[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

40 odd yrs ago the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence said that we were set for global cooling. Perhaps they were correct after all.

errrr, they were right, the problem is that now despite the particulte emmissions causing global cooling, CO2 emmissions have counteracted that. Scientist weren't wrong, they just didn't anticipate quite how big a f*** up we were headed for!

couldnt see the laut one, link didnt work for me.

Sorry, i'm on a university network so it must be through our library.

Here's the Royal Society page:
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

See: Misleading argument 6: ’Global warming is all to do with the sun’

just from a quick look at the end of my lunch hour, but some comment on the Benestad & Schmidt paper [url= http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/scafetta-benestad-and-schmidt’s-calculations-are-“robustly”-flawed/ ]here[/url]

I find it amazing that people think that governments taking money off people is a bad thing. They dont' pocket that money you know. They spend it back on us. You do realise that, don't you? If Governments want to take money off us they raise taxes. They don't have to invent a carefully manged global hoax to do that, do they? Think about it.

40 odd yrs ago

Everyone was using wood or coal for fuel and producing loads of smoke. The Clean Air Act hadn't long been in force.

There are some thick tw*ts on this forum aye.

The problem is that the money being collected in the name of green taxes and saving the planet aren't auditable and i would amazed if even 10% was being spent on green causes.

The problem is that the money being collected in the name of green taxes and saving the planet aren't auditable and i would amazed if even 10% was being spent on green causes.

Not auditable? WTF you talking about?

And green taxes aren't solely for the purposes of green spending. Let me spell it out:

Governments take money from us, then spend it back on us. Sometimes they want to discourage certain things, so they tax them more. Sometimes they want to encourage them more, and then they give tax breaks. All the money goes into one big pot, and how it gets spent is about policy. So yes we need to spend money on green causes but also on other stuff. We also need to tax activities in such a way that doesn't harm business we want to encourage.

So tell me again why green tax money shoudl only go on green spending?

Because it is a GREEN tax.

Thats why!!

Why don't they just call it "We'll pull your trousers down and screw you up the wrongun tax instead" If its being collected due to the impact on the environment, i.e. airline tax, then it should be spent on offsetting that impact. Anything else isn't a green tax and shouldn't be labelled so.

If you are happy with being taken for a mug by our government then that is your choice. Not everyone elses.

Anything else isn't a green tax and shouldn't be labelled so.

So why do people complain when "Road Tax" isn't spent on the roads?

Surely it's a classic green tax and should be spent on mass transit, cleaner fuel research etc?

I imagine though that the money spent on UK roads and infrastructure each year is proportional to that collected in road tax. Where as the money raised in the name of "green taxes" isn't proportionally spent on green initiatives.

Actually I believe expenditure on roads massively exceeds the money raised by "Road Tax", but that's a different issue.

The point is that Green Taxes, like road tax, still have other non-green things to pay for (like roads) - they are not [i]exclusively[/i] green tax, but their application does help to alter attitudes and behaviours (e.g. many people will now consider the VED banding when buying a new car).

Grahams/Hainey

There is no such thing as Road Tax. You may be paying Vehicle Excise Duty for your permission to use a motorised vehicle on the road. Sorry to be pedantic but you could look at it as "polluter pays". Perhaps this is how more tax should be levied, though the goverment should then reduce tax in other areas. The idea that money raised in tax should be used in the area that the tax was extracted from is not often done. The goverment is using these taxes to modify our actions, this is not a bad thing but it could lead to accusations that certain things are now only for the wealthy or subsidised.(goverment/business)

There is no such thing as Road Tax. You may be paying Vehicle Excise Duty

Yeah I know - hence the quotes. 🙂
It is a duty that allows you to pollute by a given amount, based on the CO2 output of your engine.

My point is though that if they are doing it to modify our actions, which is fair enough, then they need to do it fairly and start taxing the other main polluters i.e beef production. The problem is that the motorist and airline industry are easy hitters.

Any tax levied in the name of green taxes should be auditable against green initiatives in my opinion otherwise they shouldn't call it green taxes.

