[Gamer-GaZzaz]

During summer last year, it was called GLOBAL WARMING as it was warm (if it wasn't, I'd be confused!). Now it is winter, they do not call it global warming but now it is CLIMATE CHANGE!

Which is it!? The more they change it the less I believe in it!

[Gadgetcity]

Originally Posted by Gamer-GaZzaz

During summer last year, it was called GLOBAL WARMING as it was warm (if it wasn't, I'd be confused!). Now it is winter, they do not call it global warming but now it is CLIMATE CHANGE!

Which is it!? The more they change it the less I believe in it!

It is widely recognised that the temperature of the Earth as a whole is increasing. This is "Global Warming".

The increased temperature fuels the weather. The effect can vary depending on where you are and the season. As the globe warms the range of weather expected at any one place at any one time will change. This is "Climate Change".

These are simple facts. I think the real confusion comes from all the predictions for the future and causes of any warming.

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by Gamer-GaZzaz

During summer last year, it was called GLOBAL WARMING as it was warm (if it wasn't, I'd be confused!). Now it is winter, they do not call it global warming but now it is CLIMATE CHANGE!

Which is it!? The more they change it the less I believe in it!

As lots of people have posted elsewhere, global warming and climate change are different things, though the former will cause the latter.

An increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause warming. That is a consequence of the laws of physics and cannot be argued.

What can be argued is how large the warming will be, what other factors may mitigate it, and how fast it will happen. None of these questions has been satisfatorily answered yet, but what is known is that the greenhouse effect is not linear, eg doubling the amount of CO2 will more than double the warming. That’s why those who argue that the human contribution is so tiny it can be ignored are dead wrong: we’re adding new CO2 to a previously stable system, and it will show. The ultimate (which nobody is seriously predicting yet, thank goodness) is the runaway greenhouse effect, which can be triggered by a small increase over a tipping point. If you don’t believe me, look at Venus.

Likewise, we have no idea what the effects of global warming will be, or even whether overall they’ll be good or bad. Not all of the effects will be down to climate change: the other major issues are geographical, political and ecological due to changes in salinity and sea levels.

What seems to happening at the moment is a fairly rapid climate shift driven by warming. This disrupts the long-established stabilities, and hence we get freak conditions before new stabilities are established. It’s not that many of these extreme conditions haven’t occurred before, it’s just that we can expect, for example, more frequent floods, out-of-season storms, long dry spells, etc. Things may settle down soon, or they may go on for a long while. The unknown timescales are between tens and thousands of years.

Also, global warming will not create a uniformly warmer earth. The UK would have a much colder climate if it weren’t for the Gulf Stream. GW may disrupt this, plunging us into sub-arctic conditions.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Gamer-GaZzaz

During summer last year, it was called GLOBAL WARMING as it was warm (if it wasn't, I'd be confused!). Now it is winter, they do not call it global warming but now it is CLIMATE CHANGE!

Which is it!? The more they change it the less I believe in it!

"they"? Who?

I've never heard of the "Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming" it's always been the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".

If "they" changed the name of the National Health Service to the "English Health Service" would you believe it didn't exist?

[Gamer-GaZzaz]

Originally Posted by andykn

"they"? Who?

I've never heard of the "Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming" it's always been the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".

If "they" changed the name of the National Health Service to the "English Health Service" would you believe it didn't exist?

I mean adverts, people who stop me in the street asking for my money too stop climate warming or golbal change!

...lol

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Gamer-GaZzaz

I mean adverts, people who stop me in the street asking for my money too stop climate warming or golbal change!

...lol

Don't give em a penny. Spend anything you may be tempted to donate on low energy lights, or insulation, or even just one of those 'Sid The Snake' things you use to stop draughts under doors. That way your money benefits you and will do much more to 'help save the planet' than giving it away.

[Gamer-GaZzaz]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Don't give em a penny. Spend anything you may be tempted to donate on low energy lights, or insulation, or even just one of those 'Sid The Snake' things you use to stop draughts under doors. That way your money benefits you and will do much more to 'help save the planet' than giving it away.

Thank you ^_^. I don't have anything against doing our bit for the environment but i just don't like being stopped in the street being asked for my bus fare home to save the planet. Adverts sometimes say like "10% of donations go towards research..." at the bottom of the screen and that pisses me off

[leedswillprevai]

The surface air temperature has increased by less than a centigrade in the last 100 years and that is according to official graphs. We don't give a damn about the poisons swimming in our food, cancer rates exploding through the roof, the damage caused by depleted uranium, but we are prepared to have a carbon ration card shoved down our throats . It really is ironic that environmentalism is being pushed as the new religion when the earth is experiencing a decade of global cooling.

It just seem like some of you really hunger for world government and with it total control.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

The surface air temperature has increased by less than a centigrade in the last 100 years

And most of that was in the last 30 years.

and that is according to official graphs. We don't give a damn about the poisons swimming in our food, cancer rates exploding through the roof, the damage caused by depleted uranium, but we are prepared to have a carbon ration card shoved down our throats . It really is ironic that environmentalism is being pushed as the new religion when the earth is experiencing a decade of global cooling.

Were you right about the cooling, then your other points may be valid. However you have been right royally fooled by someone.

