China did produce as much CO2 in few minutes than our country in whole year, rather pointless to destroy our way of living and our economy by insane CO2 reductions.

That gives me plenty of reason to fight against these stealth taxes.

Worse is that they are going to give up power of self control to new world governement in Copenhagen, so that is something which is needed to fight against, if civilized methods are not working, then I guess is time to use bit more primitive ways.

There are some worrying things in upcoming meetings:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/200 ... aders.html

It can lead to great instability and end of modern era of peace if things go bad

Next time you've got a couple hrs to kill watch Endgame on youtube.

Whether you agree or not it is an eye opener that's for sure.

sven360 wrote:OK,let's assume all the scientists who agree with GW are correct.

Thats all I am saying. I totally agree the politicians are using it to do things that are not in the long term interest of the environment or the people. But Jani seems to think that because politicians are doing bad and stupid things that it means the scientists are wrong. Its a common problem that people seem to throw the scientists into the same bucket as the politicians, when most are thoroughly independent.

Scientist can't be wrong as science can't be wrong, there are just different theories, some work some don't, some scientists produce worse theories than others, some can't be taken really very seriously because of their methods, no Scientists can say what is truth in climate as we still know too little, just alone how long CO2 stays up in athmosphere, there are peer reviewed studies that say 800 years, also peer reviewed studies that say 15 years or even less, unless such basic issues are known for sure how any scientists can say anything for sure?

Some say also that sun has no effect what so ever, still I did read paper from DK (also peer reviewed) which did state that effect of sun is at least level of CO2 but can be even greater and again it did state that more studies are needed.

Those scientist that say what will happen for sure are not so good, imo.

Indeed...................


An article form early '08.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 83,00.html

Just as well I got a Jeep

jtbo wrote:Scientist can't be wrong as science can't be wrong, there are just different theories, some work some don't, some scientists produce worse theories than others, some can't be taken really very seriously because of their methods, no Scientists can say what is truth in climate as we still know too little, just alone how long CO2 stays up in athmosphere, there are peer reviewed studies that say 800 years, also peer reviewed studies that say 15 years or even less, unless such basic issues are known for sure how any scientists can say anything for sure?

Some say also that sun has no effect what so ever, still I did read paper from DK (also peer reviewed) which did state that effect of sun is at least level of CO2 but can be even greater and again it did state that more studies are needed.

Those scientist that say what will happen for sure are not so good, imo.

I'd agree with that generally, as you point out scientist do not know anything for sure and this IS how science works. It only gives levels of confidence to its understanding and prediction. This is the basic anti-GW camp argument that Scientist don't know anything for sure, therefore we should not inconvenience ourselves. Lets say the confidence is only 50-50% that GW will cause big problems or not, do you really think we should ignore it?

Actually confidence is more like 95% certain of GW happening, and 75% that continuing on as we are will lead to catastrophic climate change within 100 years. The main uncertainties are how much oil and coal we have left to do damage with. The last IPCC report didn't even include the runway warming affect of artic tundra thawing or frozen methane sudden releases.

If you only read papers throwing doubt on GW then you will likely conclude that the other papers are in the minority, but that is simply wrong by a staggering margin. The are around a few tens of papers that are taken seriously that throw doubt on GW, but there are 1000s that support it.

Over the past few years with the economic crisis coming up I have learned 2 simple things.. that those in charge do not really know what they are doing... and that the media is manipulated by those with vested interests. It is less important what is said than who is saying it and why.

One camp says it is 95% certain, same camp that says we are doomed we need to act now hurry and rest of stuff which follows directly way how internet scams usually works. 1. gilty 2. solution 3. act now, principle of good scam, I'm sure you can see why it is impossible to believe such statements that 95% agrees when almost weekly new information is found that changes predictions a lot.

Also it is very hard to believe such instances which have published fake data as fact that same 95% agrees and as now have been found out has resulted major error in warming estimates. IPCC has predicted always pretty same like numbers, find out their early reports check how much they have predicted temperature rise and compare to how much temperature has risen, does it match?

