News0 min ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't disagree and the models do show that but.
A) They are models
B) The amount of man made contribution is far from certain. I am not saying that it is or isn't what I am saying is the there is no unequivical fact. Those who wish to argue that its man made can take as much succour from the models as the nay sayers.
I agree about the science however no matter how you couch it neither side has a water tight argument.
A) They are models
B) The amount of man made contribution is far from certain. I am not saying that it is or isn't what I am saying is the there is no unequivical fact. Those who wish to argue that its man made can take as much succour from the models as the nay sayers.
I agree about the science however no matter how you couch it neither side has a water tight argument.
The "only models" argument is ridiculous. These models are accurately reproducing the conditions found in the geological record. This is the way they are tested and refined. The conditons are entered and a good model reproduces what actually happened.
Modelling is a core tool of science and engineering. For example most of the crash testing of vehicles is performed in computer models now.
Where else do you think the rise in CO2 comes from? The facts are unequivocal. The naysayers have no alternative explanation yet insist that it could be something other than human activity.
It isn't coming out of the ocean because the concentration there is measured as increasing. This is consistent with the models which show that about half of what is released is being dissolved into the ocean and increasing its acidity.
It isn't coming out of volcanos. There is no perceptible increase in CO2 following major eruptions.
The increase is consistent with the quantities of fossil fuels and forest known to be burnt by humans. About two cubic miles of solid coal last year to start with.
Modelling is a core tool of science and engineering. For example most of the crash testing of vehicles is performed in computer models now.
Where else do you think the rise in CO2 comes from? The facts are unequivocal. The naysayers have no alternative explanation yet insist that it could be something other than human activity.
It isn't coming out of the ocean because the concentration there is measured as increasing. This is consistent with the models which show that about half of what is released is being dissolved into the ocean and increasing its acidity.
It isn't coming out of volcanos. There is no perceptible increase in CO2 following major eruptions.
The increase is consistent with the quantities of fossil fuels and forest known to be burnt by humans. About two cubic miles of solid coal last year to start with.
One thing that is clear is the problem grows larger every day and the chances of solving it are decreased the longer we wait. Most people simply understand there is no practical way to retrieve the CO2 that has been released
To be honest I believe that other problems will hit long before the worst of Global Warming. Humans are extracting over 200 cubic kilometres of groundwater per year. When that becomes no longer sustainable there will be major upheaval.
However Global warming will bring it on sooner. Lost glaciers will deprive vast populations of their reliable water. Higher temperatures and droughts will turn more land to desert.
To be honest I believe that other problems will hit long before the worst of Global Warming. Humans are extracting over 200 cubic kilometres of groundwater per year. When that becomes no longer sustainable there will be major upheaval.
However Global warming will bring it on sooner. Lost glaciers will deprive vast populations of their reliable water. Higher temperatures and droughts will turn more land to desert.
I think the problem isn't with the models but using them to try and predict any further into the future than a few months ahead. When will experts realise they are not demi-gods and can't actually do this whatever the power of processing and amounts of data they put in.
When did this start, the 90s? And how close have the first 20 years or so been to the predictions? I'm not sure but the little I know says not very. As for decades ahead they really must (and quite correctly so) think the majority of people are stupid, as attempting the impossible will always be, well, impossible, however clever the magicians appear to be they are human beings and not able to perform magic.
Just for late comers the climate spawned the term 'chaos theory' for the very good reason it is chaotic. Attempting to apply methods used in closed systems like astronomy for the open, non-linear and complex in the climate is a waste of the money and arrogance beyond belief.
"Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050
are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projections
would require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty and
enhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}"
"Uncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertainty
in the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisation
scenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertainty
in the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particular
stabilisation level."
These are not from skeptical websites, but the 2007 IPCC report. Think about it.
When did this start, the 90s? And how close have the first 20 years or so been to the predictions? I'm not sure but the little I know says not very. As for decades ahead they really must (and quite correctly so) think the majority of people are stupid, as attempting the impossible will always be, well, impossible, however clever the magicians appear to be they are human beings and not able to perform magic.
