Climate cooling

[sp1214]

Was global warming just a ruse to get us to pay more taxes?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.st m

[ludwig]

No. It's a convienient truth that's being exploited to get us to pay more taxes.

[jake-the-peg]

Ludwig is pretty damn close.

Global warming refers to a medium overall trend, short term effects like whether or not it's ane el nino year are neither here nor there.

Taxation is being used a a brute force club to try to get us to change our behaviour partly because of a lack of more refined tools but partly because of it's useful side effect of being an income generator

People are proving pretty resistant though so it may be only a matter of ten years or so before we see more legislative controlls such as bans on large engine cars, and even carbon rationing in some form or other

[Gromit]

The El Nino and La Nina are natural phenomena which we are only just started to work out. We know they both have a natural cycle. The fact that we know the cycle will result in a cooler year is not evidence that global warming is a myth.

[ludwig]

Just to clarify Jake, I make no assumption about the causes of global warming, but simply state the fact it's happening is being used to levy taxes.
I look forward to the time when we do see the kind of legislative controls you mention, as well as more investment in alternative energy supplies as that would demonstrate a commitment to doing something about the problem rather than just a commitment to maximising revenue.

[jake-the-peg]

Understandable, When I was a physicist some of the brightest people I knew worked on climate and atmospheric physics.

Yet It seems these days as is we're all expected to have a considered opinion based on watching a couple of news items and the odd documentary.

The media seem to think it's fair game to stop people on the streets and ask them what they think about Global warming - I wonder if they think about asking them what they think about advances in Brain surgery

[flip_flop]

Further to Jake's answer, I have always felt rather shamefaced about knowing absolutely diddly squat about global warming and therefore not having an opinion - it isn't that I don't necessarilly want to know, but more a case of my brain just simply doesn't work in that way: I have always struggled with anything even remotely scientific - ask me to discuss Voltaire and The French Enlightenment and I can bore people for hours.

I was at a dinner party not so long ago and this subject came up and I said something along the lines of 'I don't understand and therefore don't care and don't have an opinion': the hostess looked at me as if I'd just tipped anthrax into her Tiramasu.

[Quinlad]

flip_flop, you're not alone. In future dinner party conversations, just make up facts that sound a bit sciencey.

"Global warming has to be dynotropic - it's a direct result of carbon loading. Think about it. Between the third and fourth Neo-colonic ages, man-made carbo-nuclides rose by 17 seasonal bandwidths. That has caused fissure in the postroglycemic wall, causing marine gas levels to tide over in a phenomenon known as the Gascoigne Effect. Consequently, we're seeing triasmic plates forming in the atmosphere."

See how quickly the subject changes.

[ludwig]

..or try this.. 'We're pumping too much sh1ite into the atmosphere and we're all going to die'.

[New Judge]

A Committee from the House of Lords recently confirmed what I have been saying for ages about immigration being necessary to plug the so-called labour shortage gap.

Hopefully it will not be too long before they do likewise and dispel all the nonsense about global warming.


http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question48 9191.html

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Questio n471423.html

[jake-the-peg]

A perfect example, New Judge of a man who does not let his ignorance of a subject bar him from holding a strong opinion on it!

I salute you!

[New Judge]

Well, jake, I was shown by their Lordships not to be too ignorant on the matter of immigration being necessary to plug the labour gap.

Time will tell on this matter. Perhaps you could help combat my ignorance by providing a few more telling facts.

[Quinlad]

Magnificent crowbarring of immigration into an environmental debate. Top top quality.

Your argument seems to be that because you claim to be right about one contentious issue, you must be right on all contentious issues. Is that how it works?

[New Judge]

Not at all, quinlad.

My previous post was not a claim to be right. In the past few days you may have noticed a report published by a House of Lords Committee which, among other things, rejected the long-held and sacrosanct notion that mass immigration is needed to stem labour shortages.

I connected it to this issue, not to crowbar immigration into the debate, but because, along with many other people, I am disappointed that reasoned debate on contentious issues in the UK is stifled. Individuals who hold views that are contrary to the �party line� are dismissed as heretics or worse.

In recent months many of the �facts� that have been put forward on important issues have eventually been found to be at least dubious and in some cases downright false.

I do not know the definition of �global warming� or �climate change� and know even less whether it exists and if so what its effect will be. What is somewhat more obvious, however, is that human activities contribute an extremely small amount to overall carbon emissions. Therefore whatever may or may not be causing these changes, even with a worldwide consensus (which is not going to be forthcoming) there is little mankind can do to significantly change matters.

I just happen to believe that sooner or later some of the hysteria surrounding this latest religion will be exposed in the same way as the immigration issue just has. This will hopefully lead to some of the almost insane suggestions that are being put forward to combat the perceived problem being confined to the dustbin.

As I said, time will eventually tell. But until common sense prevails I don�t want to be ripped off in the form of additional taxation to cure a problem that taxation will not address. And that, after all, was the subject of sp1214�s question.

[New Judge]

Like I said, steve, reasoned debate seems a bit taboo on this issue. I'm going out for a curry now, so I hope the flatulence I will undoubtedly suffer later tonight does not contribute too much to my "carbon footprint" (whatever that might mean).

[Scylax]

Originally the tale about global waming was related
to us as being due to 'a hole in the ozone-layer'. This
was due to an excess of CFCs, 'twas said.
Seemingly, this solar myth has been modified for
fiscal reasons, because so few of us are in the habit of
squirting CFCs toward the heavens.

But CO2 ? There 's a guilt-inducing licence to print
money, until some other wheeze is dreamt up.

In geological time global warming will occur, and so
will global freezing. And who is to blame ? The
taxpayer will do, to be going on with.

Pay up, pay up, and play the game.