Any tax levied in the name of green taxes should be auditable against green initiatives in my opinion otherwise they shouldn't call it green taxes.

So we'll be left with billions to be spent on green initiatives, but no money for non-green thing like healthcare, schools, etc?

If they call it green taxes yes.

If its not being spent on green initiatives then they should call it

"Healthcare tax" and "Education tax"

Or even better, like everything else, just call it "tax".

So what about "Road Tax", where it is a general tax, which most of the public believe is spent on roads, but also has a green effect?

As already stated, the money spent on the roads each year is proportional, or as pointed out above, more than collected from Road Fund License each year. So the money being collected is proportional.

My issue is that i am sure that the money collcted in the name of green tax isn't proportionally spent on green intiatives.

I find it amazing that people think that governments taking money off people is a bad thing. They dont' pocket that money you know. They spend it back on us.

So someone remind me what the whole expenses scandal was about then?

"My issue is that i am sure that the money collcted in the name of green tax isn't proportionally spent on green intiatives. "

it doesn't need to be. So long as it discourages people doing un-environmentally friendly things its doing its job.

it doesn't need to be. So long as it discourages people doing un-environmentally friendly things its doing its job.

Like building an extra runway at Stansted for example. Or giving Jaguar money to build more gas guzzling cars.

My issue is that i am sure that the money collcted in the name of green tax isn't proportionally spent on green intiatives.

But why should it be? Tax money earned from cigarette tax isn't ringfenced for spending on anti-smoking initiatives, but it is still useful for discouraging people from smoking.

Incidentally [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10306.htm ]Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) raised £5.4 billion for the Exchequer in 2007-08.[/url] No idea what the overall budget was for new roads, network maintenance, road safety, public transport, alternative fuel research, etc was but I'm guessing it was considerably more.

So someone remind me what the whole expenses scandal was about then?

As much as I don't like what the MP's were getting on expenses, you'll find the tax that is spent on services to the public makes MP expenses look like chicken feed and more notably nothing more than a storm in a teacup.

It's hardly surprising that after a few mild winters, you eventually get a cold one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

I don't think it says anything about global warming, other than that some people have probably incorrectly tried to hype up a short run of mild winters as evidence of a warming trend - which leads naturally to the counter argument that it must all be nonsense as soon as you get a cold winter. I don't think any scientists hyped GW in this way, but some in the media certainly did.

someone remind me what the whole expenses scandal was about then?

LOL ! Yes - that was it ........ the government had to put up taxes in a devious, cunning, and [i]stealthy[/i] manner, otherwise ...... there wouldn't have been enough money in the coffers for their own personal expenses ! 😀

....... and they cunningly coordinated it all, with the policies of other governments, throughout the world !

Or giving Jaguar money to build more gas guzzling cars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/11/jaguar-secures-funds-without-bailout

Oh FFS, are we back to this one again!

As much as I don't like what the MP's were getting on expenses, you'll find the tax that is spent on services to the public makes MP expenses look like chicken feed and more notably nothing more than a storm in a teacup.

I was interpreting the post literally - the point being that politicians haven't exactly always behaved with the public's interests at heart.

How many politicians are also employed as "consultants" by various businesses? Don't tell me that some juicy private sector contracts haven't been dished out with a nod and a wink.

Billions of pounds of public money has been wasted on various projects which have massively overrun and like it or not we all pay for it.

My point remains, I don't believe this government is doing anything nearly enough to deal with both climate change and peak oil, they've already reneged on several manifesto pledges relating to public transport and if you research "Green Wave Traffic Management" you'll see this government vetoed this strategy because they didn't want to risk losing fuel duty revenue. Brown's administration even admitted as such in 2008.

Doing the right thing? Not a bit.

Yes but cigarette money goes to help out the NHS etc. Its all interlinked and you can proportionally look at money collected against money spent.

Where as man-made global warming is essentially an unproven theory. It would be like saying that we will eventually be hit by a meteorite and as such we need a meteorite tax to help us build underground housing to keep us all alive for years but then spending all that money on bailing out failed banks, MPS duck ponds and extracting oil from the middle east.

Its just wrong.