Just because 1998 was an unusually hot year amongst unusually hot years does not mean the earth is cooling. All the years since 2001 have been higher than any in the 1900s. Does this look like cooling to you:

File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are still producing CO2 what makes you think global temperatures would drop? I can't see the logic or science behind that at all.

It just seem like some of you really hunger for world government and with it total control.

Starting with Arrenhuis in the mid 1800s, it's our long term plan we'll no doubt hand down further throuhg the generations.

[leedswillprevai]

Global cooling
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict


By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 4:25AM GMT 12 Dec 2008

Comments 929 | Comment on this article
Global warming may stop, scientists predict The study predicts the IPCC's 0.3ºC temperature rise for the next decade may not happen
Melting icebergs: The study predicts the IPCC's 0.3ºC temperature rise for the next decade may not happen

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

* Have your say: Do you believe in global warming?
* Arctic ice melting 'faster than predicted'
* Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.

The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.

Today's paper in Nature tries to simulate the variability of these events and longer cycles, such as the giant ocean "conveyor belt" known as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water north into the North East Atlantic.

This has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again.

* Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014

Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming."

The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.

Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.

"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."

But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures might not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which was several miles deep and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content, which were included in the Met Office Hadley Centre model.

If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.


Oh and your last comment was incredibly funny, even though they have been talking about the need for a global carbon tax to be administered through a carbon ration card, you call me the conspiracy theorist! So when they talk about just that, a new global order needed to combat the effects of global warming, it's good but when people point it out, they are the crazy ones who need to be mocked

You don't need to wait for hardcore fascism/corporatism to hit the west under the guise of "saving the earth" just go to China now, I am sure you will love it. You people make me really sick, a steely willful ignorance towards all the evil being perpetrated against humanity and the earth as a whole and yet embracing those same organisations, those same think tanks as saviours.

No doubt you will giggle about the opening part of my second paragraph to. You will giggle despite the fact that the IMF has announced that the west is effectively in a depression right now and so more taxes will only deepen the plight and suffering. You will giggle about it, despite the fact that creating a carbon ration card will tax every facet of your life and if you run out of credits, well you have two choices really, you can either pay whatever the going rate is, or you can basically stop living.

Oh you are right, that's not enslavement, god how paranoid to call that enslavement . Life is too short, go to China now and embrace authoritarianism now. Ah but of course you embrace authoritarianism as long as it doesn't involve a boot to the face. I have come across really good people who do care about the earth but you can separate those from people who just make me sick, because the genuine ones are alarmed about such plans. Oh they really do love the earth don't they, which is why the independent has reported that western ships are dumping nuclear waste in the Rwandan seas.

However dumping nuclear waste in seas is good, as long as they fight the "deadly carbon dioxide" . Hey more good news, the british army has pledged to cut CO2 from their tanks, can't say the same pledge has been made to stop using the army as a battering ram in aggressive invasions but hey, you can't have everything.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

"the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming...
...it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away."

Oh and your last comment was incredibly funny, even though they have been talking about the need for a global carbon tax to be administered through a carbon ration card, you call me the conspiracy theorist! So when they talk about just that, a new global order needed to combat the effects of global warming, it's good but when people point it out, they are the crazy ones who need to be mocked

You don't need to wait for hardcore fascism/corporatism to hit the west under the guise of "saving the earth" just go to China now, I am sure you will love it. You people make me really sick, a steely willful ignorance towards all the evil being perpetrated against humanity and the earth as a whole and yet embracing those same organisations, those same think tanks as saviours.

No doubt you will giggle about the opening part of my second paragraph to. You will giggle despite the fact that the IMF has announced that the west is effectively in a depression right now and so more taxes will only deepen the plight and suffering. You will giggle about it, despite the fact that creating a carbon ration card will tax every facet of your life and if you run out of credits, well you have two choices really, you can either pay whatever the going rate is, or you can basically stop living.

Oh you are right, that's not enslavement, god how paranoid to call that enslavement . Life is too short, go to China now and embrace authoritarianism now. Ah but of course you embrace authoritarianism as long as it doesn't involve a boot to the face. I have come across really good people who do care about the earth but you can separate those from people who just make me sick, because the genuine ones are alarmed about such plans. Oh they really do love the earth don't they, which is why the independent has reported that western ships are dumping nuclear waste in the Rwandan seas.

However dumping nuclear waste in seas is good, as long as they fight the "deadly carbon dioxide" . Hey more good news, the british army has pledged to cut CO2 from their tanks, can't say the same pledge has been made to stop using the army as a battering ram in aggressive invasions but hey, you can't have everything.

Who are "they"?

And would it be churlish of me to enquire about the little known Rwandan sea?

All I'm saying is that the economic cost of not doing something about manmade CO2 will be greater than the cost of reducing CO2 emissions now.

Now that you seem to have accepted that it's real, what is your suggestion?

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

Global cooling
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict


By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 4:25AM GMT 12 Dec 2008

Firstly, I reckon your rants would carry more weight if you changed your logon name to something a bit more credible.

Secondly, I don’t see how Clover’s article bolsters your argument. It’s saying exactly what I pointed out earlier: we’re in a period of climatic instability fuelled by warming. Weather events over timescales of a few years cannot be used as arguments either for or against climate change. Clover does point out, however, that within 10 years or so warming is expected to increase.

