We'll all feel rightly put out when the cost of wheat triples and the cost of feeding ourselves consumes all our disposable incomes.
I think with most people it's not that they don't give a shit about it, but just that they don't see how any decisions they make are going to affect it, or how it's going to affect them, their children, or their children's children.
Yeah fair enough but why does no-one ever say that either? Instead they come up with the same rehashed and discredited arguments about ice ages and global conspiracies.
Get a grip - when has any government worried about taxing us?
Stealth tax = a tax they hope we won't notice, or one that we can see, but don't think will affect us much.
It's a form of deception IMHO and if they weren't worried about taxing us, stealth taxation would not exist.
I have a grip thank you very much AdamW!
**** me some people who can seemingly manage to write in a coherant manner are actually completete retards with astounding levels of arrogance in thinking they understand more about something than people who have dedicated their lives to studying it.
Work in any industry for a few years and you'll realise the industry experts are all bluffers and ****tards. The climate industry won't be any different.
anagallis_arvensis - Member**** me some people who can seemingly manage to write in a coherant manner are actually completete retards with astounding levels of arrogance in thinking they understand more about something than people who have dedicated their lives to studying it.
Are you referring to yourself anagalliss_arvensis?
**** me some people who can seemingly manage to write in a coherant manner are actually completete retards with astounding levels of arrogance in thinking they understand more about something than people who have dedicated their lives to studying it.
They only hear want to the stuff that doesn't affect their selfish little lives I'm afraid.
> Get a grip - when has any government worried about taxing us?When a general election is looming??
So in your considered opinion the vast majoirty of the world's climate scientists and the world governments have agreed to this global deception because the UK is going to have an election soon and folk might not like taxes much???
It's a form of deception IMHO and if they weren't worried about taxing us, stealth taxation would not exist.
It doesn't does it? What taxes am I paying that I know nothing about?
Calling a tax that everyone knows about a "stealth tax" seems a bit odd to me.
Spongebob - Member"Get a grip - when has any government worried about taxing us?"
When a general election is looming??
How true. But what I don't understand, is why China is going along with this climate change nonsense. Because obviously they don't need to "worry about a general election looming".
Any clues Spongebob ?
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8268077.stm ]China vows climate change action[/url]
If politicians take Climate Change so seriously, why is only 5% of green tax revenues then reinvested in renewable energy projects?
Why is the cost of public transport continuing to increase?
Why are governments unwilling to legislate against high CO2 emitting cars and air travel beyond simply adding more Green Taxes?
Why does Stanstead need another runway?
Why isn't the Severn Estuary being tapped for tidal energy?
How true. But what I don't understand, is why China is going along with this climate change nonsense. Because obviously they don't need to "worry about a general election looming".
International politics. Just another part of the game.
I don't really follow this sort of stuff too closely but at the Copenhagen conference there was a commitment [or talk] of restricting global temp rise to less than 2C over n years
How exactly can that be managed?
What I mean is, is it as easy as saying "we're warming up a bit fast, we'll ease back for a while"
Can we really see an effect of our actions that quickly?
Yes Ernie! China are going along with it because of international pressure (the countries that buy their goods are leaning on them), but it's only political rhetoric. I can't imagine they will really make significant changes.
PJM1974 - yes governments are no doubt using MMCC cynically, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
Why is the cost of public transport continuing to increase?
Privatised, have to make profit?
Why are governments unwilling to legislate against high CO2 emitting cars and air travel beyond simply adding more Green Taxes?
Because voters drive cars like that, and use air travel?
Why does Stanstead need another runway?
Because we want to travel by air a lot more and any climate issue goes out the window when business is involved(see Copenhagen for details)
China are going along with it because of international pressure.
Rightio ........ they are just doing what they being told to do. It's good to know that they are so sensitive to outside pressure - I had no idea.
And presumably so keen to help Western governments get re-elected.
Graham S
So in your considered opinion the vast majoirty of the world's climate scientists and the world governments have agreed to this global deception because the UK is going to have an election soon and folk might not like taxes much???
I didn't even suggest that! You are twisting what I wrote.
Now Ernie, give me an actual figure for this "vast" majority of scientists. Do you have a figure for all the scientists who don't subscribe to this and who are scared they would loose their research budgets?
You must also bear in mind that politicians all round the globe are like ours. For one they aren't scientists! Many of them have no expertise, but rely on paid, so called "experts". Politicans mostly lie and cheat their way to power and then continue this once in office. Their arrogance knows no bounds and the longer they are there, the worse they get! In my life I have seen plenty of evidence to support this. They are self serving egotists who are arrogant enough to think we should bother to listen to them. They will act on the advice they receive, but frequently come up with solutions to problems that clearly demonstrates that they haven't understood the problem! In most cases however, they seem clever enough to raise money from their schemes. OH what a cynic I am!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
a decade isn't really a good timescale to measure things,
but the doom and gloom hasn't materialised like many said
interesting though, it does seem that none of the scientists can agree on what is happening out there 🙂
If politicians REALLY wanted to get us to significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, they would ban wasteful activities, not just tax them more!
They won't do this in a hurry because it affects economies and in turn, tax receipts.
