Global warming

[ QUOTE ]
As an example.... why should we be taxed out of our cars while chav central still trots off to Costa del Sol on a plane every year?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ironically (but not surprisingly) the airline industry are saying the exact opposite: why are they being attacked by the government and targeted with proposed increased taxes when the government is doing nothing to promote reduced use of cars which they claim is the main source of the problem. Everyone looking after their own interests, of course.

Hopefully use of both cars AND airlines will be taxed much more heavily.
 
Provided you accept all the Met Office article at face value there may be a link. Of course it does also point out that reducing Sulphate aerosol particles emmisions will increase global warming. So reducing man's activity will have a warming effect. So it's not entirely clear-cut is it?

I still feel the article posted by Mainmarine gives a more balanced view.
Ben Lovejoy may not be a specialist, but only 1 in 50 economists predicted an interest rate rise yesterday, and that's a simple 50/50 choice. So specialists aren't as reliable as we may like to think.

How many currently accepted views of our world, and that within it, started out with a lone voice, derided by many, but shown to be correct in the fullness of time.

I am happy to continue to believe we are no part (or a very small part) of what is happening to the climate.
I am totally convinced that trying to balance the benefits of recycling plastic bottles, paper and glass against extra car journeys to the dump are nonsensical.

I am also suprised that so many who deride the Met Office weather forecasts are willing to hang their hats on their predictions about the climate.
 
Harking back to the first post, I don't believe that this year's mild (so far) winter is directly due to global warming. I understand that currently the atlantic lows are tracking further into Europe than usual, and preventing cold air from the North from making its way to us.

There seem to be differences of opinion as to whether this cold pooling means we'll get it worse once the situation changes .. a sort of backlog of coldness. Others suggest that cold will stay the otherside of the Urals.
 
I don't think it's valid to include economists in the same category as the (various) disciplines of physical scientists. It's quite common to see two economists, both supposedly experts in their field, argue for diametrically opposite conclusions from the same set of data. Most "real" scientists and engineers don't do this. Can you just imagine such a debate? "I believe that V=IR", "Well I'm of the belief that V=I/R and my view is equally valid."
 
If taxation is purely a disincentive measure then I have a number of problems with it. If the revenue from that taxation was being directed at positive steps to reduce emmissions that would be another matter. However, successive UK governmants have always refused point blank to ring fence revenue so it won't happen.
 
I think it's irrelevant whether the money is ringfenced or not. Government has to gather money from somewhere in taxation for the national budget. They should also spend money on promoting environmentally friendly policies out of their budget, but who cares from what taxation source. The main priority is to discourage use of cars, planes etc., and if they can collect some extra tax on the way then good on 'em.
 
That's a bit different. Speculation and development of new ideas (whether for a thesis or just a philosophical chat over a pint or three) inevitably throws up divergent notions. Once sufficient evidence supports a particular theory it becomes generally accepted - unless a better theory comes along later.

Economists, OTOH, will happily argue the toss over whether the country's economy will benefit or disbenefit from a rise in interest rates. This is hardly straining the frontiers of knowledge!
 
Dear boy,
You have fallen for the old "forum drift" again. The article in question said in effect that Global warming was not man made and was due almost entirely to an increase in the suns activity. This is crap. The Met Office site confirms that there was no increase in the suns activity during that period and that only the increase in CO2 during the period in question can possibly be correlated with the actual results we are experiencing. Acknowledge these facts and then we can move on to how we deal with the problem and what part the government should play. Changing the subject to a debate about taxation is dodging the main issue.
 
Good grief. What a superior attitude you have. You seem to dismiss anything that doesn't quite fit in with your concept.
Several of the replies on here are taking man's involvement in climate change and global warming as a given.
That is conjecture and opinion. Whether or not it's backed-up with statistics from the Met Office. They are only interpretations of observed data.

I am awaiting conclusive proof. If the doom-merchants are right it will be too late to have an effect. But as we probably aren't having the level of effect that is being suggested, then completely stopping our activities will similarly have little effect.

In addition, anyone who thinks that the whole planet can get together, in unison, in order to alter the catastrophe that we are being promised hasn't been paying attention for the span of civilisation.
 
That'll be no increase except for the one on the graph on page 11 that shows a steady increase from about 1900 right through to 2000 then will it?

With associated text saying things like (paraphrasing) "We think this doesn't affect the temperature" and "there may be other effects we don't understand"
 
[ QUOTE ]
as we probably aren't having the level of effect that is being suggested

[/ QUOTE ]
??? basis for asserting that?

[ QUOTE ]
anyone who thinks that the whole planet can get together, in unison, in order to alter the catastrophe

[/ QUOTE ]
So it's easier just to give up? Seems a bit defeatist.
 
The basis for asserting that is exactly the same as anyone's basis for asserting the opposite.
It's what I have decided after reading and listening to various points of view and documents such as the Met office one. We don't have to draw they same conclusions as the author's.

I am entitled to my own opinion aren't I?
Despite the fact that you don't agree.
 
Ok, so you're "awaiting conclusive proof".
When you're car starts acting up do you take it to the garage and ask them to look at it before it gets worse or do you await the conclusive proof that it is thoroughly busted and breaks down at 3am in a hailstorm before pushing it to the garage to be told it's not worth repairing?
 
But in that analogy, the garage would be saying, "we're not sure if there's anything wrong with your car or not Mr Lakesailor. We can try and fix it.... it'll be very expensive, and we don't know if it will fix the problem that we are not certain even exists or not.... would you like us to proceed?"
 
no they wouldn't, they'd say "we're pretty sure we know what's causing the problem and it's going to get worse if we don't try and sort it out now. Fixing it will be expensive but not nearly as expensive as buying a new car and when you amortise the cost of fixing it it's only going to cost you another 0.1p a mile for the (long) life of the fixed car"
 
Yes. I think you need to compare like with like. People know how cars are made and what goes wrong with them.
You'll be asking me next if I would jump off a cliff if my friend did?

(Actually the answer is no, because I would like to be convinced it is the answer before I commit myself)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Roberto
Herbal teas at night
Replies
13
Views
307
steve yates
S

Share this page

Top