Express: Climate Change Is A Fraud To Raise Taxes

zygurat789

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Green is the new Socialism. The lefty always needs a cause in order to control and tax - this is their latest one.

I have always said that man made climate change is an utter load of bollax viz and I always will.

This was always well known because of my famous "ask a lefty test". Whatever the problem, you ask a lefty, and the answer is ALWAYS the opposite of what they say.

Screaming lefty fools. Within 100 years, unless they are stopped (which is hard because to an extent they shout loudest and control the media) the BRIC countries will be enjoying fantatsic lifestyles and we will be living in mud huts foraging for berries.

There's none so blind as those that will not see
I can't stand ignorant people who lump everything they don't agree with
under their favourite hate banner.
You're just a rabble-rouser, winding up people who just want an intelligent discusssion.
Go away and stick your fingers in a guillotine.

the_ash_and_the_oak

zygurat789 wrote: »

And that changed the rainfall pattern:rotfl:

its called transpiration imo

Out,_Vile_Jelly

The problem is that climate change science encompasses many different research fields; meterology, oceanography, ecology, palaeontology, geology, atmospheric chemistry etc etc. I can't think of another subject that straddles so much data and so many different methodologies (the data related to written weather records as opposed to chemical analysis of ancient polar ice cores as has been mentioned is a good example). Even within specific research fields new ideas develop and old ones are overthrown- that's how research works. Due to the scientific illiteracy of the general public, and our lowest common denominator press however, people seem to think that "science" means a man with large spectacles and a white coat standing with a clipboard and announcing something as FACT and that's that. The tabloid-reading mouth-breathing masses have no idea of statistical significance, nor how peer-reviewed journal publications work.

Of course there will be conflicting results and viewpoints within the huge range of climate research. Theories evolve. Opinions change. Scientists argue amongst themselves. New data and techniques emerge.

And of course governments go for short term, knee-jerk tax hikes under the banner of caring more for polar bears or whatever. Equally, the political clout of large corporations in opposing any legislation that reduces their profits, and their influence in the media cannot be underestimated.

My opinion is that whilst our tectonically active planet has a long and turbulent history of dynamic climatic cycles, the evidence currently suggests that our activities are contributing more than they ever have done to making life more difficult for future generations. We live in a short termist, lazy, greedy throw-away society with scant regard for the resources that keep our tellies lit up with The X Factor and our shelves stocked with shrink-wrapped lard. Just because politicians have (rather predictably) siezed on a cause that can be profitable, it doesn't follow that the cause should be dismissed out of hand.

Alan_Cross

The OP strips away, finally, all the mock, superficial arguments of the deniers.

Here we have it in all its naked glory: 'there's a world wide conspiracy out to get my money'.

Next time you hear a denier put up agonisings about the detail of GW causes, just remember what they're really about.

JWF

Don't confuse the impact of global warming (from whatever source) on the planet versus its impact on you.

There is no impact on the planet - the planet does not care if it is colder/hotter/wetter/drier/windier or more/less hospitable to life. it's just a planet after all.

There is a potentially massive impact on you, as a person - the hotter/colder/wetter/drier/windier weather could cause you major problems during your short existence, which is just a blink of an eye when looked at over a geological timeframe.

Not to mention the fact that using our resources up just to make you a new iPhone or car you don't need is probably not very sensible in the long term. But we'll all be dead by then so who cares.

Wow.

zygurat789

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

its called transpiration imo

more like perspiration

Puddleglum

Puddleglum rolls up sleeves and weighs in.......

This is a subject I have been interested in for a very long time and the more I find out the less I know.

For example:

anthropomorphic releases of CO2 account for about 4% of the amount floating around in our atmosphere. About half of this is recaptured by the planets in carbon sinks, like the oceans, trees etc.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing fact.

If the oceans warm they will not be able to absorb as much CO2 fact.

Forest growth in the Northern hemisphere is capturing carbon but not as much as is being released in the Southern hemisphere by deforestation fact.

Are we causing irreversible climate change? Nobody knows fact.

Is it wise to be careful and prudent and try not to inadvertantly cause damage? I think so.

Graphs can be drawn very carefully and used to back up whatever agenda an organisation has. Very true.

ses6jwg

Puddleglum wrote: »

Puddleglum rolls up sleeves and weighs in.......

This is a subject I have been interested in for a very long time and the more I find out the less I know.

For example:

anthropomorphic releases of CO2 account for about 4% of the amount floating around in our atmosphere. About half of this is recaptured by the planets in carbon sinks, like the oceans, trees etc.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing fact.

If the oceans warm they will not be able to absorb as much CO2 fact.

Forest growth in the Northern hemisphere is capturing carbon but not as much as is being released in the Southern hemisphere by deforestation fact.

Are we causing irreversible climate change? Nobody knows fact.

Is it wise to be careful and prudent and try not to inadvertantly cause damage? I think so.

Graphs can be drawn very carefully and used to back up whatever agenda an organisation has. Very true.

This is why I support the precautionary principle.

I, and I would hazard a guess and say your average Mail/ Express reader are not well-informed enough to make an intelligent decision one way or the other.

All I know is that yes, taxes may rise but I would rather that insurance policy against the potential world my grandchildren could inherit.

zygurat789

ses6jwg wrote: »

This is why I support the precautionary principle.

I, and I would hazard a guess and say your average Mail/ Express reader are not well-informed enough to make an intelligent decision one way or the other.

All I know is that yes, taxes may rise but I would rather that insurance policy against the potential world my grandchildren could inherit.

Don't fall into their trap. Governments have to raise money. If they don't raise it from anti-green levies they would only raise it from (sa) income tax or VAT

kabayiri

I make no comment on what is contributing to Climate Change.

But,...a simple plea. Can we find a way of removing the government smugness about the whole issue?

I am bombarded with senseless adverts on radio and tv. They tell me to inflate my tyres, or drive 5 miles a week less, but they make no promise that either of these will solve the problem in any measure.

These adverts are the result of a new industry, which could easily turn into the next big 'new age craze', just like the creation of exotica finance products was supposed to solve boom n bust.

We are creating schemes to make individuals and companies feel good about themselves, by offsetting.

If you really want to reduce global CO2 generation, make your TV last 30 years, not 5 years. Make your car last 20 years, don't reward scrapping perfectly good 10 year old motors for cheap import rubbish. Truth is, we want to feel good about doing our bit, but we still want that new car/tv/blu-ray/ipod/camera/etc/etc.