Climate Change - taxation on flights

[Sweltered]

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.

Going for the record of posts in a row here. China has more stringent pollution laws than the US actually.

[Dunc]

I think its a case of "pick you're Champion".I tend to lean towards the one below especially the latter pages which seem to make logic if and indeed any logic can be applied to the claims and counterclaims.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

If any outrages claims are made it will be those which the media pays crediance to and will dismiss all others .

If they are in the Sunday Post they must be true thou......

Dunc

[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. .

Still wrong, the carbon footprint is not just about vehicle emissions

Of course it's not -however vehicle omissions are part of the equation. If as you state" poor people pollute more than the rich" then it only serves to add to my point that the world can't afford poverty.At least in the environmental debate you allude to this fact - so on this alone, regardless of your own slim view of Morality- you will concede that poverty is manifestation of something that isn't self inflicted. Nobody enjoys being poor.

[Sweltered]

Of course it's not -however vehicle omissions are part of the equation. If as you state" poor people pollute more than the rich" then it only serves to add to my point that the world can't afford poverty.At least in the environmental debate you allude to this fact - so on this alone, regardless of your own slim view of Morality- you will concede that poverty is manifestation of something that isn't self inflicted. Nobody enjoys being poor.

Bit of a broad brush there, poverty in Senegal or Angola does not have the same root as the poverty in Naples or Catlemilk. My coments were aimed at the "poor" in western society, who in the grand scheme (pardon the pun) of things don't actually make much of an impression on carbon emmissions collectively. My point was on a one to one basis the poorer person has a bigger carbon footprint than the average 4x4 driver, that was before you hijacked this topic for another "woe is me, help the poor, it's all someone else's fault" rant. So in essence, the world CAN afford the "poverty" I was alluding to.


Actually many many Buddhists choose poverty and deprivation, they may not enjoy it, but it's an ends to a means. Plus of course their carbon footprint is minimal.

[Auld Pop]

Thur is naw enuff folks in the wurld prepair'd tae change thur wae's so wur doomed, an awe this talk ist naw ganni mak 1 iota aff ah diffrence whit so iffer.

[big tony]

sorry, i didn't realise that this thread would actually solve this problem, the only benefit it has is thefact its not using any paper.

all that you can do is your own bit and hope others will follow by example.

so i won't be flying anywhere this year, or next and probably not the next either, how much have i saved?

can't do much more, i already walk to tesco and carry my own bag!!!

[Tom B]

I think its a case of "pick you're Champion".I tend to lean towards the one below especially the latter pages which seem to make logic if and indeed any logic can be applied to the claims and counterclaims.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

If any outrages claims are made it will be those which the media pays crediance to and will dismiss all others .

If they are in the Sunday Post they must be true thou......

Dunc

I think it is dangerous to promote the argument that the scientific community is evenly split on this ("pick your Champion"), thereby discouraging/delaying people from feeling the need to act.

While this paper may well be well constructed/researched (and I have no way of knowing whether the content of it is more or less accurate than any other), the balance of scientific opinion does not agree with the conclusions of this paper - and instead points towards the conclusion that climate change is real, man has contributed towards it, and that it will result in a rise of between 1.4 - 5.8 C by the end of 2100. Even if you were to assume that this is only believed by 50% of scientists (rather than the much higher actual percentage), and even if you were to assume that there is an equal chance of the rise falling anywhere across that range, and even if you accept that the actual outcome of such a change is unknown - why would we ever take the risk of doing nothing, in the face of the unknown consequences of a potential 5.8 degree rise?

A look through this article though identifies a number of points which to my laymans eye would appear to devalue the conclusions of the papers author;

1. The author refers to carbon dioxide emissions as ""innocuous" - I have never read or heard of CO2 emissions being described in such a cavalier manner;

2. The paper disputes that "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS INCREASED OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES" (Fallacy Four) - why then are the glaciers melting? this would seem to suggest that something unusual and not understood is happening?; and

3. The paper ends with the conclusion that "Warming, from whatever cause, is more likely to produce economic benefits than economic losses." - I cannot see support for this conclusion, it just seems to be thrown in at the end.

These are just three elements of the paper which I've highlighted, and I don't have the knowledge to argue them to any extent, other than to say they didn't sound quite right to me.

Clearly it is vitally important for scientific claims and conclusions to be challenged by others in the scientific community - but from I have read, I believe that this process is continually gone through by scientists.

I think in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and aligned to overwhelming scientfic opinion, we have to accept that climate change is real, that man has contributed to it, and that if nothing is done the earth will become a very different and inhospitable place for many of the 6 billion people who share it.

I think its time to act.

[Tom B]

Whether you agree with the need to reduce flying or not, I don't think anyone will change their behaviours based on the extra £5 on the cost of a flight, announced by Gordon Brown today. Whether this money goes on green initiatives or not is irrelevant, we are not short of cash, but are short of will and spine

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6211176.stm

If, as is likley he's going to be our next prime minister, and he thinks that this gesture is going to make any difference as to whether people choose to fly or not, then I seriously question his judgement, and/or the advice he is receiving.

This, is in the week that Trident and PFI were re-endorsed as good ideas.

Help.

[bill]

That's the A.P.D. doubled as from today.Bloody good job I went to Tenerife last week

[big tony]

how big will sweltered's carbon footprint be next month?

i think we have a right to know!!!

i'm reducing mine by switching off lights and not leaving the tv on standby, granted its never switched off and i'd need to cut off the electricity supply to southend and carradale to offset my smoking, but since they've only just got it, they won't miss it!!

[4th gen Suthen']

Dont think this was quite the place I was looking to post this in but I can't find Tom B's Tipping Point thread.

Anyway, I have just finished reading Tim Flanerry's The Weather Makers and

We need to change things "toot sweet" or we are in big big trouble......things can be improved if we have the will but it looks to me the governments of most countries in the world just dont want to think too much about it and burying their heads in the sand.

A rising sea level is only one of the many disasters that could/will befall us.
Dont think I will be buying a house on Shore St, North or South.....or any shares in Woolworths or the Aqualibrium either!....and Argyll FM...that building will be flooded as well.........hoot then?!

Likely some other expert can come up with a theory that global warming is a myth and even if it is true is not caused by CO2 emmisions but Tim sounds pretty convincing to me

[4th gen Suthen']

Think I left my brain out in the tractor with Tom Russell ..what a load of nonsense I just wrote!

[Sweltered]

Out of interest 4th Gen, what have you read with the opposing viewpoint?

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Think I left my brain out in the tractor with Tom Russell ..what a load of nonsense I just wrote!

Why do you think it is nonsense? I'm not familiar with him or the book.

I was thinking about global warming and wondering why, if the glaciers melt, that would even affect the water level. When ice cubes melt, the water doesn't rise, it stays exactly the same. But apparently it isn't the glaciers melting that is so much the problem on its own, but all the ice on the land behind the glaciers that will melt into the sea that will cause it to rise. Interesting.

[4th gen Suthen']

I have not read any opposing view point......just clearing the way for someone to tell me I am all wrong. I think Tim Flannery is RIGHT

I was just referring to my tired, end of a long day, use of words Bobbie.....poor!