A few here, like the thread starter are doing nothing more than trying to de-bunk the climate change issue by pointing out the hypocrisy in Government(s) policy, either by claiming that they so love to tax us, or claiming that they are green whilst approving runways(Business comes first).

This is nothing more than a convenient sideshow for these people to steer it away from the main issue.

As already stated, the money spent on the roads each year is proportional, or as pointed out above, more than collected from Road Fund License each year. So the money being collected is proportional.

how is that proportional?

The only tax I cna think of that is proportiona is the TV licence? You pay a certain ammount each year, that ammount x number of households = the BBC's budget + whatever it cost to administer the collection of the licence fee.

If RFL or petrol was a proper green tax ( by your definition proportional to the spend on mitigating the -ve effects and that spend would be sufficient to mitigate those effects entirely) it would be soemthing like 5 years before we ran out of space to plant any new trees (2 years if you green taxed all CO2 emmisions)!

A few here, like the thread starter are doing nothing more than trying to de-bunk the climate change issue by pointing out the hypocrisy in Government(s) policy, either by claiming that they so love to tax us, or claiming that they are green whilst approving runways(Business comes first).

That's fine though - it aids debate

It aids the debate in a way that an argument about wearing a helmet or not aids discussion about the science behind gravity!!

Let's not get started on helmets... or AIDS..

Yes but cigarette money goes to help out the NHS etc. Its all interlinked and you can proportionally look at money collected against money spent.

But it's [u]not[/u] interlinked. Cigarette tax goes in the big pot along with "road tax", green taxes and everything else.

It would be very difficult to look at money raised from smoking versus total money spent on smoking. Some are obvious (like anti-smoking campaigns), some are far less obvious (treatment of asthmatics affected by passive smoking, treatment of COPD, cost of anti-smoking legislation and enforcement).

Maybe, but i can guarantee that the money spent on smoking related issues, i.e. ad campaigns, awareness, NHS costs etc are somewhat proportional to the revenue collected in tax from cigarettes. I also bet that the money spent on green related issues is not proportional to that collected in tax. Also issues due to cigarettes are proven. Issues due to man made global warming are not.

A few here, like the thread starter are doing nothing more than trying to de-bunk the climate change issue by pointing out the hypocrisy in Government(s) policy, either by claiming that they so love to tax us, or claiming that they are green whilst approving runways(Business comes first).

This is nothing more than a convenient sideshow for these people to steer it away from the main issue.

For my own part, I'm not trying to debunk anything. I am extremely critical of the way this government is handling climate change with what amounts comes across as blatant doublethink.

Public money and green taxation is a side issue, however it remains relevant if we want our MPs to prioritise public spending to help mitigate the problem.

Eh?

Maybe, but i can guarantee that the money spent on smoking related issues, i.e. ad campaigns, awareness, NHS costs etc are somewhat proportional to the revenue collected in tax from cigarettes.

Fair enough then, please prove it. You keep saying stuff expecting it to be true. I call your bluff - prove it.

I see no evidence that the money spent on smoking related issues is proportional to the revenue from the taxes from it. It's one big pot that is dipped in as the government feel like.

Unfortunately (and this is my point) the government keeps all the figures under wraps. However i think its pretty obvious to all that the government collects billions a year from cigarette tax a year and spends billions a year on treating smoking related illnesses.

We are experiencing a natural cycle.

The numpty climate deniers start a few spurious threads over the course of a week or two, then they go away again for a bit.

At the moment they're back again, but don't worry the forum will not be completely swallowed up by gibberish..

The idea that there is some organised and growing evidence to refute the science is just a conspiracy theory.

Well it's certainly "proportional" - in that they do spend "a proportion" of what they collect in cigarette tax on anti-smoking stuff. And presumably when smoking tax increases then the budget for anti-smoking also increases by a "proportion".

But I've no idea if it is a big proportion or a small one.

However i think its pretty obvious to all that the government collects billions a year from cigarette tax a year and spends billions a year on treating smoking related illnesses.

