Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Green issues are just being used as an "engine" to increase TAXES, if every £ of "green taxes" were ring fenced to be spent on "green issues" I'd have less of a problem.

I do think we have a duty to "consume less", our resources are not infinite.

I agree with this, I am very for moving away from finite resources that do pollute but we need to invest to get fuels that are far less damaging but equally as useful.

I never get why people think global warming is a scam and a lie - it might not be happening anywhere near as much as they say but that is sometimes to get the point across - but surely a scam means you lose out in something, not trying to make people pollute less.

Rich
 
- but surely a scam means you lose out in something, not trying to make people pollute less.

If you can prove that green taxes reduce pollution (i.e. has the flight tax reduced flights) then I would agree with you that it isn't being used as a "scam". However when the measures are purely a money grabbing excuse and in some cases could actually increase pollution then I think the word "scam" is pretty accurate.
 
If you can prove that green taxes reduce pollution (i.e. has the flight tax reduced flights) then I would agree with you that it isn't being used as a "scam". However when the measures are purely a money grabbing excuse and in some cases could actually increase pollution then I think the word "scam" is pretty accurate.

If they are used correctly, then I am happy to do it - however like you if it is just used to get more money out of me then it is a scam, and it does tick me off.

Rich
 
If they are used correctly, then I am happy to do it - however like you if it is just used to get more money out of me then it is a scam, and it does tick me off.

Rich

Can you actually come up with a "green tax" that is being used correctly?
 
Can you actually come up with a "green tax" that is being used correctly?

What?

I'm not marching in here on my bandwagon, all I said was that if it was used correctly (as the person I quoted stated) I am all for it, and that sometimes it really baffles me how people think its a scam, but can see that it is a scam in some cases (flights, etc)

I'm not having a go at anyone, I am just wishing it was better - go pester someone else.


Rich
 
What?

I'm not marching in here on my bandwagon, all I said was that if it was used correctly (as the person I quoted stated) I am all for it, and that sometimes it really baffles me how people think its a scam, but can see that it is a scam in some cases (flights, etc)

I'm not having a go at anyone, I am just wishing it was better - go pester someone else.


Rich

:confused:
 

Your quizzing me on Green taxes that are used correctly, where in the first post I agreed that I would like to see Green taxes used ONLY for green purposes meaning that I know they aren't all used correctly.

Read what I wrote!

Rich
 
Your quizzing me on Green taxes that are used correctly, where in the first post I agreed that I would like to see Green taxes used ONLY for green purposes meaning that I know they aren't all used correctly.

Read what I wrote!

Rich

I think RDM's point was that none of them are being used correctly, anywhere in the world...
 
Its way too soon to be talking about 'final nails'.

As an undergraduate I did a research project into palaeoclimatology modelling and data collection (best mark I got when doing my degree). Bear in mind this was nearly a decade ago and things have moved on since then. It became pretty clear to me back then that the media was overstating the case for the predictive accuracy of climate models.

So if you ask me - anthropogenic affects on climate are real but it's very difficult to understand and predict the exact effects.

Personally I think we'll see some natural cooling over the next few years, based on lack of solar activity and natural cycles (Milankovic). That will lull us into some sort of sense of security. When it comes to the next natural warming cycle we'll find out whether the brown stuff is hitting the fan or not.

Personally I think climate change is inevitable, whether natural or anthropogenic, and we should be planning for dealing with it.

All this 'stop climate chaos' stuff is barmy. The global climate has only ever been temporarily static. When people start to talk about climate or weather engineering I get very nervous. In earth's history it's been relatively unusual to have any ice on earth. I'm far more concerned about what we might do deliberately to change the climate /weather than the ongoing release of CO2.
 
Oh dear, whom should I believe? The united consensus of an entire planet's scientific fraternity, or a Daily Mail hack?

It's a tough call! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, whom should I believe? The united consensus of the scientific fraternity whose research funding relies on continuing producing politically expedient results, or a Daily Mail hack?

It's a touch call! :rolleyes:

TFTFY.

The entire scientific community does not buy into the 'science' of climate change, and certainly not in to the proposed (non)solutions.
 
TFTFY.

The entire scientific community does not buy into the 'science' of climate change, and certainly not in to the proposed (non)solutions.

LTR. I said "united consensus", not "entire scientific community." And no, their research funding does not rely on continually producing "politically expedient" results. In any case, do you really think that governments are fond of introducing unpopular legislation? What's "politically expedient" about that, pray tell?

AGW is a scientifically established fact. Denying it is like denying evolution or the theory of mavity. This does not stop the denialists from spreading their fanatical religion, but it does result in some amusing revelations when their own hired scientists expose the lie!


Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

(Source).

It's not hard to see who's really making the big money from the climate change debate. Scientists who break ranks to accept an industry bribe can expect massive rewards for their compliance. Meanwhile, where is the evidence that regular scientists are being paid huge sums of money for demonstrating the truth of climate change? Nowhere that I can see.
 
LTR. I said "united consensus", not "entire scientific community." And no, their research funding does not rely on continually producing "politically expedient" results. In any case, do you really think that governments are fond of introducing unpopular legislation? What's "politically expedient" about that, pray tell?

You must have missed the amount of money that is raised through 'green' taxes that have no green benefit and is not used for future green ideas. AGW provides a great political excuse to raise money, because it provides a wonderful means to present an appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences to the populace.

AGW is a scientifically established fact. Denying it is like denying evolution or the theory of mavity. This does not stop the denialists from spreading their fanatical religion, but it does result in some amusing revelations when their own hired scientists expose the lie!

Firstly, there is no such thing as a scientific fact, only predictively accurate theories (a test that AGW fails incidentally, it is yet to provide predictions that are observably accurate in the last 30 years). Secondly, comparisons with Evolution and mavity ignore the fact that these models were developed from data observation, whereas most climate change models were not, their predictions have not been born out by data validity, hence why the models are under constant revision (usually downwards), and ignores the huge differences in error margins and certainty rates between mavity and AGW.


Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.

(Source).

It's not hard to see who's really making the big money from the climate change debate. Scientists who break ranks to accept an industry bribe can expect massive rewards for their compliance. Meanwhile, where is the evidence that regular scientists are being paid huge sums of money for demonstrating the truth of climate change? Nowhere that I can see.

What's the annual budget of the IPCC again?
 
Last edited:
At one time there was a "united consensus" that the earth was flat, don't make is so though does it ;)

Oh for the love of God no there was not. For anyone that has cared the general consensus has been for a spherical earth since the time of the ancient greeks. The earth being flat has never been the prevailing scientific view. Find another comparison.
 
I'm sure there have been 1000's of scientific theories that have been proved to be wrong over the years, why couldn't "climate change" be one of those?

I can remember in the 1970's scientist thought we were heading for another Ice Age, what happened to that theory?
 
I'm sure there have been 1000's of scientific theories that have been proved to be wrong over the years, why couldn't "climate change" be one of those?

I can remember in the 1970's scientist thought we were heading for another Ice Age, what happened to that theory?

The bloke who developed it flip-flopped to become one of the biggest proponants of global warming and took to editing observed temperature figures 'for accuracy'...
 
Back
Top Bottom