Originally there were 2000 scientists in IPCC, few hundred has resigned because their way of their work has been altered and used, also this tells something being wrong in that organization, also why they stick to such tiny short perioid of time, when this short perioid of time is lot less than looking trough keyhole, it is also too convenient that their chosen time perioid starts from time when we started to recover from extremely cold years, 1600-1850 were very very cold compared to time before, it can be seen from history, latest documentary that was not climate related told how there were mighty empire at Turkey, before that cold perioid of time and based on what remains they have found there was pleasant weather, now it is very cold in those parts. However Al Gore for example states that now is warmest than ever, well he is not a scientists, but he controls more of what effects us than any scientists and also his actions indirectly affects to where funding is directed.

IPCC reports are not scientific work, but politics are based their decisions on those reports, their reports actually disagrees some times with their own papers, so I think IPCC is political institution more than scientific and it should be stopped unless there is change of methods. Latest report was bit more to right direction, but those fastly rising temp graphs were perhaps bit off.

There are sources for data mentioned, data is real, why then IPCC gives totally different picture to our politicians?
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Scien ... -Yamal.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Scien ... Arctic.htm

Because of such things we are going fast towards world where you are told what you can do instead of what you can't do, I must say that it is not world where I was born and not a world where I will live, if worst case scenario of warming is finally the truth I would welcome it, it is better than living as slave of anti capitalist rulers, I'm not going to be part of some hippie community which our not so wise politicians are trying to make.

We are really not in hurry, that is political claim, there won't be too late in this issue as anyone that knows bit of history and geology can see, that there has been as fast and even faster changes as of now, also temps have been higher, co2 has been higher, so planet will not get destroyed, but if we start to reduce co2 fast that can mean real trouble, what happens if co2 level starts to decrease and we end up to levels lower than plants need to grow?
I think it would be best to study this issue further before actions, that message should be made clear to politics, no matter what.

I read both sides and I can't fully agree on either, but I know that as GW fans are only focusing things that support their way, only way to get to middle is to balance this with opposite as strong move, end result is probably war, but it probably can't be helped, I will not have much part in that, but things look so bad now that probably day will come when one has to pick side even one sees that there is middle way too.
Increase in living costs and reduction of freedom that has been planned is going to be too much to bare unless one is religiously GW minded. At end of day it does not matter even a bit if GW is happening or is it not, it is not a thing we can realistically affect any bit, we can however make co2 to disappear and die because of that.

Oh yes and global temperature rise will feel, around the world you should see data which shows warming, but it is not the case, around the world there has been news how winter has arrived earlier than in 100 years, it means something, but it takes really long time to see what is the trend, 25 years is still bit short if we think realistically, not how IPCC is telling our politicians to think, some 500 years starts to show trend, bit of a trend, but even from that it is quite difficult to tell what direction is coming, but of course we have models, which recently did fail a bit, but they will get better, maybe in 50 years we know enough to make them work better than just drawing predetermined straight lines.

Would it be unreasonable for the government to tax based on the emissions measured at your last MOT? (Never mind that given half the chance I'd twist the carbs a bit to the 'eco' just for the MOT and back to the 'hot' for afterwards )

(From a wannabe 300 driver... if I can afford the insurance...)

wst50 wrote:Would it be unreasonable for the government to tax based on the emissions measured at your last MOT? (Never mind that given half the chance I'd twist the carbs a bit to the 'eco' just for the MOT and back to the 'hot' for afterwards )

(From a wannabe 300 driver... if I can afford the insurance...)

Put tax to Petrol price, that way everyone can control how much they drive and adjust payments to current situation of wallet, also it would charge more from those cars that use more petrol, most fair method, imo.

What is the point taxing car that sit on parking lot or in garage most of time?

But as everyone probably agrees, politicians are not sharpest tools.

So basically jtbo you think that the scientific evidence presented so far demonstrating global warming is a scam created by politicians to increase taxes and control, perhaps based on some weak evidence by some poorly skilled scientists who don't understand their errors the way you do.

I'd have to say that would be one hell of well organised world wide scam. If Gov'ts are that clever we really do have nothing to worry about, we should just do what they say.

I certainly agree basic car tax increases are pointless, and its simpler, cheaper and fairer to tax fuel more. My biggest bug bear is that aviation and energy generation is not taxed on fuel the same as cars/busses/trains etc. But I guess that might depend on whether you think CO2 does damage or not, at the very least its a finite resource in human time scales and we should use it wisely. Having cheap holidays to Australia or the US is not a human right.

