We have indeed but this is the best section of the site in my opinion. There is almost always something interesting going on and I have learned a few things from some of the posts too.
I did..........Because Mum made me........."Make you grow up big and strong"..........and that's another lie exposed..........
How many times have we heard the cry of x number of days tosave the planet? First it was global cooling in the 70’s, then it was globalwarming in the 80’s with dire predictions of ice caps melting, rising sealevels swamping coastal cities and a runaway greenhouse effect rendering theplanet uninhabitable. And guess what, none of it has happened. The Earth’s temperature has remained stable for the lastdecade, but we are told that it is being masked by underlying cyclic naturalevents that once they go away will result in the return of warming with a vengeance. Global warming became anthropogenic global warming withbecame climate change, all politically driven changes. Sure the climate is changing, it always has and always will,ice ages come and go with warm periods in between. There have been times in ourgeological past when CO2 levels have been significantly higher than today, longbefore industrialisation. CO2 levels have risen to their highest sinceindustrialisation, but they have been significantly higher in the past. CO2 isn’tthe only green house gas, water vapour is also significant; but difficult totax. The earth’s climate is very complex and I remain to beconvinced that it is understood to the extent that it can be usefully modelledin the way that it is claimed we can. Green initiatives are adding to our everyday costs whilstenriching landowners through buy in tariffs. So called renewables have failedto deliver a reliable energy stream and the story from countries like Denmarkwho were early adopters is that the technology has consistently under performed;our energy policy is in chaos all because of this belief in ‘global warming’and the supposed link to CO2. Finally the UK produces 2% of global manmade CO2, so on thescale of things what we do is insignificant at best. But yes I know, we can’tlecture other countries if we aren’t seen to be taking steps ourselves. It is all a classic case of the Emperors New Clothes.
The problem I see with disregarding the issue of Climate Change is that the vast majority of scientists working in the field agree it is happening and the arguments against seem to rely on GCSE level science. Even if all this overwhelming scientific opinion is wrong it seems to me to make a certain amount of sense not to pour pollutants into the atmosphere and to conserve the finite resources we have.
The effect you describe arises with lots of policies in many different areas. When a policy has been put into effect but the results are inadequate, it is always argued that: (a) the policy is useless and should be scrapped; and (b) the policy is good but the implementation was insufficient so it should be stepped up. A struggle between the scrapping and the stepping up ideas follows, and either may win. So long as the same government remains in office, (b) usually prevails. When a different government comes in, (a) becomes more politically attractive.
Is GCSE science wrong ? A computer model simply spits out what it is programmed to do. The consensus is ruthlessly defended by a cabal of believers who think that it is too important to tolerate opposition. I agree we should not pour pollutants into the atmosphere and we should indeed conserve the finite resources we have. Only CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food, life on earth depends upon CO2, without it we would all die. The climate is changing and we will have to adapt with it in the same way as life on earth has always adapted to it. Climate change pales into insignificance when we look at the other problems that the world faces.
In my day, GCE science (forerunner to GCSE, whippersnappers) was not wrong but incomplete. We were taught about Newton's Laws but Einstein's theories were left out of the curriculum. Thankfully. Is it different today? Does GCSE science teach the whole of physical science now?
ill have to ask my eldest daughter. ibhave seen some of her coursework and its certainly more in depth than what I did during the 80s
Saying things like " CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food, life on earth depends upon CO2" seems desperately simplistic, water and sunlight are vital to our existance as well but too much of one and you'll drown, too much of the other and you'll die of Skin Cancer. The ecological balance of our world is far too complex to dismiss in such a simplistic manner. Describing the massive consensus amongst scientists in the field as a ruthless cabal of believers seems to be an emotive attempt to bring an element of doubt into the issue, when in fact there is none from those who have studied the matter. There are disagreements about specific elements but these are akin to disagreements amongst the members of this forum about the best colour for Ducatis, no one disputes the preference for Ducati, just some wierdos think Red is not the best colour.
Tim Yeo: humans may not be to blame for global warming - Telegraph Trougher in Chief does some back pedaling, he does need to justify a third runway at Heathrow however.
I think I also said that 'The earth’s climate is very complex .............' I would have thought that claiming 'there is [no doubt] from those who have studied the matter' is also rather simplistic.
Since when has an incoming government actually scrapped a tax imposed by a previous government? (or, if they have, simply replaced it with another just as effective).
