Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[hitch_1980]

Are we getting lost in all the facts, figures, papers, debates etc. Cant we just say a greener alternative is better, because this is the only planet we have, and to be honest....we rather like it.

[convert]

Are we getting lost in all the facts, figures, papers, debates etc. Cant we just say a greener alternative is better, because this is the only planet we have, and to be honest....we rather like it.

 

Fair enough.

 

What about all the extra green taxes being forced upon us?

 

What about the subsidies that are paid to those who install solar / wind?

 

Where do those subsidies come from?

 

Rising energy bills.

 

What about pensioners who will die due to not being able to aford to heat their homes this winter?

 

 

I'm all for a more efficient use of our resources, however I call into question the legitimacy of blaming global warming on man made CO2, and the way in which we are being taxed.

 

Before wiki gets all defensive, we ARE being taxed more; just look at how income tax for company cars is worked out for a starter; based upon CO2 output.

[Wildcat]

Arguing the science is wrong for economic reasons is like denying gravity to try to get a cheap flight.

[hitch_1980]

Fair enough.

 

What about all the extra green taxes being forced upon us?

 

What about the subsidies that are paid to those who install solar / wind?

 

Where do those subsidies come from?

 

Rising energy bills.

 

What about pensioners who will die due to not being able to aford to heat their homes this winter?

 

 

I'm all for a more efficient use of our resources, however I call into question the legitimacy of blaming global warming on man made CO2, and the way in which we are being taxed.

 

Before wiki gets all defensive, we ARE being taxed more; just look at how income tax for company cars is worked out for a starter; based upon CO2 output.

 

I would say this

 

if you pump a vast amount of CO2 into our atmosphere, .....something is going to happen. Scientists can say countless number of things using countless number of calculations and figures. In truth we dont really know whats going to happen excatly in 10 / 25 / 50 years. So its all about, rather than take a chance with it, lets hedge our bets and lower the emissions.

[convert]

I would say this

 

if you pump a vast amount of CO2 into our atmosphere, .....something is going to happen. Scientists can say countless number of things using countless number of calculations and figures. In truth we dont really know whats going to happen excatly in 10 / 25 / 50 years. So its all about, rather than take a chance with it, lets hedge our bets and lower the emissions.

 

Define a vast amount.

 

Do you actually know the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

How much of that is man made?

 

How much of that is from the UK?

 

 

Would you call a fraction of a percent a vast amount?

[spinac]

You can get the percentages here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

 

Yes, CO2 is a fraction of a percent. But the increase in ppm is the key fact ....

 

 

"The Kyoto Protocol committed the advanced economies to greenhouse gas emission reductions equivalent to about 5 per cent over 1990 levels by 2010.

 

But things haven't worked out that well. Globally, emissions have risen by 40 per cent since 1990.

 

In the meantime, the science itself has moved on. The Stern Review took as its target the task of stabilizing carbon emissions in the atmosphere at 550 parts per million (ppm) Most scientists — and Stern himself — now accept that that target won't prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change.

 

The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report argues that a 450 ppm target will be needed if climate change is to be restricted to an average global temperature increase of 2°C. Achieving that target could mean reducing global emissions by up to 85 per cent over 1990 levels by 2050.

 

Two articles published in the journal Nature in April 2009 challenge even that conclusion. The authors argue that what matters is the total greenhouse gas budget we allow ourselves over the period to 2050. Global atmospheric concentrations are already at 435 ppm. And if we want a 75 per cent chance of staying below 2°C, the global economy can only afford to emit a total of 1 thousand billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) between the year 2000 and the year 2050.

 

Crucially, they show that by 2008 we had already used up a third of this budget. Staying within the budget is going to be more demanding even than existing 450 ppm stabilization scenarios suggest. The message from all this is a profoundly uncomfortable one. Dangerous climate change is a matter of decades away."

 

Tim Jackson, Prosperity Without Growth

 

 

>>> Is one thousand billion tonnes a vast amount?

[retep]

You can get the percentages here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

 

Yes, CO2 is a fraction of a percent. But the increase in ppm is the key fact ....

 

 

"The Kyoto Protocol committed the advanced economies to greenhouse gas emission reductions equivalent to about 5 per cent over 1990 levels by 2010.

 

But things haven't worked out that well. Globally, emissions have risen by 40 per cent since 1990.

 

In the meantime, the science itself has moved on. The Stern Review took as its target the task of stabilizing carbon emissions in the atmosphere at 550 parts per million (ppm) Most scientists — and Stern himself — now accept that that target won't prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change.

 

The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report argues that a 450 ppm target will be needed if climate change is to be restricted to an average global temperature increase of 2°C. Achieving that target could mean reducing global emissions by up to 85 per cent over 1990 levels by 2050.

 

Two articles published in the journal Nature in April 2009 challenge even that conclusion. The authors argue that what matters is the total greenhouse gas budget we allow ourselves over the period to 2050. Global atmospheric concentrations are already at 435 ppm. And if we want a 75 per cent chance of staying below 2°C, the global economy can only afford to emit a total of 1 thousand billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) between the year 2000 and the year 2050.

 

Crucially, they show that by 2008 we had already used up a third of this budget. Staying within the budget is going to be more demanding even than existing 450 ppm stabilization scenarios suggest. The message from all this is a profoundly uncomfortable one. Dangerous climate change is a matter of decades away."

 

Tim Jackson, Prosperity Without Growth

 

 

>>> Is one thousand billion tonnes a vast amount?

 

Depends on where it's coming from, whooooo! he's behind you.

[spinac]

Depends on where it's coming from, whooooo! he's behind you.

 

No the scary figures aren't behind anyone, they're right in front of us all. Not fiction. Not made up. Not hidden. Scientifically measured.

 

But if you don't believe these figures, which ones DO you believe? Who do YOU trust? Where can we see your expert figures and projections?

 

Well if you don't listen to the ghosts of Christmas past and present showing the errors of our ways, the ghost of Christmas future will come and haunt you! (?)

[retep]

No the scary figures aren't behind anyone, they're right in front of us all. Not fiction. Not made up. Not hidden. Scientifically measured.

 

But if you don't believe these figures, which ones DO you believe? Who do YOU trust? Where can we see your expert figures and projections?

 

Well if you don't listen to the ghosts of Christmas past and present showing the errors of our ways, the ghost of Christmas future will come and haunt you! (?)

 

Yes shaking our empty wallets.

[spinac]

Yes shaking our empty wallets.

 

Forget for a moment that we have to do anything about the issue.

 

Forget for a moment that it might cost you a penny.

 

Let's establish some facts before we decide what they mean and what if anything has to be done about it.

 

Now try again and tell us the facts that YOU base YOUR comments on.

 

Remember that the thread is about the evidence (or otherwise) for global warming. It's not "how much will retep have to pay to save the planet?"