Express: Climate Change Is A Fraud To Raise Taxes

edgex

zygurat789 wrote: »

Here we go again.
Remember Dr Winchester who said that the MMR vaccine caused autism? The press ran with this and a large percentage of the population agreed with them and children did not receive the protection. He was discredited and the scaremongers contributed to the deaths of many children. All this despite the fact that the vast majority of medical opinion was for the MMR.
There will always be "experts" like Dr Winchester & Dr Plimmer. Has anyone checked if he works for/is sponsored by/has shares in or is in any way going to benefit from his opinions?
Taxation is, and always has been a red herring. Does anybody honestly believe that governments would not have raised the amounts collected from "green" taxation elsewhere?
At least Dr Plimmer has confirmed that climate change is real, does exist and is happening. That, at least should shut up half the ignoramusses who post on this subject on this site.
Our climate has always changed and always will due to natural forces, at the moment, beyond our control, however, this does not mean that we can not affect this process.
We are producing more CO2 than ever before and according to analysis of ice cores going back millions of years the rate of rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater than ever seen before.
If this continues unchecked it could be cataclysmic.
The planet can probably survive by eventually producing enough plants, shell
living organisms and limestone to produce an oxygen mix fit for animals but this process takes millions of years and most, if not all, animals may not survive.

he is a director of 3 mining companies in Australia
he has a book out

he's a mining geologist, not a climatologist



this is what he's like
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

zappahey

Alan_Cross wrote: »

... a denier

"Denier", is that a bit like heretic and blasphemer?

Using terms like this just demonstrates that you're right up there with religious fundamentalists who get in a tizz when someone criticises their particular sky fairy. Unable to put up a rational argument, they simply start calling people names.

edgex

zappahey wrote: »

"Denier", is that a bit like heretic and blasphemer?

Using terms like this just demonstrates that you're right up there with religious fundamentalists who get in a tizz when someone criticises their particular sky fairy. Unable to put up a rational argument, they simply start calling people names.

er no

someone can try & deny the existence of facts
it dosnt stop those facts existing, & it makes them a 'denier'


the 'deniers' in this case consistently claim the whole thing is a scam, that those involved have an agenda, that its all some vast global conspiracy

they then deny any facts presented to them, & are unable to answer the most basic of questions about their own 'work'


that makes the 'deniers' the fundamentalists
'its true because i believe its true'

zappahey

edgex wrote: »

er no

someone can try & deny the existence of facts
it dosnt stop those facts existing, & it makes them a 'denier'

That's the point. There are very few "facts" but there are plenty of hypotheses, theories and models. The standard claim of AGW theorists is that the science is proven and the debate is closed, neither of which is true. This is particularly highlighted by the recent events with the CRU server being hacked and the suggestions that the data has been fiddled to fit the theory.

I'm more than happy to have a debate and I am more than happy to conserve natural resources but I am not content to have the debate stifled by fundamentalists who resort to a religious fervour in denouncing "the deniers". It's like a return to the Spanish Inquisition where it is impossible to question the orthodoxy.

zygurat789

edgex wrote: »

he is a director of 3 mining companies in Australia
he has a book out

he's a mining geologist, not a climatologist



this is what he's like
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

Just as ignorant as the rest of us then?

JWF

zappahey wrote: »

"Denier", is that a bit like heretic and blasphemer?

When I first read the message, I thought there was a reference to the thickness of tights.

Alas it was much more boring.

Gymgenius

zygurat789 wrote: »

Here we go again.
Remember Dr Winchester who said that the MMR vaccine caused autism? The press ran with this and a large percentage of the population agreed with them and children did not receive the protection. He was discredited and the scaremongers contributed to the deaths of many children. All this despite the fact that the vast majority of medical opinion was for the MMR.
There will always be "experts" like Dr Winchester & Dr Plimmer. Has anyone checked if he works for/is sponsored by/has shares in or is in any way going to benefit from his opinions?
Taxation is, and always has been a red herring. Does anybody honestly believe that governments would not have raised the amounts collected from "green" taxation elsewhere?
At least Dr Plimmer has confirmed that climate change is real, does exist and is happening. That, at least should shut up half the ignoramusses who post on this subject on this site.
Our climate has always changed and always will due to natural forces, at the moment, beyond our control, however, this does not mean that we can not affect this process.
We are producing more CO2 than ever before and according to analysis of ice cores going back millions of years the rate of rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater than ever seen before.
If this continues unchecked it could be cataclysmic.
The planet can probably survive by eventually producing enough plants, shell
living organisms and limestone to produce an oxygen mix fit for animals but this process takes millions of years and most, if not all, animals may not survive.

Don't you mean Dr Wakefield?

Alan_Cross

zappahey wrote: »

"Denier", is that a bit like heretic and blasphemer?

Using terms like this just demonstrates that you're right up there with religious fundamentalists who get in a tizz when someone criticises their particular sky fairy. Unable to put up a rational argument, they simply start calling people names.

Now there's a really prime piece of blackwash.

Who is it, one wonders, that is avoiding the issue being raised, i.e. of the deniers really being interested in one thing and one thing only: their wallets rather than the planet..?

aardvaak

Climate Change Is A Fraud To Raise Taxes

Yes of coarse it is.

Why are we having to pay increased taxes just to help the brats of the future!

Even if the temp., did go up a couple of degrees by the end of the century so what most of us will be gone by then.

Our forefathers did'nt care about what they pumped out they just lived and so should we!

JP45

There was an excellent article in last weekend's Sunday Times by Bryan Appleyard in which he set out the evidence and arguments that had finally convinced him to drop his resistance to the idea of global warming.

Below are a just couple of extracts but it really is worth reading the full article at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6931598.ece

The climate is warming. It is almost certain this is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Nobody has come up with an alternative explanation that stands up. If the present warming trend continues, nasty things will probably start happening to humans within the next century, possibly the next decade. Something must be done. If nothing is done, then the benign climatic conditions that have sustained human civilisation for 10,000 years are in danger of collapse to be replaced by… well, write your own disaster movie.

You will note that there is some wiggle room in these statements. It is “almost certain” that humans are responsible; nasty things will “probably” happen. That is because all science can ever be is the best guess of the best minds. Also, the climate is a complex system, meaning it can behave in ways that are opaque beyond our most sophisticated calculations. But, as I have often been told, those statements are as true as any scientific statements can be, and nobody — I repeat, nobody — has been able to refute this. In short, to deny any of these statements is to put yourself beyond the bounds of rational discourse.....

......Enter Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg is not a denier, but he is a denialist hero, because he gave them their one really strong argument for doing nothing or next to nothing. Global warming is happening, he says, and it’s a problem, but it’s not a BIG problem and certainly not so big that we have to ditch our way of life. The reason this is a strong argument is that it doesn’t make the mistake of denying the science — futile, as Lomborg knows and as I hope you do by now — it just says that the outcome may not be that bad. Scientists can’t say he’s wrong because the future of a complex system — climate combined with human civilisation — is inherently unpredictable.

It’s all a question of probability and risk. Rapley once put it to me this way. You are putting your daughter on a plane. The pilot tells you there is a 1-in-100 chance it will crash. You, if you have any sense, take your daughter off the plane. Why? Because the potential loss is so great that 1 in 100 is unacceptable. So it is with global warming — except the down side probability is a good deal higher than 1 in 100.

.