Just for late comers the climate spawned the term 'chaos theory' for the very good reason it is chaotic. Attempting to apply methods used in closed systems like astronomy for the open, non-linear and complex in the climate is a waste of the money and arrogance beyond belief.
"Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050
are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projections
would require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty and
enhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}"
"Uncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertainty
in the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisation
scenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertainty
in the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particular
stabilisation level."
These are not from skeptical websites, but the 2007 IPCC report. Think about it.
beso, you clearly know science but as all specialists aren't familiar with economics. All this activist tripe over and over again about funding by big oil. I've already mentioned my fields of expertise (I also studied sociology for a while) and if you're not able to see the big picture how something fits in overall then you are fighting against titans as an ant. If you think your babyish and simplistic quote is true because some activist leaders told you, and it looks right, you just sum up how this has got so far and so easily.
I will explain the slightly more complex than linear, but still very simple to understand, explanation of energy companies from a new article I have written. Just note that energy companies make profits from energy. They don't care if it's black, green or fluorescent if it sells.
"So called 'big oil' is nothing of the sort. BP, Shell and most others are in fact considered as 'energy companies'. They do not and need not stick to fossil fuel, far from it. They are into all energy whichever could make them a profit. So no wonder both named have large 'green energy' departments, advertising their
'carbon neutrality' (more newspeak using psychological repetition of catchphrases which are essentially meaningless) and receiving huge government subsidies to build wind turbines and the like. In fact, when the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit, the heroes of Climategate and main providers to the IPCC, were set up, thanks went out to all their backers, including half the well known energy companies. Now why would do that if they fund skeptical PR? That is a double bluff, based on the economics demonstrated here, which must come from the warm side of the PR as energy companies do not dislike climate change one bit, it raises the value of their assets vastly and allows them to operate with taxpayer subsidies, a win-win situation."
A scientist may be able to follow science better than anyone else, but doesn't make them a man of the world, sorry. Having a PhD doesn't stop anyone from being naive and innocent.
I will explain the slightly more complex than linear, but still very simple to understand, explanation of energy companies from a new article I have written. Just note that energy companies make profits from energy. They don't care if it's black, green or fluorescent if it sells.
"So called 'big oil' is nothing of the sort. BP, Shell and most others are in fact considered as 'energy companies'. They do not and need not stick to fossil fuel, far from it. They are into all energy whichever could make them a profit. So no wonder both named have large 'green energy' departments, advertising their
'carbon neutrality' (more newspeak using psychological repetition of catchphrases which are essentially meaningless) and receiving huge government subsidies to build wind turbines and the like. In fact, when the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit, the heroes of Climategate and main providers to the IPCC, were set up, thanks went out to all their backers, including half the well known energy companies. Now why would do that if they fund skeptical PR? That is a double bluff, based on the economics demonstrated here, which must come from the warm side of the PR as energy companies do not dislike climate change one bit, it raises the value of their assets vastly and allows them to operate with taxpayer subsidies, a win-win situation."
A scientist may be able to follow science better than anyone else, but doesn't make them a man of the world, sorry. Having a PhD doesn't stop anyone from being naive and innocent.
Afternoon punters, see the arguments still continue so I want to put a question to you all, especially those who hold such undeniable fixations with one scientific argument or other, especially this global warming arguement. For nearly 30 years I've immersed my life in science and the study of physics of our environment and our atmosphere, because meteorology and by extension climatology are purely the physics of our atmosphere and it's results.
Today the high energy physics bods at CERN have EXACTLY recreated a set of results which undermine one of the fundamental tenets of physics. The speed of light is now open to debate as is every single piece of work in physics that have been established since Uncle Bert published his theory extending the work of Max Planck and Albert Bucherer and Isaac Newton, that's how fundamental the Theories of Special and General Relativity are. We are at a massive junction point in the history of science, in fact in physics terms this is about as important as the day the cavemen realised that round things made moving stuff easier.
