Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

Recommended Posts

There seem to be a reluctance to even discuss the economic impact of 'green taxes'

 

Anyone know that Leonardo dicaprio 'carbon foot print' is 10,000 higher then a Chinese rice farmer. Perhaps all those 'activists' will swap their 4 by 4s for a straw hut ? No wonder China,India,Germany Canada didn't have their leaders attend. Perhaps those that marched in New York  can pay the beggar on the streets in India to plant a tree and then feel better when they fly down to Mexico ??

 

The evidence isn't there yet those that knock the oil companies use them most the irony.

 

http://www.contactmusic.com/story/leonardo-dicaprio-the-time-for-climate-change-action-is-now_4383948

Edited by stewfox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be a reluctance to even discuss the economic impact of 'green taxes'

 

Anyone know that Leonardo dicaprio 'carbon foot print' is 10,000 higher then a Chinese rice farmer. Perhaps all those 'activists' will swap their 4 by 4s for a straw hut ? No wonder China,India,Germany Canada didn't have their leaders attend. Perhaps those that marched in New York  can pay the beggar on the streets in India to plant a tree and then feel better when they fly down to Mexico ??

 

The evidence isn't there

 

http://www.contactmusic.com/story/leonardo-dicaprio-the-time-for-climate-change-action-is-now_4383948

 

 

By which you mean if you can in some way label someone a hypocrite their argument can't be right?

 

Well, as a line of argument it is of course nonsensical, else smoking being dangerous is disproved when a smoker says smoking is dangerous...

 

Edit: green taxes. I thoroughly approve of them. For example, I drive a tiny car for a reason - it's cheap and it's not taxed much. If a car is inefficient I think (as the driver of a relatively clean car) that it should be taxed more than my car else we're perversely encouraging polluting cars.

 

 

 

Edited by Devonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By which you mean if you can in some way label someone a hypocrite their argument can't be right?

 

Well, as a line of argument it is of course nonsensical, else smoking being dangerous is disproved when a smoker says smoking is dangerous...

 

Edit: green taxes. I thoroughly approve of them. For example, I drive a tiny car for a reason - it's cheap and it's not taxed much. If a car is inefficient I think (as the driver of a relatively clean car) that it should be taxed more than my car else we're perversely encouraging polluting cars.

 

 

 

 

Problem is Devonian and I also drive a small cheap car is the goal posts will move regarding car tax as more and more cars are getting into the lowest tax bands so the government is losing money as cars modernise and then they will just tax us another way to make up for it?  Unless you believe it is truly an environmental tax solely for environmental use?

 

my uncle has the new Mercedes e250 sport and it has a lower tax band than my little 1.2 corsa :angry:

Edited by mullender83
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is Devonian and I also drive a small cheap car is the goal posts will move regarding car tax as more and more cars are getting into the lowest tax bands so the government is losing money as cars modernise and then they will just tax us another way to make it up?

 

My uncle has the new Mercedes e250 sport and it has a lower tax band than my little 1.2 corsa :angry:

Well, given that there are moves in to alter the level of road tax in a more rational manner, it might be time to write to your MP, the correct Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport and have a say - central government seems - vaguely - to have recognised that current carbon taxes on motoring are skewed. Now is the time to get your p.o.v. in on the argument about the best way to change them. Either that, or buy a new lower-emission car.

Edited by Crepuscular Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, given that there are moves in to alter the level of road tax in a more rational manner, it might be time to write to your MP, the correct Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport and have a say - central government seems - vaguely - to have recognised that current carbon taxes on motoring are skewed. Now is the time to get your p.o.v. in on the argument about the best way to change them. Either that, or buy a new lower-emission car.

 

So a new Mercedes with a massive engine and huge production costs which uses more petrol is the way to go :cc_confused:

 

just rather strange although I would gladly drive one if I could afford 40k+ for a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is Devonian and I also drive a small cheap car is the goal posts will move regarding car tax as more and more cars are getting into the lowest tax bands so the government is losing money as cars modernise and then they will just tax us another way to make up for it?  Unless you believe it is truly an environmental tax solely for environmental use?

 

my uncle has the new Mercedes e250 sport and it has a lower tax band than my little 1.2 corsa :angry:

 

Good, it's making cars more efficient.

 

And, gulp, I believe in tax. I think tax is good. I think what tax is used for (NHS, schools, police, roads, public services, local Govt, armed services, the whole shebang) is good. And, you know what? I don't pay much direct tax because I earn jack... 