You simply cannot argue away the incontrovertible facts that (a) we are pumping new CO2 into the atmosphere; (b) CO2 is a greenhouse gas; (c) the greenhouse effect is real and it is causing warming.

Where do you get the idea that taxation worsens the effect of a depression? How else are governments going to pay for the extra benefits and support which will be needed?

And as you are obviously very knowledgeable on human nutrition, I’d love to know:

• What poisons are swimming in our food?
• Why haven’t they killed us all by now? Given that we’re all living a lot longer than we were until very recently, how much longer would we live without those poisons?
• Have you ever tasted sour milk, bad eggs, rotten meat, rancid butter? Why do we hardly ever see them now?

From your extensive knowledge of human cancer epidemiology, can you tell me:

• What cancers are going through the roof?
• Are they related to the fact that we’re all living longer, and that older people are more susceptible?
• So the camapaign to cut lung cancers through discouraging smoking hasn’t worked? Why not? Doesn’t smoking cause cancer after all?

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

[SIZE=2] Doesn’t smoking cause cancer after all?

Interesting question to ask in the context of a climate change type debate. In fact it hasn't been proven, beyond reasonable doubt that smoking causes cancer. There are a good proportion of heavy smokers out there who haven't got cancer, won't get cancer and will die of other things. But there is a very strong circumstantial evidence of a causal effect. So, smoking is strongly believed to be the root cause of many cancers, but it hasn't been unequivocally proven. This is roughly where we are heading with the science behind the perceived threat of CC. There is a strong body of coherent evidence that very strongly suggests we are rapidly heading for trouble with accelerating global temperatures. The evidence also suggests that we are still in a position to slow down the rate of change to a level where many feel that mankind may successfully adapt. Global Warming is a fact of life, over-rapid Global warming due to mankinds activity is strongly indicated.

As for the impending Global Cooling, theorists have been predicting it for a long time and is referred to by some Climate Change scientists as the nightmare scenario. In a nutshell, ocean currents are likely to go through one of their cyclical changes, which will bring deep ocean water (which is much colder) to the surface, which in turn will absorb heat from the atmosphere. The result will be a cooling effect on the atmosphere and a warming effect on the ocean water. This bit of science is well documented.
But note! Earth as a whole will still be warmer overall, the heat just distributed differently. And when the ocean currents return to normal, everything will get back on track, Hopefully the warmer oceans won't have any noticeable effects, but it is always possible as so much of our climate depends on the seas around us.
Why the 'nightmare scenario'? Because the average man in the street will see temperatures not rising in his garden, will dis-believe all the warnings about MMGW and take against anyone telling him he should moderate his consumption. The politicians will then follow the votes, and all the political will to act will evaporate and will only resurface when CC is obvious to even the most hardened cynic. At that time, it will be too late. Not for you and me, you understand, but for the next generation and the generation after that.

But of course, the scientists may be wrong. Smoking might have nothing to do with lung cancer and Global warming may not happen.
But are you going to bet your grand-children's lives on it?

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Interesting question to ask in the context of a climate change type debate

Good post, John. Many thanks.

My comment about smoking was partly rhetorical to try and balance comments from an obvious (on the evidence anyway) dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist. It beats me why such people insist on seeing vague malign purpose in any bad thing which might happen. You don’t need human villainy. Mankind sleepwalking into natural danger is all that’s required. Nature is the true villain. Nature wants you dead.

I sort of agree and disagree with you over the relationship between smoking & cancer. There is overwhelming evidence that smoking increases the risk of contracting cancer to an unacceptable degree. However, that isn’t to say that smoking directly causes cancer. Quite a few heavy smokers never get it, and lots of non-smokers unfortunately do. All we can say is that every human has a predispostion to contract it, but in varying degrees based on genetic makeup. Smoking tilts that predisposition heavily in the wrong direction.

Your other points pretty well mirror mine: until a new stability is reached, we’ll get chaotic weather patterns over timescales from months to decades.

[leedswillprevai]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

Firstly, I reckon your rants would carry more weight if you changed your logon name to something a bit more credible.

Secondly, I don’t see how Clover’s article bolsters your argument. It’s saying exactly what I pointed out earlier: we’re in a period of climatic instability fuelled by warming. Weather events over timescales of a few years cannot be used as arguments either for or against climate change. Clover does point out, however, that within 10 years or so warming is expected to increase.

You simply cannot argue away the incontrovertible facts that (a) we are pumping new CO2 into the atmosphere; (b) CO2 is a greenhouse gas; (c) the greenhouse effect is real and it is causing warming.

Where do you get the idea that taxation worsens the effect of a depression? How else are governments going to pay for the extra benefits and support which will be needed?

And as you are obviously very knowledgeable on human nutrition, I’d love to know:

• What poisons are swimming in our food?
• Why haven’t they killed us all by now? Given that we’re all living a lot longer than we were until very recently, how much longer would we live without those poisons?
• Have you ever tasted sour milk, bad eggs, rotten meat, rancid butter? Why do we hardly ever see them now?

From your extensive knowledge of human cancer epidemiology, can you tell me:

• What cancers are going through the roof?
• Are they related to the fact that we’re all living longer, and that older people are more susceptible?
• So the camapaign to cut lung cancers through discouraging smoking hasn’t worked? Why not? Doesn’t smoking cause cancer after all?