AGW and climatology and meteorology are mere chaff in the wind just now because of a single experiment. In an office where the least qualified person has a double first in pure physics & maths and we had three PhD in yesterday we are struggling to imagine where this will take us.....so here's my question to you.
If a theory built on the known properties of physics is then undermined by questions over the basic properties we've held sacred what grounds do we have to believe these theories, not just AGW not just climate change but everything. I'll look forward to your responses....
PS..... I thought that excitement was restricted to Christmas day, winning the lottery, losing your virginity or something crass like that, I have never been so excited about anything in my whole life as I am about where physics is goin to go....it's incredible!
Today the high energy physics bods at CERN have EXACTLY recreated a set of results which undermine one of the fundamental tenets of physics. The speed of light is now open to debate as is every single piece of work in physics that have been established since Uncle Bert published his theory extending the work of Max Planck and Albert Bucherer and Isaac Newton, that's how fundamental the Theories of Special and General Relativity are. We are at a massive junction point in the history of science, in fact in physics terms this is about as important as the day the cavemen realised that round things made moving stuff easier.
AGW and climatology and meteorology are mere chaff in the wind just now because of a single experiment. In an office where the least qualified person has a double first in pure physics & maths and we had three PhD in yesterday we are struggling to imagine where this will take us.....so here's my question to you.
If a theory built on the known properties of physics is then undermined by questions over the basic properties we've held sacred what grounds do we have to believe these theories, not just AGW not just climate change but everything. I'll look forward to your responses....
PS..... I thought that excitement was restricted to Christmas day, winning the lottery, losing your virginity or something crass like that, I have never been so excited about anything in my whole life as I am about where physics is goin to go....it's incredible!
Having a read back through some of the last posts thought I'd add a wee point.
Ask why we use mathematical modelling to look at these atmospheric processes and why people forever *** off weather forecast producers, Met Office, WNI, AMI, Noaa, DNMI etc etc etc. We use deterministic mathematical modelling all the time but we still can't gain 100% accuracy. There is big movement in using Probabilistic Forecatsing techniques, take 51 uniquely different models start them at the same point and see what results they produce, create a forecast based on the statistical means and medians of the results. None of them are 100% accurate yet we use continue to use them.
Thing is that some of the best scientists and mathematicians on the planet work tirelessly to develop and refine the meteorological models but as they develop the incremental improvements become less and less. It is almost impossible to model everything whether on a mesoscale or a global scale, we try!
Small scale models are difficult to control and difficult to analyse accurately therefore mistakes are made with the simplest forecast. You cannot forecast specific conditions to great accuracy in the short term therefore what confidence can you put on global scale models that you are using to too look far into the past and far into the future. We cannot yet model meteoroloy correctly why should climatology be any different.
THe IPCC reports and everything else that is labelled "scenario and Model dependant" is simply because they cannot be accurate enough use them for prediction purposes, it's a caveat that everyone uses because they are simply inaccurate. Do you want to base the rest of history on something that inaccurate??
Ask why we use mathematical modelling to look at these atmospheric processes and why people forever *** off weather forecast producers, Met Office, WNI, AMI, Noaa, DNMI etc etc etc. We use deterministic mathematical modelling all the time but we still can't gain 100% accuracy. There is big movement in using Probabilistic Forecatsing techniques, take 51 uniquely different models start them at the same point and see what results they produce, create a forecast based on the statistical means and medians of the results. None of them are 100% accurate yet we use continue to use them.
Thing is that some of the best scientists and mathematicians on the planet work tirelessly to develop and refine the meteorological models but as they develop the incremental improvements become less and less. It is almost impossible to model everything whether on a mesoscale or a global scale, we try!