Okay, so shall we settle on a "comparable" amount, give or take a billion or six? 🙂

But the point remains that one of the most effective anti-smoking measures is the tax itself. Ask smokers why they want to give up and cost is usually one of the primary reasons.

Likewise it may be more effective to encourage people towards greener options by taxing less-green options, regardless of how that tax money is then spent.

just out interest, does anyone actually give a toss? I couldn't care less! the planet will be fine so no point worrying about saving that, evolution will ensure that any species or habitat that changes will be filled by new ones able to adapt to new selection pressures and humans may suffer a massive population decline or vansish (like all species eventually do)

So what exactly is everyone getting so worked up about?

humans may suffer a massive population decline or vansish (like all species eventually do)

So what exactly is everyone getting so worked up about?

well, presumably to stop those two things happening.

If half the world was suffering from famine and dying we'd try and help. Well, thats kind of whats happening, only its not people in a different location, but rather a different time.

if we do stop climate change (or at least manage it), i'm guessing we'll be the first ever species to actually start thinking about, and solving, problems that go beyond our own lifetime.

I think thats a pretty important step regarding the future of the human race.

or maybe we will all die out, and thats why no-one from the future has invented a time machine and come back to visit us...

Great, so the planet won't actually be destroyed, but mankind may be completely wiped out?

Well that sounds fine then. Can't see why I'd possibly not want that for my children...

just out interest, does anyone actually give a toss?

So what exactly is everyone getting so worked up about?

If it wasn't for the hysterical climate do-gooders I'd happily agree it was all a very plausible theory, but all their "you must be stupid if you don't believe" bleating just makes me disagree on principle.

But really it's pretty obvious climate change is very likely. I just don't give a shit.

but mankind may be completely wiped out?

Well, don't forget, there was a time when dinosaurs thought they would last for ever. Then they all got aids or started smoking or something (bit of a mystery) and they were all wiped out. After all, nothing lasts forever, and humans have had good innings.

Then they all got aids or started smoking or something (bit of a mystery) and they were all wiped out.

Was it the bad aids?

After all, nothing lasts forever, and humans have had good innings.

Fair enough, but I'd rather that it didn't come to an end in my immediate lifetime (or that of my children), and I'd prefer if it wasn't just due to laziness. That's a crap reason for a intelligent, dominate species to be wiped out. We'd be the laughing stock of the Zohg Contingent.

It's the people who don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between climate and weather that get the 'stupid' label really. Oh and the people who read one piece of evidence and then form their entire opinion on that single dot of data on a graph without looking at all the other dots plotted all over it. Usually a dot that's been 'published' by the Mail 🙂

If this thread was an episode of QI the big alarm on the screen would have gone off the moment the first person said, 'Global warming? But it's really cold outside!'

🙂

If half the world was suffering from famine and dying we'd try and help

again why? it just means that the ecosystem can not suppot a large static population whereas a smaller nomadic hunter gathering type popultaion would not put so much pressure on it. I just don't understand any of this concerns people for the short duration that you are on this planet.

civilised society..... you can keep it.... I'm going back to the trees 🙂

It's the people who don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between climate and weather that get the 'stupid' label really.

It's the people who argue with the Climate Change Deniers, who get the stupid label .... as far as I'm concerned.

It's about as pointless as arguing with someone who believes that the world was made in 6 days,
or that the earth is flat.

Clearly [i]logic[/i] is never going to be a concept which they are likely to be able to grasp.
Therefore, all [i]evidence[/i] becomes totally meaningless.

i dont think anyone 'denys' the climate changes since its been doing that for around 4.5 billion years.

Were alot of people are is that they remain sceptical of the AGW position and the whole 'its all our fault, there isnt any other reason for it'

i was skeptical before the leaking of the emails and Harryreadme text, but i remember ever more skeptical that the theory - especially when the whole house of cards relies on the bad science such as published by Micheal Mann et al (the hokey stick graph is a joke)

You suggest the whole theory (house of cards) is built on a single study?

