. taxi drivers, lorry drivers, food needs transporting [e.g. from developed countries by air-freight], people need to commute to work [having been forced to live v. far away due to high property prices near the work place]. I.e. it is all burdens on the poor .. since the rich won't care to pay the small % of their income in extra tax.
-
IRiSHMaFIA
- Admin
- Posts: 4625
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:19 pm
Don't shoot the messenger? Bloodyhell!GG_Fan wrote:Don't shoot the messenger if you don't agree with the message. But let's look at
other feedback on the article you mentioned :
https://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007 ... ting_.html
If you did this as an occupation you'd be a wealthy woman/man (not to presume your sex).
I've read post after post after post in this one thread alone.....and after all you've had to say....or NOT say, I haven't a clue where YOU stand.
You spend countless minutes and hours posting what others have to say but not once do I see you stepping up to say what you actually think.
It has to the the most non personal method of posting I've ever seen!
I'm not having a go at you here, but come on? You post link after link and now here's quotes from MikeH, Harold and DanO whoever the hell they are!
Tell us how YOU feel? Why would we be arsed to read what others think when we don't know them? Just because one person says one thing and someone 'might' agree doesn't give them any credibility.
Why not tell us what you personally feel and save all this time with links and such and quotes. It would make for far better reading and perhaps give us a bit of a look at who you actually are and your beliefs since you're a member here? It also further enhances community spirit.
Last edited by IRiSHMaFIA on Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What about this "fact" (I will call it a fact since I don't think this was disputed) :til661 wrote:Ok this is getting tedious. Anybody can comment on the articles ("As a reasonably intelligent member of the public (degree educated)...") try reading the actual articles. So far your sources are two people who admit to know nothing about climate science or science in general and a corporate lobbyist. try again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think the documentary's greatest revelation is that the IPCC is a political body. it is a panel wth political motiviations which has cited scientists as 'contributers' when they have disagreed wholly with the conculsions published by the panel.
and yet, you cite the IPCC as being the source for irrefutable facts about CO2 levels in your first response. unreal.
Posted by: DanO | March 12, 2007 at 08:47 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How's that for distortions ..
Sorry .. I thought I have been saying what I think .. I believe there is real debatable point here .. it is not an open & shut case.IRiSHMaFIA wrote: Why not tell us what you personally feel and save all this time with links and such and quotes. It would make for far better reading and perhaps give us a bit of a look at who you actually are and your beliefs since you're a member here? It also further enhances community spirit.
I do not believe higher taxation on cars & planes is the answer, but a comprehensive strategy to prompt people to use efficient methods of transport. And definitely not penalise developing countries trying to bring in their produce via air-freight.
A very tiny minority of scientists disagreed with the report (out of 6000+ we are talking about a couple of dozen figures disagreeing). As with all reports the conclusions are a representaion of the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Is this really so difficult to understand, just because someone disagrees it doesn't make his disagreement of value in itself there has to be peer-reviewed evidence.
My own personal view is that it is prudent that people should be as efficient as possible (e.g. low energy light bulbs, as little consumption as possible etc). i.e. Even if the scientists are wrong about global warming, we should be as efficient as possible because it is in our own interests (e.g. reduced pollution, more efficient power stations etc.).
I also agree that the current "no taxes" regime on air-travel fuel is a distortion of the free market (e.g. tempts people to fly, as
opposed to taking a bus where fuel is heavily taxed). i.e. a view should be taken on what is the "right" taxation across transport
means (and even going as far as subsidies for efficient transport methods such as trains or buses).
THOUGH air-travel already has huge arrival & departure taxes in the UK, so there might be no tax on fuel, but there is taxes on arrivals/departures.
However, there are things in the "The Great Climate Swindle" program which are worthy of investigation.
i.e. My fear is there an agenda to raise taxes, and even hinder "fair-trade" by limiting the right of farmers to send their produce to the market.
I also agree that the current "no taxes" regime on air-travel fuel is a distortion of the free market (e.g. tempts people to fly, as
opposed to taking a bus where fuel is heavily taxed). i.e. a view should be taken on what is the "right" taxation across transport
means (and even going as far as subsidies for efficient transport methods such as trains or buses).
THOUGH air-travel already has huge arrival & departure taxes in the UK, so there might be no tax on fuel, but there is taxes on arrivals/departures.
However, there are things in the "The Great Climate Swindle" program which are worthy of investigation.
i.e. My fear is there an agenda to raise taxes, and even hinder "fair-trade" by limiting the right of farmers to send their produce to the market.
On https://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007 ... ting_.html
a feedback linked to two charts used by Al Gore :
https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j160/ ... Truth1.jpg
and
https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j160/ ... Truth2.jpg
I wanted to see for myself the "650,000 years of data" showing temperature in red and CO2 in green (I believe). The 1st image is a side-on, so hard to tell if the CO2 leads or tails the temperature. But the 2nd, face-on, which would have helped, doesn't show the green CO2. In any case, at this scale, it might not be possible to notice a 200 year lag period.
What IS ringing alarm bells is that I do not recall seeing a statistical analysis which refutes the 200 year time lag mentioned in the C4 documentary [which was for a 7,000 year period marked by the red line in above graphs, e.g. which says over the last "x" years, the average lag [or lead] if "x" years between sun activity [and/or temperature] and CO2. With so many statistical techniques, why haven't we been shown a graph of average lag over the last 650,000 years ?
[if there is such a graph, then please can someone point it out]
a feedback linked to two charts used by Al Gore :
https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j160/ ... Truth1.jpg
and
https://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j160/ ... Truth2.jpg
I wanted to see for myself the "650,000 years of data" showing temperature in red and CO2 in green (I believe). The 1st image is a side-on, so hard to tell if the CO2 leads or tails the temperature. But the 2nd, face-on, which would have helped, doesn't show the green CO2. In any case, at this scale, it might not be possible to notice a 200 year lag period.
What IS ringing alarm bells is that I do not recall seeing a statistical analysis which refutes the 200 year time lag mentioned in the C4 documentary [which was for a 7,000 year period marked by the red line in above graphs, e.g. which says over the last "x" years, the average lag [or lead] if "x" years between sun activity [and/or temperature] and CO2. With so many statistical techniques, why haven't we been shown a graph of average lag over the last 650,000 years ?
[if there is such a graph, then please can someone point it out]
Flippancy?! Good GOD man, don't you realise that all this procrastination about causes when the effects are smacking us in the face is important?!!major.tom wrote:But my Seal Pup tea cozy absolutely MAKES my kitchen. Sue me for being stylish.faceless wrote:Consumerism is the problem and until people stop buying pointless crap it will continue.