Small scale models are difficult to control and difficult to analyse accurately therefore mistakes are made with the simplest forecast. You cannot forecast specific conditions to great accuracy in the short term therefore what confidence can you put on global scale models that you are using to too look far into the past and far into the future. We cannot yet model meteoroloy correctly why should climatology be any different.
THe IPCC reports and everything else that is labelled "scenario and Model dependant" is simply because they cannot be accurate enough use them for prediction purposes, it's a caveat that everyone uses because they are simply inaccurate. Do you want to base the rest of history on something that inaccurate??
You obviously don't understand non-linear dynamics - ir chaos theory by its popular name
Weather and climate are non-deterministic systems - you can never predict them 100%
You can however speak of ever increasing probabilities.
When I was young Weather forecasts were taken with a pinch of salt - not they are generally pretty accurate for days in advance.
But the precise effects of global warming are uncertain - we don't know the exact effects.
We don't know the degree of sea level rise or desertification
That doesn't mean that we should wait until we can see how bad it's going to be until we act - there is such a lag in climate it'll be too late.
the next 30-50 years change may be too late already what we do now will probably effect after that
Weather and climate are non-deterministic systems - you can never predict them 100%
You can however speak of ever increasing probabilities.
When I was young Weather forecasts were taken with a pinch of salt - not they are generally pretty accurate for days in advance.
But the precise effects of global warming are uncertain - we don't know the exact effects.
We don't know the degree of sea level rise or desertification
That doesn't mean that we should wait until we can see how bad it's going to be until we act - there is such a lag in climate it'll be too late.
the next 30-50 years change may be too late already what we do now will probably effect after that
This contempt for the real and present is verging on a mental illness. We know what is here now, what is likely and what is possible, up to a point. Having waded through the IPCC 2007 report the long list of absolutely nothing they predict, both benefits and problems, with the conclusion being 'all this is possible but we really can't be sure' would just be worthy as a primary school project which could have easily come to the same conclusion given the basic data.
We are fully able to quantify the amount it has cost us so far in money spent, almost able to measure the world temperatures but not quite, plus present sea and up to a point (it is variable and the thickness is not easy to quantify) the ice. It's pretty clear to those not qualified but motivated that besides the rampant CO2 (dependent I have heard on a single measurement at Mauna Loa but may be wrong) and ice cores before they did it directly, which degrade when opened (I have an MSc in physics helping me now so don't make so many howlers if I check in first), but the perceived effects (as how would we have ever known what would have happened otherwise?) are not significant. Phil Jones said only 100 year trends were meaningful, and the whole time the IPCC remind the media not to exaggerate possible futures as there are so many uncertainties, in print on every single report, yet it is ignored wholesale.
If you are like the religious catastrophists living for tomorrow, whether for the rapture or preparing for life after death, then don't bother talking to me or any normal people who deal with the problems right here right now, and people dying in the third world with biofuels replacing their food crops, no clean water as the money was diverted to solar power, or malaria as the money spent on the climate could have drained the swamps across the tropics (check a charity site to see the amount it would cost).
So when beso tells me I don't care either it's the same as Al Gore's lot calling me a baby killer or a sign of mental illness. Neither is a good thing and neither is right. It's because I care about people here now so much (including my retired parents whose heating bills are a record high this year and their earnings a record low) who at least can afford to pay them, while 3000 alone in Britain died last year as they couldn't. I am sympathetic to victims and as I see anyone focusing on the distant future as victims of propaganda take all their personal insults in context. It's a shame that respect did not come in both directions, but then again, I'm the sober one here.
We are fully able to quantify the amount it has cost us so far in money spent, almost able to measure the world temperatures but not quite, plus present sea and up to a point (it is variable and the thickness is not easy to quantify) the ice. It's pretty clear to those not qualified but motivated that besides the rampant CO2 (dependent I have heard on a single measurement at Mauna Loa but may be wrong) and ice cores before they did it directly, which degrade when opened (I have an MSc in physics helping me now so don't make so many howlers if I check in first), but the perceived effects (as how would we have ever known what would have happened otherwise?) are not significant. Phil Jones said only 100 year trends were meaningful, and the whole time the IPCC remind the media not to exaggerate possible futures as there are so many uncertainties, in print on every single report, yet it is ignored wholesale.