Who cares about what my log in name is, it's simply a tongue in cheek username!. I used that article to retort this idea that we are not currently experiencing a period of global cooling. However to respond to the other person first, firstly I have no doubt that everything contributes towards the earths temperature, that includes the sun, that includes the activities of humans, that includes volcanoes, that includes all of the natural carbon sources. I find it horrifying that we worry more about one part carbon two parts oxygen than we do about nuclear waste being dumped into the seas.

What would be a catastrophe for the earth would be if the honey bees were to become extinct and yet where are the alarm bells for that? does it even get 5% of the coverage of carbon dioxide? absolutely not. I think most people can't even begin to imagine the ramifications such an extinction would have on earth. However what is also interesting is that when you do research this, something that I used to do before I got discouraged because of the sheer deceptions. I came across a number of UN studies which pointed to the largest man made contributor to global warming being patios because it is locking the heat in but I notice there is no specific focus on that. Instead by saying that humans are responsible for "global warming" they can and will use it as a means of taxing every aspect of your life. Now once again it goes back to the underlying point here, if you don't find that a horrifying prospect, then I really don't know what to say to you.

This really is quite simple economics, higher levels of taxation during a depression will only worsen the depression and create a bigger bureaucracy. It is a simple equation, people are living on the border lines of real poverty right now and any further deductions in their disposable income, coupled with a stagnant pay rise, will only push them over the edge. However beyond the economics of it, there is something else to consider also and that is if i am being taxed on everything i do, then it basically comes down to a tax on breathing, what am I meant to do, stop breathing?.

I have read articles which actually inform the read that exercising too much will be bad for the environment because in doing so it will lead to more inhalation and exhalation of CO2. On the opposite side of that argument though, if the planned taxes are not intended to be used to oppress a normal standard of life and are actually needed, then instead of giving the banks trillions, increase the taxes on the very rich, the pinnacles of society. Oh and please don't say the very rich pay their fair share anyway they find all sorts of ways of hiding their wealth.

However on the latter note, what would these taxes be used for anyway?. I really don't want to get into the food issue as that was only mentioned in passing to underline how insane this focus on the one issue is. That being said, I am not going to dodge the issue either so if you must, high fructose corn syrup has been found to contain high levels of mercury, many doctors are against aspartame which is found in most soft drinks, milkshakes chewing gum Aspartame: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You, google video the fluoride deception, Aspartame: Scientific Studies Link Sweetener to Cancers - Health Supreme.

Do not try pulling this card, there are so many carcinogens in the food. Moving on from that, we have genetically modified foods which until the last few years there was complete denial in regards to the question of have genetically modified foods been in the food chain for some years and then politicians and scientists said probably but "didn't know" how long.

So what's the big deal about genetically modified foods? well the answer should come in the name alone but aside from the "conspiracy alarmist" show me how many studies have been conducted on humans to monitor the affects of genetically modified foods. When you do, you will realise there seems to be a distinct lack of studies and why? because it's essentially new, so the development and effects in the human bodies are unknown! you, me and the rest of humanity are effectively the guinea pigs!. Now consider this, the wider impact it is having on the planet, both in plants and animals. Do you think that there is some link between honey bees suddenly dying and gm crops?.

Do you remember the case of Dr Arpad Pustzai, well he was one of the leading experts on GM. All it took was a relatively few number of words questioning their safety and then suddenly the entire mechanics of mainstream media were launched at him. Here are two quotes from the broadcasted documentary... "I believe GM food could be made safe, but If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it". and 'I find it's very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. We have to find guinea pigs in the laboratory.' You might want to read what happened after he uttered those words .

Finally to the question you asked concerning what cancer rates are increasing BBC News | HEALTH | Child cancer rates 'increasing'. It is now estimated that 1 in 3 people will develop cancer! can you not stop to comprehend what an horrific number that is. Now of course the incidence rate amongst the elderly is higher but amongst younger people, the incidence rates are rising steadily.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/can...ung/incidence/ According to that lung cancer is falling (referring to figure 1.3)

[deckingman]

Given that the 5 day weather forecast is almost invariably wrong, despite the huge amount of data and processing power applied to it, why should I believe anyone who says that they can predict what the climate will be like in 5 years time?

[Gamer-GaZzaz]

Originally Posted by deckingman

Given that the 5 day weather forecast is almost invariably wrong, despite the huge amount of data and processing power applied to it, why should I believe anyone who says that they can predict what the climate will be like in 5 years time?

Good comeback...

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by deckingman

Given that the 5 day weather forecast is almost invariably wrong, despite the huge amount of data and processing power applied to it, why should I believe anyone who says that they can predict what the climate will be like in 5 years time?

Because climate is far easier to predict than weather.

Any generality is easier to predict than some specific detail within it. You might be able to forecast with some accuracy what you will be doing next Sunday, but I bet you couldn't say at precisely what time to the minute you'll be doing what.

It's the same backwards too. We have some idea what the Earth's climate was 65,000,000 years ago, but we have not the slightest idea whether 11th February 64997991BC was unusually cold.