Back to that old 'I see a single dot on a chart and I'll extrapolate that to fit my prejudice' issue again aren't we 🙂

Today's extra homework.. Look up 'Meta-study' and come back when you know what it means 🙂

tazzymtb said

If half the world was suffering from famine and dying we'd try and help

again why? it just means that the ecosystem can not suppot a large static population whereas a smaller nomadic hunter gathering type popultaion would not put so much pressure on it. I just don't understand any of this concerns people for the short duration that you are on this planet.

civilised society..... you can keep it.... I'm going back to the trees

The thing is, I think that deep down you're only able to say this because you know that you're not in the unlucky half.

Also as it happens, by an accident of birth you have been born into one of the countries that is probably most able to mitigate climate change.

Apart from some of the really serious things that people on here have been bleating about for the last few days, like some schools being shut for a few days, we are incredibly fortunate to have been born at possibly the zenith of human prosperity and success.

Maybe the mark of humanity is to be able to recognise that and feel some compassion for those who haven't been so lucky.

But if you never stop and think about things like that then actually (IMHO) your own life will be the poorer for it.

(Sorry to be so serious, but I'm still thinking about the R4 programme I heard about witchcraft and human (child) sacrifice in Uganda that I heard this afternoon.)

Just think yourselves lucky for a change.

feel compassion yes.

wring my hands and carryout some minor activiy with little or no significant impact to a problem to assuage my guilt that somehow somewhere someone may be having a hard time.....No

I honestly believe that the majority of bed wetting do gooders are happy to buy a smaller more "eco" car, recycleblah blah etc..to again make them feel like they are having a postive contribution and gain a sense of moral superiority rather than for any true deepseated convictions.

To those that truly walk the walk with regards to having a zero impact on the envionment in which they exist well done, I truly respect you. BUT it won't be anyone on here as you are all consumers of power and products and therefore part of the problem, regardless of what minor mitigating actions you take.

learn to live with the fact that humans are genetically designed to look after number 1 and offspring and embrace the fact that we are just another animal no matter how we try to dress it up otherwise.

learn to live with the fact that humans are genetically designed to look after number 1 and offspring and embrace the fact that we are just another animal no matter how we try to dress it up otherwise.

Well you certainly provide an excellent example ............ I can't deny that.

learn to live with the fact that humans are genetically designed to look after number 1 and offspring and embrace the fact that we are just another animal no matter how we try to dress it up otherwise.

Sorry you feel that way. I disagree.

Sorry you feel that way

don't be, it's keeps me sane as it's the most brutally honest way to look at life

I didn't say I was sorry for you.

no you said you were sorry for my personal belief which implies pity on your part for the fact that you think I'm an emotional cripple 😉

It might mean something else. But you might not be able to work it out.

care to explain to a dimbo like me then? xx

I might be sorry for those who suffer your scornful attitude.

LMFAO bless you, you darling little sanctimoniuos c**t

Well you did ask.

I'll get back under my bridge now and wait for some goats

cheers for the banter 😀

You suggest the whole theory (house of cards) is built on a single study?

Back to that old 'I see a single dot on a chart and I'll extrapolate that to fit my prejudice' issue again aren't we

nope.

wow Lord you should get that published 🙄
Can I see your good evidence please?
Apparently the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis ]620 authors of IPCC report[/url] missed it the fools If only they had thought to get MTB ers to write about global warming I bet those experts feel really foolish now.

to go with some examples.

the research of [url= http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ]Professor David H. Douglass[/url]

one such example of how the MMCC try to suppress what they view as damaging or skeptical research is this paper: [url= http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf ]here[/url] with its addendum [url= http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/addendum_A%20comparison%20of%20tropical%20temperature%20trends%20with%20model_JOC1651%20s1-ln377204795844769-1939656818Hwf-88582685IdV9487614093772047PDF_HI0001 ]here[/url]

with an explanation of those from the CRU and others trying to discredit any work which questions the MMCC belief [url= http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html ]here[/url]

[url= http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html ]This[/url] is an explanation of the background to the Hockey Stick - and how it is based on flawed maths - and how the attempt to show Mcintyre as getting his sums wrong, subsequently showed him to be correct.
This is important as much of the IPCC 3rd assessment was based on Manns hockey stick graph.

and a follow up to that was the Yamal data - explained [url= http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html ]here[/url]

Which included data from "the most influential tree in the world" YAD061 [url= http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/yad061.html ]Data[/url]

Don't forget recently Russian Climatologists accusing the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey of cherry picking data from the Russian temperature centers - not for lack of data - but because they didn't show any warming.

unprecidented warming?
[img] [/img]

i could go on - theres lots out there to go on.