If you are like the religious catastrophists living for tomorrow, whether for the rapture or preparing for life after death, then don't bother talking to me or any normal people who deal with the problems right here right now, and people dying in the third world with biofuels replacing their food crops, no clean water as the money was diverted to solar power, or malaria as the money spent on the climate could have drained the swamps across the tropics (check a charity site to see the amount it would cost).
So when beso tells me I don't care either it's the same as Al Gore's lot calling me a baby killer or a sign of mental illness. Neither is a good thing and neither is right. It's because I care about people here now so much (including my retired parents whose heating bills are a record high this year and their earnings a record low) who at least can afford to pay them, while 3000 alone in Britain died last year as they couldn't. I am sympathetic to victims and as I see anyone focusing on the distant future as victims of propaganda take all their personal insults in context. It's a shame that respect did not come in both directions, but then again, I'm the sober one here.
And the new IPCC report is out as soon as I leave. More actual details on specifics, or lack of, depending how you view it:
"There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities."
"There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems."
and again their past caveat which pretty well gets them out of any committal
"Many extreme weather and climate events continue to be the result of natural climate variability."
Please remember the final paragraph, all our futures depend on it.
"There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities."
"There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems."
and again their past caveat which pretty well gets them out of any committal
"Many extreme weather and climate events continue to be the result of natural climate variability."
Please remember the final paragraph, all our futures depend on it.
@ Jake-the-Peg; Jake I'm fully aware of Chaos theory where it directly impacts on my job, what I was aiming at is the results that the layperson expects and the theories that they grab hold of and run with as if their life depends on it.
People EXPECT weather forecasts to be right and in turn people expect the predictions of Global Warming to be correct because they have had ONE theory rammed down their throats by politicians. I've seen research on the perceptions people have on forecasts and on AGW, the expectation is incredible but I'd love someone to find out the proportion of people who understand the basis of the science behind these expectations.
I have my views from what I'd consider a fairly knowledgeable position and until I read something that challenges them enough to get me digging again I'll hold my thoughts. Now I've just gone on leave, I don't want to think about either meteorology or climatology for the next 10 days!!
People EXPECT weather forecasts to be right and in turn people expect the predictions of Global Warming to be correct because they have had ONE theory rammed down their throats by politicians. I've seen research on the perceptions people have on forecasts and on AGW, the expectation is incredible but I'd love someone to find out the proportion of people who understand the basis of the science behind these expectations.
I have my views from what I'd consider a fairly knowledgeable position and until I read something that challenges them enough to get me digging again I'll hold my thoughts. Now I've just gone on leave, I don't want to think about either meteorology or climatology for the next 10 days!!
David H //beso, you clearly know science but as all specialists aren't familiar with economics. //
The discussion has been about the evidence for Climate Change. There has been nothing that you could possible use to conclude that I have no idea about Economics. We could start another discussion about that if you care to.
However I have clearly shown that you have no idea about the science. Yet you have simply gone back to your denailist repetition.
The discussion has been about the evidence for Climate Change. There has been nothing that you could possible use to conclude that I have no idea about Economics. We could start another discussion about that if you care to.
However I have clearly shown that you have no idea about the science. Yet you have simply gone back to your denailist repetition.
David H //heating bills are a record high this year //
Yes, but if you check the real causes you will see it is very little to do with any cost of Green Energy. It is just convenient for some to blame it so they can pretend renewable energy is an economic disaster.
We have an aging electricity distribution system designed for times when electrical loads were relatively small. Upgrades are required to support modern loads and are very expensive.
Solar energy is actualy quite popular with electricity utilities in Australia because it is well matched to air conditioning loads and avoids the costs to them of uprading the distribution network. Solar actually makes economic sense.