Edited by Devonian
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By which you mean if you can in some way label someone a hypocrite their argument can't be right?

 

 

 

How do you 'sell' that 'argument' ?

 

I'm sure those synthetic 'man made' fibers will bio degrade after 1000s yrs ? I'm sure the 'protesters' mean well even if they don't see the hypocrisy.

post-7914-0-98569100-1411508375_thumb.jp

Edited by stewfox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no, no, no, Mully. What on Earth in my last post led you to think that's what I was suggestng? Am I losing the ability to write in the English language?

 

The whole point is that the imbalance in what is currently regarded as green by some narrow definition about a particular form of emissions (your uncle's Merc) and what actually causes least environmental damage needs to be redressed.

Edited by Crepuscular Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, it's making cars more efficient.

 

And, gulp, I believe in tax. I think tax is good. I think what tax is used for (NHS, schools, police, roads, public services, local Govt, armed services, the whole shebang) is good. And, you know what? I don't pay much direct tax because I earn jack... 

 

You make a good general point and your right it is improving cars although I dislike being taxed and sold the lie about it being a green environmental tax. The other one of course is taxing us heavily to stop us smoking or drinking, as a smoker that has switched to e-cigs I know the government is only after the money and cares little for my health so they will in all likelihood ban them to force people to smoke real ones again or introduce a heavy tax on them also. :ninja:

 

cresp I understand you. :hi: it does need re-balancing indeed.

Edited by mullender83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be a reluctance to even discuss the economic impact of 'green taxes'

 

Anyone know that Leonardo dicaprio 'carbon foot print' is 10,000 higher then a Chinese rice farmer. Perhaps all those 'activists' will swap their 4 by 4s for a straw hut ? No wonder China,India,Germany Canada didn't have their leaders attend. Perhaps those that marched in New York  can pay the beggar on the streets in India to plant a tree and then feel better when they fly down to Mexico ??

 

The evidence isn't there yet those that knock the oil companies use them most the irony.

 

http://www.contactmusic.com/story/leonardo-dicaprio-the-time-for-climate-change-action-is-now_4383948

 

In the case of Canada and Australia I suspect it may be more to do with Harper and Abbott supporting Tar Sands, oil pipelines and the Australian coal industry. China and India are course very dependent on coal although the latter very nearly ran out recently causing a complete blackout in some areas. Conditions in the coal mines in those countries are probably worse than 19th century Britain,

 

Green taxes are a piddling amount to the money pored into the fossil industry and also not forgetting we are even importing coal from Russia. Puts a new meaning on "coals to Newcastle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops

 

Any guesses as to which other thread the last hour or so of debate should be moved, given that it's not about data or stats?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you 'sell' that 'argument' ?

 

I'm sure those synthetic 'man made' fibers will bio degrade after 1000s yrs ? I'm sure the 'protesters' mean well even if they don't see the hypocrisy.

so if a smoker says to you smoking is bad for you then because he's a hypocrite that evidence and arugement isn't as valid? C'mon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have is at no point does this include or account for the large natural variation in ozone production as a result of the solar cycles from the late 70's we saw two very active cycles which would have seen significantly less ozone produced and funnily enough since we have entered low cycle we a seeing a recovery but hey must be due mans own efforts!!!

 

Are to seriously questioning the accepted theory (fact) of ozone depletion? Measuring started in the Antarctic in 1957 using the Dobson spectrophotometer; in 1973 Lovelock found that CFCs were accumulating in the atmosphere, enter Molina and Rowland. In 1984 Halley Station found that ozone amounts were down about a third from the 1955-77 values. And they are very slowly recovering  I see no reason to doubt Molina and Rowland's chemical explanation for the destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops

 

Any guesses as to which other thread the last hour or so of debate should be moved, given that it's not about data or stats?

 

Man made climate change cannot take place in a vacuum of a pie chart

 

I appreciate the point of the thread isn't to highlight hypocrisy but

 

"""""Please use this thread to discuss the fundamental issues of man made climate change. Views on all sides of the debate are welcome within this thread but all views do need to be backed up by evidence"".

 

A 'fundamental issue of 'manmade climate change is 'selling' that to the people of the planet.

 

I assume you agree that is failing at the moment ?.

Edited by stewfox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if a smoker says to you smoking is bad for you then because he's a hypocrite that evidence and arugement isn't as valid? C'mon!

 

If the worlds climate warmed by 4c next 50yrs then you would be where we are with smoking now !

