Climate Change - taxation on flights

[ionnsaigh]

I suppose at the end of the day global variations in temperature are nothing new. We have had Ice ages etc etc times when the Earth has warmed up long before the Industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuel- admittedly the amount of carbons we spit out doesn't help the current level of hysteria. On a personal level working class people have less to pollute than the Middle or Higher classes.

[Dunc]

Tend to think this is being "sexed" up by media a bit and the so called experts they call in..
The expert with the most outrageous version seems to get the attention.
Remember how "sexed" up we were with WMD from so called experts and was it not the same experts telling us a few months ago last winter was going to be the coldest on record??
Also we were all supposed to be dying of either Hong Kong Asian or some flu or other in last few years now "experts" tell us the flu jab is ineffective..
There's a lot of money be be earned by wearing a "green" hat nowadays.
What we do is like far$ing in a thunderstorm..ain't gonna make much difference to the general tone of things.

Dunc.(all heating on full butt)

[EMDEE]

What if it's right, and the sceptics are wrong?

We have never had such an influx of carbon into the environment before.

There are serious scientists involved here. Not stereotypical beardy-weirdy tree huggers.

[ionnsaigh]

What if it's right, and the sceptics are wrong?

We have never had such an influx of carbon into the environment before.

There are serious scientists involved here. Not stereotypical beardy-weirdy tree huggers.

Your correct, we have never had such an increase in carbon before- however what we have had before is massive changes in temperature, in saying that how much carbon would a world wide forest fire produce? who knows it is difficult at times to disseminate scientific fact from media spectacular-ism. I hold that science is the greatest living example of the evolution of our intellect, and we would be mistaken not to take some heed- a poor man on a bike leaves less of a carbon footprint than a rich Women in a 4x4. .

[Beachcomber]

a poor man on a bike leaves less of a carbon footprint than a rich Women in a 4x4.

Pretty much typifies the anti-4x4 argument, doesn't it? Very black or white. It's a 4x4 so it must be polluting.

[ionnsaigh]

a poor man on a bike leaves less of a carbon footprint than a rich Women in a 4x4.

Pretty much typifies the anti-4x4 argument, doesn't it? Very black or white. It's a 4x4 so it must be polluting.

Well less pollution than the average bike.

[ionnsaigh]

More

[Malky]

Tend to think this is being "sexed" up by media a bit and the so called experts they call in..

Here's an article from a climate change expert agreeing with you Dunc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

Malky

[Dunc]

Don't think he knows me thou......
I tend to worry more about the 6 Arab counties wanting Nuclear stuff.Wonder what thats for..to lower their carbon footprints and ours so we dont need their oil..aye right.Think my banana boat is due tonight from the Clyde!!!

Dunc

[ionnsaigh]

Don't think he knows me thou......
I tend to worry more about the 6 Arab counties wanting Nuclear stuff.Wonder what thats for..to lower their carbon footprints and ours so we dont need their oil..aye right.Think my banana boat is due tonight from the Clyde!!!

Dunc

I thougt Scotland has it's own oil

[Bobbie En Tejas]

a poor man on a bike leaves less of a carbon footprint than a rich Women in a 4x4.

Pretty much typifies the anti-4x4 argument, doesn't it? Very black or white. It's a 4x4 so it must be polluting.

Well less pollution than the average bike.

No, apparently only polluting if a woman is driving. Oh, excuse me.. a RICH woman

[Tom B]

Tend to think this is being "sexed" up by media a bit and the so called experts they call in..

Here's an article from a climate change expert agreeing with you Dunc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

Malky

He is saying its "sexed up" but he is also saying that IPCC say the temperature will rise by between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees by the end of the century. He is saying there is no scientific basis for quantifying the description of the effect of that level of climate change as 'catastrophic' - he says it is in effect a personal assessment - and objects to the science being hijacked by alarmists using the words "catastrophic."

But he is saying its real, and something needs to be done.

The comparison to WMD is poor though - the report (that Iraq had WMD) was one that couldn't be corroborated or disproved by independent people. You had to be inside Iraq to compile that report. The sexing up in that case was misleading because nobody outside the authors could know otherwise. What we are saying here is that many independent people have corroborated the fact that climate change is real, and that it is caused by man. I don't think any scientists are denying that?

It is good that the scientists are dispassionate about what they are doing, and not getting emotionally involved. But it is equally good that others are out there shouting about it, and trying to make a change. The biggest change required, based on the evidence, is changing the behaviours of, in particular China, US etc. But it all counts.

I hope that it is all wrong, but that's not what the evidence says. It points to up to a 5.8% rise this century. (what about next century, another 5 degree rise?)

I think that's worth doing something about.

[Sweltered]

I suppose at the end of the day global variations in temperature are nothing new. We have had Ice ages etc etc times when the Earth has warmed up long before the Industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuel- admittedly the amount of carbons we spit out doesn't help the current level of hysteria. On a personal level working class people have less to pollute than the Middle or Higher classes.

Wrong, working class people still have cars, eat more fast food, and are more likely to smoke. They actually pollute more, I'm guessing a cashmere sweater will degrade a helluva lot quicker than a shellsuit.

[Sweltered]

What if it's right, and the sceptics are wrong?

We have never had such an influx of carbon into the environment before.

There are serious scientists involved here. Not stereotypical beardy-weirdy tree huggers.

Your correct, we have never had such an increase in carbon before- however what we have had before is massive changes in temperature, in saying that how much carbon would a world wide forest fire produce? who knows it is difficult at times to disseminate scientific fact from media spectacular-ism. I hold that science is the greatest living example of the evolution of our intellect, and we would be mistaken not to take some heed- a poor man on a bike leaves less of a carbon footprint than a rich Women in a 4x4. .

Still wrong, the carbon foorprint is not just about vehicle emmissions

[Sweltered]

What if it's right, and the sceptics are wrong?

We have never had such an influx of carbon into the environment before.

There are serious scientists involved here. Not stereotypical beardy-weirdy tree huggers.

Your correct, we have never had such an increase in carbon before- however what we have had before is massive changes in temperature, in saying that how much carbon would a world wide forest fire produce? who knows it is difficult at times to disseminate scientific fact from media spectacular-ism. I hold that science is the greatest living example of the evolution of our intellect, and we would be mistaken not to take some heed- a poor man on a bike leaves less of a carbon footprint than a rich Women in a 4x4. .

So in primeval times, the Volcanoes were belching out what? Sulphur and..... hmmm let me guess carbons? A big volcanic eruption emits more carbons into the atmosphere, than man ever has. For every "Serious:scientist who =espouses global warming, there is another, equalyy qualified, who denounces it.