In any case, the 5-day forecasts have been extremely accurate recently. They predicted last weeks snowstorms and Monday's downpours. It takes some of the most powerful computers on earth to do a 5-day weather forecast. Your PC could run a climate model.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

Who cares about what my log in name is, it's simply a tongue in cheek username!. I used that article to retort this idea that we are not currently experiencing a period of global cooling. However to respond to the other person first, firstly I have no doubt that everything contributes towards the earths temperature, that includes the sun, that includes the activities of humans, that includes volcanoes, that includes all of the natural carbon sources. I find it horrifying that we worry more about one part carbon two parts oxygen than we do about nuclear waste being dumped into the seas.

What would be a catastrophe for the earth would be if the honey bees were to become extinct and yet where are the alarm bells for that? does it even get 5% of the coverage of carbon dioxide? absolutely not. I think most people can't even begin to imagine the ramifications such an extinction would have on earth. However what is also interesting is that when you do research this, something that I used to do before I got discouraged because of the sheer deceptions. I came across a number of UN studies which pointed to the largest man made contributor to global warming being patios because it is locking the heat in but I notice there is no specific focus on that.

Then post them so we can see if these studies say what you think they say.

Instead by saying that humans are responsible for "global warming" they can and will use it as a means of taxing every aspect of your life. Now once again it goes back to the underlying point here, if you don't find that a horrifying prospect, then I really don't know what to say to you.

Patios are not a separate race - they're built by humans. And remind me who "they" are in this context and specifically what taxes you are referring to.

This really is quite simple economics, higher levels of taxation during a depression will only worsen the depression and create a bigger bureaucracy. It is a simple equation, people are living on the border lines of real poverty right now and any further deductions in their disposable income, coupled with a stagnant pay rise, will only push them over the edge.

Whereas climate change has no ill effects at all on the economy...

However beyond the economics of it, there is something else to consider also and that is if i am being taxed on everything i do, then it basically comes down to a tax on breathing, what am I meant to do, stop breathing?.

With your talent for such hyperbole, you'll always be able to get a job as a Daily Mail leader writer.

I have read articles which actually inform the read that exercising too much will be bad for the environment because in doing so it will lead to more inhalation and exhalation of CO2.

Again, with no links we have no idea if these articles are valid or say what you think they say. I could write an article saying Leeds will be relegated (again) this season. Doesn't make it true or even a worthwhile opinion.

On the opposite side of that argument though, if the planned taxes are not intended to be used to oppress a normal standard of life

Normal?? You're the one complaining about dumping Nuclear waste and the possibility of honey bees becoming extinct and then you call it normal!

and are actually needed, then instead of giving the banks trillions, increase the taxes on the very rich, the pinnacles of society. Oh and please don't say the very rich pay their fair share anyway they find all sorts of ways of hiding their wealth.

However on the latter note, what would these taxes be used for anyway?. I really don't want to get into the food issue as that was only mentioned in passing to underline how insane this focus on the one issue is. That being said, I am not going to dodge the issue either so if you must, high fructose corn syrup has been found to contain high levels of mercury, many doctors are against aspartame which is found in most soft drinks, milkshakes chewing gum Aspartame: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You, google video the fluoride deception, Aspartame: Scientific Studies Link Sweetener to Cancers - Health Supreme.

Do not try pulling this card, there are so many carcinogens in the food. Moving on from that, we have genetically modified foods which until the last few years there was complete denial in regards to the question of have genetically modified foods been in the food chain for some years and then politicians and scientists said probably but "didn't know" how long.

So what's the big deal about genetically modified foods? well the answer should come in the name alone but aside from the "conspiracy alarmist" show me how many studies have been conducted on humans to monitor the affects of genetically modified foods. When you do, you will realise there seems to be a distinct lack of studies and why? because it's essentially new, so the development and effects in the human bodies are unknown! you, me and the rest of humanity are effectively the guinea pigs!. Now consider this, the wider impact it is having on the planet, both in plants and animals. Do you think that there is some link between honey bees suddenly dying and gm crops?.

Do you remember the case of Dr Arpad Pustzai, well he was one of the leading experts on GM. All it took was a relatively few number of words questioning their safety and then suddenly the entire mechanics of mainstream media were launched at him. Here are two quotes from the broadcasted documentary... "I believe GM food could be made safe, but If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it". and 'I find it's very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. We have to find guinea pigs in the laboratory.' You might want to read what happened after he uttered those words .

Finally to the question you asked concerning what cancer rates are increasing BBC News | HEALTH | Child cancer rates 'increasing'. It is now estimated that 1 in 3 people will develop cancer! can you not stop to comprehend what an horrific number that is. Now of course the incidence rate amongst the elderly is higher but amongst younger people, the incidence rates are rising steadily.

Cancer Research UK : UK Lung Cancer incidence statistics According to that lung cancer is falling (referring to figure 1.3)

Sounds like we need more taxes to fund research, then.

There is nothing that says taxation needs to rise, just that the basis for taxation needs to change to discourage emissions that will be damaging to our economies if allowed to continue. If you let your Governement use it as an excuse to raise the overall level of taxation, that is your democratic choice.

[deckingman]

Climate is easier to predict than weather! That's priceless. Reminds me of this.

'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'
--Al Gore, Vice President

Taking your own analogy of predicting what I'll be doing next Sunday, at least I have an idea. Ask me what I'll be doing in 5 years time on Sunday.