 

However the jury is out at the moment re impact of man on climate so the analogy has no merit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man made climate change cannot take place in a vacuum of a pie chart

 

I appreciate the point of the thread isn't to highlight hypocrisy but

 

"""""Please use this thread to discuss the fundamental issues of man made climate change. Views on all sides of the debate are welcome within this thread but all views do need to be backed up by evidence"".

 

A 'fundamental issue of 'manmade climate change is 'selling' that to the people of the planet.

 

I assume you agree that is failing at the moment ?.

You're reading too deeply. I was merely pointing out that the last few hours' discussion didn't have many data in it and had wandered a bit.

 

I'm tired, so trawling back to your quote, finding its source and extrapolating your take on it is too much effort at the mo. However, your assumption about my opinion is wrong. If you disagree, go talk to the people of the Marshall Islands.. They'll lose their homes, their livelihoods and their culture, whatever. The fact that some people on here seem to be digging their heads in the sand and refusing to believe that this is happening makes me want to scream, a lot as we're, collectively  with our ancestors, responsible. 

Edited by Crepuscular Ray
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me there's no question that, in recent years, we have been experiencing warmer weather in the UK overall. 

To me it screams sense to find ways of developing "clean" energy.

Whether or not we are experiencing a man made climate change?   I am sceptical.

I think there's a tendency to make the facts fit the theory. Every notable bit of weather that happens these days has to be put down to a reason, especially with the easily accessible media we enjoy today, the fondness for headlines generated in part to keep those 24 hour rolling news channels seem worthwhile and not least the fact that more of us live in more areas susceptible to weather "events".

But I firmly believe that you could take any 40 year period in the last 300 years and build up a case for "something odd is happening to our climate".

I've seen the claims in the early part of this century that our kids would not know what snow was, only to have them see so much that, unlike me, they get a bit blase about it!

I've seen the claims after Hurricane Katrina that our hurricanes are going to get more and more destructive.....only then to see a period of 9 years pass without a CAT 3 or greater hurricane make landfall in the US......the longest period without one in over 100 years.

i remember the claims in mid-April 2012 that we were in the middle of a climate change drought that was going to extend till Christmas only for the reservoirs to be virtually replenished in full two months later

I remember the claims of an unrelenting rise in World temps year by year that hit a "pause". A Pause that is predicted to end soon by those who never predicted it would arrive in the first place.

So yes.....i certainly do remain highly sceptical and wonder how the hell it is that some folk who revel in being "anti-establishment" somehow end up marching in support of measures that ease the way for the imposition ofadditional taxes the "Establishment" are trying to impose upon us all.

I think it's worth noting this.....take the four warmest months by mean CET for each of the winter months....December, January and February..  Of those 12 months in all, half of them date back to before 1870. Three of them occured within 30 years of the onset of World War 1. Only one of them has registered in the last 20 years. and none this century have.

Of course it's just a small bit of the world I'm talking about here and it doesn't prove anything.....but i think amid all the hype that "global warming" has generated, it's something that might surprise a few people.  I think our biggest fault as humans is that we always want to be the ones who live in extraordinary times and look to anything to feed this frenzy with.

Mother Nature is mighty powerful and will do as she pleases.  She'll give us long spells of generally warmer years, long spells of colders years, short spells of one or the other and sometimes neither one nor the other. Personally I think we're moving gradually into a shorter spell of colder years and I'll expect to see a few monthly mean CETs over the next few years register towards the colder end of the spectrum. Some would headline that as "new ice age coming!".  I don't.

 
 

  

Edited by Timmytour
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our new CSIRO work provides an objective assessment linking global temperature increases to human activity, which points to a close to certain probability exceeding 99.999%.


Our work extends existing approaches undertaken internationally to detect climate change and attribute it to human or natural causes. The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report provided an expert consensus that:



It is 
extremely likely
 [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163


http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911


Edited by Polar Maritime
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

 

NOAA

post-12275-0-07042600-1411544492_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the worlds climate warmed by 4c next 50yrs then you would be where we are with smoking now !

 

However the jury is out at the moment re impact of man on climate so the analogy has no merit

Well, 3% of climate scientists agree with you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, 3% of climate scientists agree with you.

Enough said on the 97%

less than 1% of the studies expressly disputed the impact by man. A good two thirds took no position on the topic – and so were not included.†-
Edited by keithlucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's about one-third (minus 1%) do agree that AGW exists, as opposed to 1% that don't.

 

Where's the quote from btw?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...