That's evidence best summed up as 'several studies'.

So... back to that 'meta-study' homework. You do know what I'm referring to right? Could you demonstrate your understanding of the term 'meta-study' to the class please?

Thats more like it, I wondered when the really clever guys with pointy heads and lab coats would be along.This thread has been to easy to follow so far.
Summary;
1)OP suggests recent cold snap may suggest global thingimy is not happening.
2)Flaming from stw users is eq to total output of coal fired power station.
3)Rightplace and tazzy get in a fight (one of the playground ones where nobody gets hurt)
4) Junkyard and Lsummerisle (like the name btw, you BETTER be a Donald) come along with their pocket protectors and their science books.

Carry on chaps

ah, i'm sorry - i wasn't aware i had to post up all of the several decades of research that question the MMCC theory!

Rightplace and tazzy get in a fight (one of the playground ones where nobody gets hurt)

really? I hadn't realisied it came across like that! I must try harder not to take the piss and poke things/people/badgers to see what happens.

Appologies to STW forum massive and to Mr righplacerighttime if I cause any offence.

big kisses xx

You missed step 5

5) Duckman adds utterly pointless post.

Mark, much as I hate to give potential fuel to the sceptics, I dont like meta-analysis as a general rule. Your just taking everyones evidence and error and multiplying them together, they are monumentally difficult to interept. I prefer a balanced approach looking at individual studies and assessing them on their own merit. However I know next to nothing about climate studies, so am not a lot of help in this thread (although at least I know that I dont know much rather than the self proclaimed experts on here).

Rightplace,any more and I will jump in for tazzy.

The problem you have is that no one is denying that climate change exists. The issue is that if you cast doubt on mans influence then you are automatically labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake.

The reality of the situation is that our lives are hugely impacted by green taxes, initiatives and policies all in the name of man-made global warming. Some impacts are always good - encouraging less reliance on fossil fuels is always a win win for example.

However there is no evidence or proof that climate change is due to man. No matter which way you argue it or look at it or what graphs you put up, its all been seen before, many times, over thousands of years. Just to balance things out there is also no proof that mans influence isn't having an effect either. A lot of peoples opinion is that its natural cycle both short term and long term and historical evidence and trends agree with that. Just as its a lot of peoples opinion to the contrary. That is what stems debate.

To label people as heretics, denyers, etc is just the usual method of trying to rubbish there opinion in an argument where neither side has proof either way.

I think my main point on all this is that there is no consistency to the world governments approach in terms of methods for combating climate change via taxation. Tax is piled high on top of airline travel, fuel etc etc which whilst are contributors to so called green house gases, aren't main contributors when compared to say beef production. But imagine the uproar if Mr and Mrs Smith couldn't have their sirloin steak every dinner because it now cost 80% more due to government levied tax.

If green taxes were fairly distributed and if they were auditable against green initiatives then i don't think many people would have much of a problem with it (whether they agree climate change is man made or not). The reality however is that its seen, and essentially is, an easy method for the government to collect additional revenue in the name of the environment but to fund pretty much the opposite (Road expansion, Wars, New Aircraft Carriers etc).

The other main issue I have is that funding is given only to scientists to prove man made global warming. Its not given to fund more research into historical temperature fluctuations. Its ignored, and this some of the most important and fundamental research this is required to understand our planet. This is where a lot of the IPCC work falls down.

I think we should be more concerend about trying to stop other natural cycles like it getting dark or the tides going in or out.
This to me is the real issue.

The planet is 4billion yers old? I'm sure it will bo ok for another 40 years or so, after that I dont care.

Could someone please list some/all of these 'green taxes' that our lives are 'hugely impacted' by?