Tax is not the only reason companies become,"Limited". If a dishonest person wants to start a business but avoid any debts incurred,he can buy a Ltd co.,"off the shelf",for a couple of hundred quid. As my recent Court experiences have shown,it's too easy to set up a Limited company in this country (the other side in my case has had,and folded,three Limited companies,two of which did not file annual accounts) A list of UK Directors Responsibilities,(not complete): (1) make decisions for the benefit of the company, not yourself (2) try to make the company a success, using your skills, experience and judgment So you are legally obliged to use every possible means to avoid paying unnecessary tax,to pay the least amount in wages,to work your employees as hard as possible in order to maximise returns to the Shareholders There is no requirement to act morally,fairly,or in the interests of the country or the Environment/whatever,except where you are legally obliged to do so. I wonder whether it's time to consider a different system,whereby: Corporation tax is set initially at !00%. But discounts are available for: Benefit to society:number of Employees:friendliness to the Environment Plenty of others,but you get the picture.... Not saying it would work or even if it's possible,just thinking outside the box If a company had to weigh out everything it made in profit as tax,and then get a refund later on,(much the same way is VAT is collected/refunded),it would give HMRC time to have a good look at what they were claiming refunds for...
Global warming as a pending environmental catastrophe was mooted as long ago as the 50s. If you took a few minutes to look at the video I posted earlier, you would see that this is the case. What do you expect to happen? The polar ice caps are melting, the polar bear is threatened with extinction, the glaciers are retreating. Are you complaining because there is still something that looks like the North Pole, for the time being? Flooding is also increasing, and coral reefs are bleaching (I know, because I've been back to places I dived earlier and they have suffered immensely). Really? Then why are the huge majority of the hottest summers on record in the last decade or so? And even if you are correct, you imply that "what we are being told" must be rubbish. Maybe it's the truth. Well, if there is global warming, it must be due to something. The evidence cries out that it is due to industrialisation. That global warming has become climate change is surely because, owing to changes in winds and weather systems, not all places are going to move to instant desertification. So to make it easier for people who say "global warming? Rubbbish. It's got colder around here" I imagine the phenomenon is now referred to as climate change. But it doesn't change the physics: greenhouse effect = a hotter, warmer Earth. You continually conflate politics with science and you can't do this. Suppose that climate change was a massively positive thing for everyone, with reduced taxes. Would you then have difficulty in believing it? And your argument that climate change is politically driven because it is good for those in power to propagate it doesn't stand up. Why would governments, which have so many drains on their resources and budgets, invent a new expense and have to rethink their entire energy policy? Are the vested interests in the debate, already holding the power and vast wealth, not the oil companies and the status quo (as is always the case). The politically motivated agenda would be to deny climate change and carry on as before. Of course, but that isn't the point. The point is how this change affects us, the humans, right now and in the very short term. Otherwise, we would no more care about climate change here than if it happened on Mars. Equally the rate of change at this time is extreme in geological timescales. Like it or not, we are to blame. Once again, you assume that politics drives science. You're wrong. You also seem to think that the entire global warming thing is a scam to drive more taxation. I wonder how it looks in Brazil or Indonesia which want to chop down all their forests and for which there would be far less opposition if there wasn't the reality of global warming. Their governments would have a vested interest in pretending that it didn't exist. The Tory government in the UK, being profoundly anti tax (if it can) should be decrying green initiatives and repealing the taxes, if the whole thing is a hoax. This is happening nowhere. Probably because you are (a) not a climatologist (b) not really prepared to read or listen to arguments outside your current mindset and (c) give far more weight to anything that supports your current view and (d) not prepared to apply simple reasoning to see the flaws in your argument. So initiatives should be abandoned? Look at it this way: Suppose there was deemed to be a terrorist threat to the UK, but you didn't know the precise timing. Would you, knowing that you'd have to allocate resources to reducing this threat and that it would involve expense, pretend that it didn't exist? Or when you had made attempts to reduce it and found those attempts initially foiled, give in and then do nothing? Certainly. And it's not just us. It's all countries and especially all industrialised countries. No. It's a classic case of someone putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "la la la la la la la" to drown out sense. Apply Occam's Razor to your argument. For you to be right, and climate change to be a myth: 1. The thousands of climatologists the world over would have to be wrong. Those eminent scientists, working in esteemed universities, who have devoted their professional careers to the subject, would have to be completely incompetent. Or, worse, they would all be involved in some government-backed, international fraud, to relieve you, the taxpayer, of your cash. More then this, not one whistleblower would appear to explain the workings of the whole scheme. 2. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect, discovered in the late 19th century, would have to be wrong. 3. None of the observable phenomena (shrinking icecaps, retreating glaciers, increased desertification etc etc) would really be taking place. There is, however, a conspiracy to provide a narrative to support what you would like to believe. It has been propagated by the same individuals and "think tanks" who were funded and employed to maintain that smoking doesn't cause cancer and that the hole in the ozone layer didn't exist. To find out exactly how this worked and is working, you can read http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1408824833/?tag=ducatiforum-21 In conclusion, I see no difference between people whose wishful thinking would have them deny climate change, and those who prefer to believe that evolution is a myth and that the truth of the world's creation is contained in the Bible. I see no more reason to think that climatologists are more incompetent and corrupt than those studying evolution. It's either science or mumbo jumbo. I am surprised that someone as bright as yourself can't see this. But if you are going to focus your entire thought through the prism of "the government is out to get me and deprive me of my hard-earned cash", you will continue trying derive sense from objects blurrily half-seen.
