My Garden

Climate Change bamboozles taxpayers

Last post 07-08-2009 12:55 PM by Robin Shaw. 36 replies.

• 24/04/2009 05:03 PM	In reply to
  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 114	Reply | Contact I think my previous two posts show that this is subject is an extremely complex one, and that we have no clear overall picture. So what do we expect from an opportunist exchequer being weaned off tobacco revenues? Paint a worst-case scenario to justify swingeing carbon taxes.

• 24/04/2009 10:54 PM

  In reply to

  bogweevil Location: Joined on: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 2,043

  Reply | Contact HFOBees left out, for reasons I really cannot guess, the more interesting later comments: "We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity," said Professor Lockwood. "We would expect it to be more than 100 years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum." He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun was not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels. "What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid." Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century. Boggy Beware the bat-eared bogweevil

• 25/04/2009 12:19 PM	In reply to
  SimonB Location: United Kingdom Joined on: 25 Apr 2009 Posts: 6	Reply | Contact Typical arguments from climate change deniers: 1) Climate change isn't happening. 2) Its not caused by human activity. 3) We can use technology to fix it. I wonder about what will be needed to convince people that climate change deniers' ideas are selfish, blinkered and contradictory.

• 25/04/2009 05:05 PM

  In reply to

  geoff51 Location: Totton, Hampshire Joined on: 13 Feb 2009 Posts: 67

  Reply | Contact Climate change is a political farce invented by corrupt governments as an excuse to raise extra taxes to fund their extravagant spending and to cover the fact that they are incapable of running a bath let alone a country. what we are experiencing now is natural variations in weather that have been happening ever since this planet was created and apart from natural disasters of the magnitude that affect the whole planet such as volcanic eruptions, man has very little effect on the weather and never will. Geoff51 Pond life!?!

• 28/04/2009 12:01 PM

  In reply to

  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 114

  Reply | Contact HFOBees left out, for reasons I really cannot guess, the more interesting later comments: "We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity," said Professor Lockwood. "We would expect it to be more than 100 years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum." He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun was not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels. "What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid." Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century.   I left it out as it is uncorroborated speculation, pulled without foundation from thin air. If they have an expected time-scale for the Maunder Minimum, why has there been no prediction of this change in solar activity?

• 28/04/2009 12:36 PM

  In reply to

  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 114

  Reply | Contact Typical arguments from climate change deniers: 1) Climate change isn't happening. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not so. Most agree that climate change is the normality for the planet, and that there have been periods where there have been much higher levels of CO2 and oxygen present. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2) Its not caused by human activity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Again not correct. The argument is whether human activity is either a primary cause of, or a triviality in climate change, and whether the biosystem can compensate for this. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3) We can use technology to fix it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we cannot, and you insist that human activity is a pre-eminent factor in climate change, then the only solution you can possibly recommend would be a return to pre-industrial revolution lifestyle, which is hardly realistic. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ I wonder about what will be needed to convince people that climate change deniers' ideas are selfish, blinkered and contradictory. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Descent to the level of insult undermines your own argument, and if you're so concerned about climate change, what are you doing with a computer, which burns approx. 0.3 tonnes of carbon pa? _________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 07/08/2009 12:55 PM

  In reply to

  Robin Shaw Location: Wiltshire Joined on: 06 Aug 2009 Posts: 2

  Reply | Contact Simply because someone is skeptical about the claims that human activity causes climate change doesn't mean that the same people encourage profligacy with the Earth's natural resources or that we oppose measures to reduce reliance on them. Our government's soluton is to tax and fine while allowing the expansion of airports and further building on farmland and green spaces. Isn't that blinkered, selfish and contradictory?