Utilities here have just started their annual summer program of asking people to sae power because the network is not up to it.
Yes, but if you check the real causes you will see it is very little to do with any cost of Green Energy. It is just convenient for some to blame it so they can pretend renewable energy is an economic disaster.
We have an aging electricity distribution system designed for times when electrical loads were relatively small. Upgrades are required to support modern loads and are very expensive.
Solar energy is actualy quite popular with electricity utilities in Australia because it is well matched to air conditioning loads and avoids the costs to them of uprading the distribution network. Solar actually makes economic sense.
Utilities here have just started their annual summer program of asking people to sae power because the network is not up to it.
If David has a BSC he clearly didn't take much notice in lessons. Anyone with a clue about using mathematics with science would not accept matching a sine curve to sea level rises on the basis of less than half a cycle.
But how David tells us that sea level measurements aren't reliable anyway. They were important last week when he was excitedly presenting evidence telling us the level was dropping.
But how David tells us that sea level measurements aren't reliable anyway. They were important last week when he was excitedly presenting evidence telling us the level was dropping.
Beso, in the UK Green Taxes are a HUGE portion of the problem in heating bills. Take Petrol, we pay around 133p per litre, of that 58p is pure fuel duty (a tax) plus 20p per litre in VAT, many of our power generating stations are oil fired and all pay high levels of tax on the fuels they use. There is a thing called the fuel escalator that the labour government used to increase the duty on fuel beyond the inflation rates.
Green Taxes are the reason many governments are willing to invest in IPCC to the extent they do, it back up their options to use Global Warming as an excuse for taxing people, that is FACT!
Green Taxes are the reason many governments are willing to invest in IPCC to the extent they do, it back up their options to use Global Warming as an excuse for taxing people, that is FACT!
-- answer removed --
Beso, I can demonstrate why I concluded your knowledge on economics has a gaping hole in it, right to the original quote pages ago when you blamed alternative data on the 'combustion industry'.
Once you opened that door I had no option to walk through it, as it indicated a political agenda and as you quite rightly say, irrelevant to the science. If you can't get one simple point correct then unfortunately you are not what I would consider a reliable source as it means you don't think for yourself but follow the crowd or whoever is your leader. And I don't have a BSc, I was asked that and said what I have already. But my legal training tells me that every single person with reliable evidence, but only from a full hearing of both sides, is qualified to make a decision, on the defendant's whole future, and originally life.
The law does not give such power lightly- scientists bang on about peer review- where did they get that from? Law. They created the system for fairness based on the rule everyone can judge the experts given all the evidence. I have done that and found myself (as I'm also the defendant here, as every single man and woman on this planet is) not guilty, as there are far more than reasonable doubts required for innocence.
Secondly your abysmal desecration of other scientist's reputations here is close to libellous. James Hansen is one of the greatest proponents of AGW and just this week was exposed as being paid to do so. That is an ad hominem attack which is genuine as I knew the evidence existed before I said he's being paid to say it, and guess what, he's an astronomer. Not a climatologist. Hardly anyone is, you don't study it much at college, you can study meteorology, astrophysics, astronomy, particle physics etc, but I doubt many of the current team who qualified long before AGW was on the agenda are actually climatologists originally, but have just done the same as all the others you dismissed blithely, because their equal knowledge tells them it is not right.
Once you learn to find balance where there are two sides, and start trusting those who do not agree with you, and read what people have said, we may actually be able to have a discussion and not an argument.
Once you opened that door I had no option to walk through it, as it indicated a political agenda and as you quite rightly say, irrelevant to the science. If you can't get one simple point correct then unfortunately you are not what I would consider a reliable source as it means you don't think for yourself but follow the crowd or whoever is your leader. And I don't have a BSc, I was asked that and said what I have already. But my legal training tells me that every single person with reliable evidence, but only from a full hearing of both sides, is qualified to make a decision, on the defendant's whole future, and originally life.