There are no scientific evidence that can proof man made global warming or even that CO2 is cause of global warming, but there are scientific evidence that shows how temperatures has risen and fallen.

There are also scientific evidence that co2 increases warming effect as are many other gases, but how much seem to be big question even some scientist claim it to be causing more warming effect than anything else, now those scientists are rushing into conclusions, not enough is known from what controls our temperatures. Some think sun is meaningless, still there just recently have been scientific proof of how sun's activity affects to cloud coverage and sea currents.

IPCC is not purely scientific organization, it concentrates of proofing their theories right, instead of finding out how climate actually works, it has no direct control to other researchers, but politicians are those who can cause funding to stop and funding does stop if research does not support their goals, so there are no such research done which could actually lead to finding out how climate works and what affects it.

Now as politicians have chosen IPCC to be only source of information we get quite twisted view of situation, especially when in IPCC there has been quite a few issues with cherry picking of data to faking data. So anything that comes from IPCC I regard with great suspicion unless it can be prooven to be true without any questions. If you leave IPCC stuff out, what you have is quite different view to aspect.

It is impossible to anyone put words to my mouth, so please stop that at once. It would be rather irrogant from you to think that you would know how and what I think based on few small pieces of quickly typed text.

btw, Tundra melting is hoax, it has prooved to be wrong as temperatures at tundra have been decreasing long time, arctic ice is increased over 1/3rd based on measurements (not that thin 1st year ice, but older thick ice), how anyone can still believe IPCC is making fair and honest science is beyond my understanding...

Also isn't it bit odd when previously it was lot warmer than now, it was much more pleasant to all latitudes, there were lot more life, no terrible cold winters like today, but currently some are claiming it will be horrible catastrophy? Nobody never knows answer for that, question is always greeted with either silence or some absurd claims how current temperature rise is higher than ever, even current temperature rise is actually quite mild compared to what it has been in history.

And even if all this data is fake and few scientists, that claim to be majority when they are not, are right, there is just nothing we can do about it, there are too many people in countries that certainly will not do anything about it that our sacrifications of our way of living would mean anything. I rather live my life free and happy than like a slave, especially when end result is just the same.

What comes to scam, I would recommend reading history, specially religion comes to mind in most cultures.

Ride_on wrote: Having cheap holidays to Australia or the US is not a human right.

You what!!!!!

That's fighting talk in the free republic of Segedunum.

Having done both I can only recommend them

Some scientists are surely evil scientists though.
Like in films and such.
How can we tell if these perticular scientists (of which many have spoken in this thread) are good scientists or evil scientists?

Im loathed to trust any of them really.
Global warming, climate change, splicing the genes of a crab with that of a dog to create a terrifying crab/dog hybrid that chases you round while dramatic organ music plays.............................................. its the thin end of the wedge people.

Trust nobody.

jtbo wrote: It is impossible to anyone put words to my mouth, so please stop that at once. It would be rather irrogant from you to think that you would know how and what I think based on few small pieces of quickly typed text.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I am merely summarising what I think you are saying, and your text is all we have to go on. If you don't want to be judged on it then don't write it. To be honest it is hard to figure your reasoning out because you have so many reasons to not believe then you finish with ..'why should we bother since others are not going to do enough to make a difference'. Solutions are irrelevant if you don't believe in it, contributing or not when others may or may not follow is a whole other discussion.

Anyway I have to say I am not an expert on the IPCC corruption you mention, have you any reason why we should believe you, do you know someone in the IPCC, or are you just recanting news articles you have read. Simply I happen to think the CO2 must affect the atmosphere because of basic physics, the amount is increasing rapidly (or is that conspiracy driven errors too?) due to mans activities. It is only the level of effect that is up for debate. The so called negative feedbacks do not seem to be controlling the CO2 level.

Volvosneverdie-Evil scientists in films are not normally peer reviewed and their results not normally replicated, unlike respected scientists. This is partly the point and why I do tent to trust them, and this is what it comes down to, there is lots of propaganda as I have explained above. It very easy for people to get sucked into this. But then this is all a bit like terrorism the just cause is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, except in this case there is an absolute truth. As I have said before it comes down believing in an industry design to find the truth, or one designed to make as money as possible. No normal individuals can have a useful argument about the science.

The only place I do not trust science is in areas of morality, for which it has little answers. Religion would be useful for this if it just weren't so damned religious.