One final point, who is to say that the climate we have now (or 10 years ago or whatever time you choose) is the optimum for the good of the planet and mankind as a whole? Personally I think I something like the climate we had in Roman times, where they had Vinyards in the North of England, would be preferable to the mini ice age which happened in Dickensian times and people were skating on the Thames.

Oh, and I've not heard a squeek from anyone about the environmental impact of the tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the recent bush fires in Australia. I trust the Scientists are all updating their computer models to take this into account.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by deckingman

Oh, and I've not heard a squeek from anyone about the environmental impact of the tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the recent bush fires in Australia. I trust the Scientists are all updating their computer models to take this into account.

[robh2002]

Originally Posted by deckingman

Climate is easier to predict than weather! That's priceless. Reminds me of this.

'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'
--Al Gore, Vice President

Taking your own analogy of predicting what I'll be doing next Sunday, at least I have an idea. Ask me what I'll be doing in 5 years time on Sunday.

One final point, who is to say that the climate we have now (or 10 years ago or whatever time you choose) is the optimum for the good of the planet and mankind as a whole? Personally I think I something like the climate we had in Roman times, where they had Vinyards in the North of England, would be preferable to the mini ice age which happened in Dickensian times and people were skating on the Thames.

Oh, and I've not heard a squeek from anyone about the environmental impact of the tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the recent bush fires in Australia. I trust the Scientists are all updating their computer models to take this into account.

On the last paragraph in particular (although also the previous one) - can I suggest you _think_ a little about what you have written...just a little and that should allow you to see how daft you have been.

OK, I'll edit this post to help you.

1. You say..."tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of tons of CO2...". So ask yourself this question. Would and additional, say 1 million tonnes of CO2 from the burning forest make a difference? You need to know how much man made CO2 is produced annually and see what percentage the million tonnes assumed above is of that. Find out - do the sums and then you'll know. BUT see Q2.

2. Ask yourself where the carbon in the trees came from and over what time frame.

I don't mean to be rude, but if people could only think a little, or do a tiny bit of research they would find the answers to these questions and not write such daft replies!

[daul_p]

Originally Posted by deckingman

Climate is easier to predict than weather! That's priceless. Reminds me of this.

'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'
--Al Gore, Vice President

Taking your own analogy of predicting what I'll be doing next Sunday, at least I have an idea. Ask me what I'll be doing in 5 years time on Sunday.

One final point, who is to say that the climate we have now (or 10 years ago or whatever time you choose) is the optimum for the good of the planet and mankind as a whole? Personally I think I something like the climate we had in Roman times, where they had Vinyards in the North of England, would be preferable to the mini ice age which happened in Dickensian times and people were skating on the Thames.

Oh, and I've not heard a squeek from anyone about the environmental impact of the tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the recent bush fires in Australia. I trust the Scientists are all updating their computer models to take this into account.

Read the following article and you'll discover that Vineyards and growing grapes are not a good indicator of what the climate was like years ago.

RealClimate

[deckingman]

My point was only that we hear so much about mankinds' contribution towards greenhouse gases, in particular our CO2 emissions, and yet when there is a natural dissaster such as this (or worse still volcanic eruptions), nobody seems to have anything to say about the medium to long term effects this may have on climate change.

[robh2002]

Originally Posted by deckingman

My point was only that we hear so much about mankinds' contribution towards greenhouse gases, in particular our CO2 emissions, and yet when there is a natural dissaster such as this (or worse still volcanic eruptions), nobody seems to have anything to say about the medium to long term effects this may have on climate change.

You mentioned specifically CO2 from forest burning and this will be more or less CO2 neutral.

Volcanic effects are different and you did not mentioned them in the post. There is a flow of C02 through the environment, from the oceans, land and air - if you are interested in how such effects are taken into account, then read the scientific data from the IPCC - don't expect to hear about such details in the media!

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by deckingman

My point was only that we hear so much about mankinds' contribution towards greenhouse gases, in particular our CO2 emissions, and yet when there is a natural dissaster such as this (or worse still volcanic eruptions), nobody seems to have anything to say about the medium to long term effects this may have on climate change.

It may have some local effect, over a relatively short (months rather than years) time span, but compared say to the slash and burn going on in the Amazon or Indonesian forests, its relatively small scale. The reason its news is because Australia is a first world country that has lost over 180 people to the fires. And because the news footage is colourful and impactful, all those burning acres and houses etc etc. A similar fire elsewhere (ie third world) really wouldn't be worth reporting.

But it does raise an interesting point, in that Australia, when faced with a larger than normal forest fire still manages to lose control and nearly 200 people perish. France some years ago (3 or 4) had a very hot summer (canicule in Fr) and the best estimate is that around 30,000 people died because of it. (Mostly old folk in poor health, so the phrase should be died prematurely because of it). But then these weren't extreme events, these weren't record breakers, but they both go to show that we really aren't ready for extreme weather. And what happens when the extreme weather becomes more commonplace.? This is the scenario that is trying to be avoided by CO2 reduction policies. To reduce the extreme weather events to a level where we can cope.

30,000 people died prematurely in France. Imagine what the total would be if the canicule happened every year, all over Europe.

200 people die in Oz, but what if the fires where even more severe and raging around Sydney? How many would 'die prematurely' then. The total could be awesome.