The law does not give such power lightly- scientists bang on about peer review- where did they get that from? Law. They created the system for fairness based on the rule everyone can judge the experts given all the evidence. I have done that and found myself (as I'm also the defendant here, as every single man and woman on this planet is) not guilty, as there are far more than reasonable doubts required for innocence.
Secondly your abysmal desecration of other scientist's reputations here is close to libellous. James Hansen is one of the greatest proponents of AGW and just this week was exposed as being paid to do so. That is an ad hominem attack which is genuine as I knew the evidence existed before I said he's being paid to say it, and guess what, he's an astronomer. Not a climatologist. Hardly anyone is, you don't study it much at college, you can study meteorology, astrophysics, astronomy, particle physics etc, but I doubt many of the current team who qualified long before AGW was on the agenda are actually climatologists originally, but have just done the same as all the others you dismissed blithely, because their equal knowledge tells them it is not right.
Once you learn to find balance where there are two sides, and start trusting those who do not agree with you, and read what people have said, we may actually be able to have a discussion and not an argument.
Slapshot // in the UK Green Taxes are a HUGE portion of the problem in heating bills. Take Petrol, we pay around 133p per litre, of that 58p is pure fuel duty (a tax) plus 20p per litre in VAT //
Oh and that is all for Green Power is it? Tobacco and Alcohol Excises too then I guess.
Your claim is ridiculous. Firstly VAT is a broad based consumption tax destined for general revenue.
Secondly the excise on fuel was around long before any thought of Green Power. Fuel excises are applied by many countries as a normal part of economic management. It is very similar in effect to a tarrif.
Without that excise the low cost of fuel would cause a huge increase in demand which would push up the well head prices. The result would be a lot more of what you pay ending up leaving the country.
Furthermore the lost tax revenue would need to be made up elsewhere pushing up prices of other goods.
In places where the cost of fuel is very low such as the USA, much of the stuff is squandered. For example by driving huge vehicles such as the Hummer around in suburbia.
Ultimately it leads to desperate measures to get oil such as the current proposal to pipe bitumen from Canada to refineries in Louisiana
Claiming that energy prices are rising due to Green Power is a myth. It is inevitable that fossil fuel energy prices will continue to rise as more difficult reserves are tapped. That is the cause of the price rises in liquid fuels.
Renewables such as solar will only get cheaper because the fuel itself is free. Economies of scale available through increased demand and progress in the technologies have already brought down the price of solar to a tiny fraction of what it had been.
Oh and that is all for Green Power is it? Tobacco and Alcohol Excises too then I guess.
Your claim is ridiculous. Firstly VAT is a broad based consumption tax destined for general revenue.
Secondly the excise on fuel was around long before any thought of Green Power. Fuel excises are applied by many countries as a normal part of economic management. It is very similar in effect to a tarrif.
Without that excise the low cost of fuel would cause a huge increase in demand which would push up the well head prices. The result would be a lot more of what you pay ending up leaving the country.
Furthermore the lost tax revenue would need to be made up elsewhere pushing up prices of other goods.
In places where the cost of fuel is very low such as the USA, much of the stuff is squandered. For example by driving huge vehicles such as the Hummer around in suburbia.
Ultimately it leads to desperate measures to get oil such as the current proposal to pipe bitumen from Canada to refineries in Louisiana
Claiming that energy prices are rising due to Green Power is a myth. It is inevitable that fossil fuel energy prices will continue to rise as more difficult reserves are tapped. That is the cause of the price rises in liquid fuels.
Renewables such as solar will only get cheaper because the fuel itself is free. Economies of scale available through increased demand and progress in the technologies have already brought down the price of solar to a tiny fraction of what it had been.
Latest Posts
Anti -Vaxxer Named Health Secretary
News1 min ago
Is Biden Trying Wreck The Shop Before He...
News13 mins ago
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News16 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News22 mins ago