Like killing the golden goose.
Now Ernie, give me an actual figure for this "vast" majority of scientists. Do you have a figure for all the scientists who don't subscribe to this and who are scared they would loose their research budgets?
It wasn't me what said it.
I'm well aware that the crafty buggers don't want to lose their research budgets.
That means that whilst we're still on our way out of the last ice age (so it's going to get warmer) we may be on a shorter term downward curve.
Some rentaprof on the news made this mistake the other week as well. Throughout the mid/late Quaternary interglacial periods have lasted ~10 thousand years, separated by much longer glacials of about 100ka. The current interglacial started ~12ka ago, so that would suggest the Earth should start getting colder any time now.
It appears that anthropogenically-induced climate changes are causing deviation from this pattern though.
[img] 
[/img]
(sorry to buck the trend and cite actual evidence by the way)
If politicians REALLY wanted to get us to significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, they would ban wasteful activities, not just tax them more!
But banning isn't compatible with our free world....
You must also bear in mind that politicians all round the globe are like ours. For one they aren't scientists! Many of them have no expertise, but rely on paid so called "experts". Politicans mostly lie and cheat their way to power and then continue this. Their arrogance knows no bounds! In my life I have seen plenty of evidence to support this. They are self serving egotists who are arrogant enough to think we should bother to listen to them. They will act on the advice they receive, but frequently come up with solutions to problems, that clearly demonstrate that they haven't understood the problem. In most cases however, they are clever enough to raise money from their schemes. OH what a cynic I am!!!
You now seem to have moved on from attacking the science of climate change to attacking politicians. So is this little rant of yours about climate change or paying taxes?
I don't really follow this sort of stuff too closely but at the Copenhagen conference there was a commitment [or talk] of restricting global temp rise to less than 2C over n years
How exactly can that be managed?What I mean is, is it as easy as saying "we're warming up a bit fast, we'll ease back for a while"
Can we really see an effect of our actions that quickly?
anyone?
Genuinely interested BTW
I didn't even suggest that! You are twisting what I wrote.
Are you new here? 😉
I didn't twist it [i]that[/i] much: you said it was an excuse for unstealthy stealth taxes and when asked why the government needed an excuse you suggested general elections.
The point stands: calling widely publicised taxes that everyone can see, "stealth taxes" is just an emotive attack. Suggesting that governments don't have the power to raise taxes without climate change is also a bit weak.
If politicians REALLY wanted to get us to significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, they would ban wasteful activities, not just tax them more!
Banning is hugely ineffective (ever heard of prohibition?). Doing something drastic like banning all car travel for one day a week would make huge impact, but would also cause huge public revolt.
Taxation is about [url= http://www.nudges.org/thebook.cfm ]the psychology of nudges[/url].
Nice explanation of current winter conditions & its significance re climate change here:
http://metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100106b.html
Throughout the mid/late Quaternary interglacial periods have lasted ~10 thousand years, separated by much longer glacials of about 100ka. The current interglacial started ~12ka ago, so that would suggest the Earth should start getting colder any time now.
ahhh so its the fault of those pesky Romans 2000 years ago who stopped the earth heading back into an Ice Age.
I read something on here about low sunspot activity on the sun,and read some where that during the 90's and early part of this century there was increased activity also astronemers during the little ice age reported low sunspot activity! Seems a logical explanation to me.... 💡
I read something on here about low sunspot activity on the sun,and read some where that during the 90's and early part of this century there was increased activity also astronemers during the little ice age reported low sunspot activity! Seems a logical explanation to me....
Someone best tell all the scientists (and the astronemers). They might not have considered the sun. 🙄
Grizzer: go read the Royal Society website. They have nice explanations of why it isn't due to sunspots, elleptical orbits etc etc.
The sunspot/warming correlation has been debunked, but it keeps getting discussed anyway.
(EDIT: GrahamS you beat me to it. Your source might be a bit more accessible though 😆 )
There are some entertaining studies correlating sunspot activity with election results and England's cricket scores too.
The fact is no one REALLY knows!
Historically it is natural cycles, we know that. Computer simulations are just that, simulations.
My computer simulated that if I try and attack a hoard of covenant with just a shotgun I would succeed. In real life i know i would fail!!
debunking the debunking...
[url= http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html ]Link 1[/url]
[url= http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lockwood_and_Frolich_Review.pdf ]Link 2[/url]
[url= http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf ]Link 3[/url]
Historically it is natural cycles, we know that. Computer simulations are just that, simulations.
The simulations are useful to speculate causes and what might happen in the future.
But right now we have genuine non-simulated physical measurements that are apparently outwith those natural historical cycles.
Lord Summerisle, none of the links you provided are from peer-reviewed journals. They are also all criticisms of one specific paper (Lockwood and Frohlich, 2007). I haven't read it and it might indeed be bad science.
However, there are numerous other papers arguing against any significant sunspot/warming trend, particulary for the period post-1980. See for example Erlykin et al. (2009), Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Wenzler et al. (2009), plus the Laut one i linked to in my previous post.
couldnt see the laut one, link didnt work for me.
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?