We can't really cope with extreme weather as it is, what are we going to do when/if it becomes even more extreme and even more frequent? - that is the question and because we don't know, perhaps we should try and avoid that scenario - by reducing CO2 and hopefully reducing the threat.

[leedswillprevai]

Originally Posted by andykn

Then post them so we can see if these studies say what you think they say.


Patios are not a separate race - they're built by humans. And remind me who "they" are in this context and specifically what taxes you are referring to.

They are the military industrial complex, they are the big corporations who are polluting the seas, they are the global bodies, they are the bankers or more specifically the global banks like the IMF and world bank. My point was that patios should be the focal point but instead it's an excuse to tax and control.

Whereas climate change has no ill effects at all on the economy...

Taxing during a depression is senseless and crazy. We live in a debt based economy, without the credit flowing everything comes to a halt!

With your talent for such hyperbole, you'll always be able to get a job as a Daily Mail leader writer.

Hyperbole? I am pointing out that getting taxed for carbon is being punished for breathing since that is how we humans live by breathing out CO2,

Again, with no links we have no idea if these articles are valid or say what you think they say. I could write an article saying Leeds will be relegated (again) this season. Doesn't make it true or even a worthwhile opinion.

Why on earth do you think I would make this up...this refers to any active human activity being a great evil Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’ - Times Online. Notice how this is dehumanising us but I guess that's a good thing.

Normal?? You're the one complaining about dumping Nuclear waste and the possibility of honey bees becoming extinct and then you call it normal!

You are twisting my words, that's exactly my point! I want to live a normal life and yet all of this is happening around us and there is no outcry, no orchestrated media campaign. I don't see Al Gore delivery diatribes about these two issues.


Sounds like we need more taxes to fund research, then.

You are either being deliberately naive, or have just woke come out of a coma. Monsanto has such immense lobbying power, does Lord Salisbury the billionaire who donated 2 million to Labour mean anything to you. I just illustrated to you the way in which a leading expert on GM was shutdown. That is the reality of the situation, dissenting views get crushed by force.

There is nothing that says taxation needs to rise, just that the basis for taxation needs to change to discourage emissions that will be damaging to our economies if allowed to continue. If you let your Governement use it as an excuse to raise the overall level of taxation, that is your democratic choice.

Again you know this is absolute bs, the level of the tax burden will rise since such a level of taxation funds big government and I don't see a scaling back of bureaucracy, only an ever increasing one.

What taxes he asks, again I just think you are playing the fool and assuming that I have not read into this and thus will be stumped for a response. Oh and please don't respond with what that was over 2 years ago, it's about acclimating you!, if you google it you will see this has been discussed on the BBC News also. Ir will creep up and rear it;s ugly head again and you will say yes! that's wonderful despite the fact that in doing so, it will increase your taxes, you will say that's a good thing. You may find the prospect of big government with immense centralised power to be an attractive proposition but I certainly don't.

Climate change - How viable is a consumer carbon tax?
4 Oct 2006 | Author: CCC Newsdesk | Print version | Send to a friend
Pay as you pollute, the way forward?

Pay as you pollute, the way forward?
Related Articles

*
Corporate environmentalism - Stop seeing green as a burden
*
Climate change – investing in the $10 trillion dollar trend
*
Electricity generation and carbon emissions – Are we ready for the financial impact?

Discussions about personal carbon allowances are getting serious
By Suchandrika Chakrabarti

In a recent announcement about Ford’s £1 billion green investment in the UK, the head of Ford Europe, Lewis Booth, warned that individual responsibility is key to tackling environmental change.

He foresaw future consumers being aware of how each person’s carbon consumption could affect the planet. One strategy he put forward was a carbon credits scheme, where “customers may decide how his or her CO2 allocation is spent”.

That idea had already been put forward by the UK’s environment secretary, David Miliband. He feels that carbon should become “a new currency”, saying: “We [would] carry bank cards that store both pounds and carbon points.” Everyone would have the same entitlement to “carbon points”, which could be used or sold to people who have exceeded their limit.

Miliband maintains that this system would be fairest, because only those who exceeded limits would be penalised. These people are likely to be “on higher incomes … have higher car ownership and usage, larger homes and … undertake more air travel and tourism.”

Such a scheme could be the “holy grail”, as Tim Gibbs of the Institute for Public Policy Research says, or “highly unprogressive”, as Tom Arnold, chief environmental officer of TerraPass, a company that offers consumers ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, reckons.

A carbon credits scheme could be seen as unwelcome intrusion into personal affairs by the government. Kevin Anderson, of Manchester University’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has called the carbon swipe card an “ID card with a carbon bit superimposed on it”.

Transport tax

In discussions about consumer carbon taxes, transport needs quickly become a serious issue. At current cost, buying a new, more environmentally friendly car could be prohibitively expensive for many.

This has been addressed by Roelant de Waard, Ford UK chairman, who says: “We are absorbing the added cost of the technology by keeping the price of eco-friendly vehicles the same as existing models.”

Ford executives met Tony Blair in July to discuss encouragement for consumers to buy “green” cars. They are also in negotiations with Transport For London to get a congestion charge exemption for vehicles that emit low levels of carbon dioxide.

If individual carbon allowances seem unlikely, there are two other possible areas where the tax regime can be used to curb emissions: fuel and vehicle development.

Higher petrol prices may not be enough to outweigh the consumer need to fill tanks. Simon Barnes, of the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders, says: “When fuel prices increase by 10%, demand only drops by 3%, and then 7% over a longer period.”

However, ensuring that alternatives, such as biofuels, are cheaper could encourage consumers to go for the greener option.

If vehicle technology is targeted by tax, the costs of carbon use may well be shouldered by manufacturers. As Barnes suggests, existing voluntary carbon agreements could be replaced by credits, where companies trade for carbon allowances among themselves. How willing rival manufacturers will be to do this is questionable, but it remains a possibility.

The TerraPass system is one solution that has had a measure of success in the US. It has been marketed as a way to “to reduce your carbon footprint all the way to zero”.

The TerraPass gives consumers a way to help fund renewable energy projects, such as wind farms. The TerraPass has been aimed at Ford customers, enabling them to offset the emissions produced by the car-manufacturing process.

Tom Arnold of TerraPass says that, as opposed to a carbon tax, the pass conveys a positive message to consumers: “You can do your bit.” Since October 2004, TerraPass has signed up more than 10,000 US customers, and the company says that has helped to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 60,000 tonnes.

The implementation of a carbon tax, on the lines of Lewis Booth’s and David Miliband’s ideas, could be extremely complex, and still allow the richest in society to continue consuming carbon at the same rate. Schemes that do not hurt the consumer financially, but allow him or her to feel as though they are making a positive contribution, could be the way forward.
Find out how to manage carbon reduction, and make it pay: A concise and comprehensive introduction to the CRC.

[deckingman]

Originally Posted by robhowell

You mentioned specifically CO2 from forest burning and this will be more or less CO2 neutral.

Volcanic effects are different and you did not mentioned them in the post. There is a flow of C02 through the environment, from the oceans, land and air - if you are interested in how such effects are taken into account, then read the scientific data from the IPCC - don't expect to hear about such details in the media!

Oh come on. Your telling me that CO2 from forest burning is OK because it is more or less carbon neutral and yet most of my (long) adult life I've been told what an environmental disasater it is is my cutting down and burning the amazon rain forest. Which one am I supposed to believe?

When I started school (many years ago), we were told that an ice age was long overdue. Now we are told that this sciene was flawed and now it looks like we going to have the opposite. How do I know that this science isn't also flawed (especially when I look at the bodies of evidence saying exactly that)?

I can also remember at time when I couldn't turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without reading about the disastrous effects that acid rain, caused by polution from our power stations, was having on trees in Skandinavia and the Black forest. They were dying off by the thousand. Suddenly (almost overnight), the media hype stopped without the UK switching off it's power stations. Then I read a short paragraph in the Telegraph saying that Scientists had discovered a virus which was the true cause of all the trees dying. So which do I believe?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

Again you know this is absolute bs, the level of the tax burden will rise since such a level of taxation funds big government and I don't see a scaling back of bureaucracy, only an ever increasing one..

So you're specualting about speculation. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the overall tax burden will increase because of climate change. And what on earth makes you think that politicians need another excuse to raise taxes? Isn't financing the billion dollar bailout of the banks good enough for you?

The Times article you referenced is hopelessly flawed. if you were going to walk to the shops would you walk to an out of town superstore miles away? And wouldn't you combine the walk to the shops with the 30 mins brisk walk 3 times a week that you're supposed to do anyway.

Please reference the article about patio heaters so I can explain that to you too.

"They", the big corporations are going to tax us in the name of Climate Change are they?

Look up "hyperbole" in the Dictionary, it says "people banging on about being taxed for breathing".

You won't find stuff about nuclear waste and bees on here because its an AV Forum, generates CO2 but not nuclear waste or anything that could directly harm bees.

You may be right about the UK Govt shutting down dissent on GM foods, but dissent on Climate Change is alive and well. One problem is that they dissent with each other too.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by deckingman

Oh come on. Your telling me that CO2 from forest burning is OK because it is more or less carbon neutral and yet most of my (long) adult life I've been told what an environmental disasater it is is my cutting down and burning the amazon rain forest. Which one am I supposed to believe?

One is natural and has been part of the cycle of life for millions of years and the other isn't. Guess which one is sustainable?

When I started school (many years ago), we were told that an ice age was long overdue. Now we are told that this sciene was flawed and now it looks like we going to have the opposite. How do I know that this science isn't also flawed (especially when I look at the bodies of evidence saying exactly that)?

Because the science behind Global Cooling wasn't flawed - scientists told us particulate pollution was causing a cooling effect, we reduced particulate pollution, the cooling stopped. The underlying warming trend continued.

Dunno who told you the science was flawed, you should try listening to scientists instead.

I can also remember at time when I couldn't turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without reading about the disastrous effects that acid rain, caused by polution from our power stations, was having on trees in Skandinavia and the Black forest. They were dying off by the thousand. Suddenly (almost overnight), the media hype stopped without the UK switching off it's power stations. Then I read a short paragraph in the Telegraph saying that Scientists had discovered a virus which was the true cause of all the trees dying. So which do I believe?

Neither. Newapapers are invariably misleading on any topic and never understand sciance stories. To blame scientists because newspapers have misrepresented their findings twice is peverse.