Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Kingmaker2]

My point being that the general public is far from convinced that the science is settled (probably because it isn't).

 

 

Who mentioned Taxes?

 

I didn't.

 

 

The science museum didn't.

 

 

 

[irony]AGW has nothing to do with taxes, it's all about saving the planet, isn't it? [/irony]

 

Errr the point you were making was that the majority who voted in the Poll were against a strong deal at Copenhagen.

 

My point was that it's natural that people don't want to pay extra for anything, even if the environment is at stake.

 

(I think most people understand that taxes will rise if green house gas emissions are to be curbed)

 

So let's for argument sake say that Man Global Warming had been proven beyond doubt and even Booker and Lawson,Senator James M. Inhofe came out an publicly and reversed their views and now supported the Man Made Global Warming theory, you would STILL have the majority of people reluctant to pay more taxes in an attempt to stave off the effects of Global warming.

 

If a strong deal at Copenhagen involved no rises in taxes then I would be pretty sure the poll would be in favour of strong deal at Copenhagen.

 

And by the way the science museum do refer to the monetary costs:

 

"Tackling climate change will cost money, but failing to act is likely to cost more in the long run. Find out how economists weigh up the costs and benefits of different strategies."

 

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence.aspx

Edited November 27, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[convert]

Errr the point you were making was that the majority who voted in the Poll were against a strong deal at Copenhagen.

 

My point was that it's natural that people don't want to pay extra for anything, even if the environment is at stake.

 

(I think most people understand that taxes will rise if green house gas emissions are to be curbed)

 

So let's for argument sake say that Man Global Warming had been proven beyond doubt and even Booker and Lawson,Senator James M. Inhofe came out an publicly and reversed their views and now supported the Man Made Global Warming theory, you would STILL have the majority of people reluctant to pay more taxes in an attempt to stave off the effects of Global warming.

 

If a strong deal at Copenhagen involved no rises in taxes then I would be pretty sure the poll would be in favour of strong deal at Copenhagen.

 

And by the way the science museum do refer to the monetary costs:

 

"Tackling climate change will cost money, but failing to act is likely to cost more in the long run. Find out how economists weigh up the costs and benefits of different strategies."

 

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence.aspx

 

Good try at diverting there old chap.

 

No one likes to pay extra taxes, let alone a tax that is founded on unproven theories.

 

If they prove the theories, and man is shown to be THE major factor in climate change I'll quite happily cough up, I'll even sell the V8 and buy an electric car.

 

However if they are found to be basing their 'religion' on cherrypicked data, dubiously adjusted by whatever 'fudge' factor they feel, then I'll want a full refund.

 

A full refund for the extra I've paid in energy costs, flight taxes, fuel duty tax, income tax based on the CO2 output of my company car, etc.

 

Would you agree with that?

 

 

Oh I'd also like the old style lightbulbs back as well please

[Kingmaker2]

Good try at diverting there old chap.

 

No one likes to pay extra taxes, let alone a tax that is founded on unproven theories.

 

If they prove the theories, and man is shown to be THE major factor in climate change I'll quite happily cough up, I'll even sell the V8 and buy an electric car.

 

However if they are found to be basing their 'religion' on cherrypicked data, dubiously adjusted by whatever 'fudge' factor they feel, then I'll want a full refund.

 

A full refund for the extra I've paid in energy costs, flight taxes, fuel duty tax, income tax based on the CO2 output of my company car, etc.

 

Would you agree with that?

 

 

Oh I'd also like the old style lightbulbs back as well please

 

Err it wasn't meant to be a diversion, just a simple explanation why the poll shows what it does.

 

You may be the exception but I still think the majority of people are reluctant to pay more in the short term.

And that is Obama's current dilema facing his "Cap and trade" bill.

The problem being that if Global warming is going to continue then it's effects may not be felt for some 20 or 50 years.

And even then If climate change effects are staved off that only maintains the status quo.

 

For all this talk about investing for the future generations, most people prefer to invest in the now generation, unfortunately that is the way man is.

[convert]

Err it wasn't meant to be a diversion, just a simple explanation why the poll shows what it does.

 

You may be the exception but I still think the majority of people are reluctant to pay more in the short term.

And that is Obama's current dilema facing his "Cap and trade" bill.

The problem being that if Global warming is going to continue then it's effects may not be felt for some 20 or 50 years.

And even then If climate change effects are staved off that only maintains the status quo.

 

For all this talk about investing for the future generations, most people prefer to invest in the now generation, unfortunately that is the way man is.

 

No problem, sorry if I misunderstood.

 

I really don't think that you should use the term 'Global Warming' though, even the experts that back man made (up?) climate change have abandoned that term.

 

I really do believe that we should moderate our use of natural resources, and reduce our dependancy on oil / gas imports. However I don't (currently) accept that, no matter what we do, we can have a significant effect on climate change; a natural phenomenon that has always been there.

 

I fully understand your point re investing now and reaping the benefits in the future; and I agree, we should invest in the future. I'm not sure that my tax is being used to do that though.

 

I feel that I'm being taxed on the back of AGW, an unproven theory, and the proceeds are being used to plug a defecit in the governments budget.

 

Now if things like carbon tax, fuel duty, company car tax, etc were ringfenced and invested in nuclear power; well then I'd believe that we were investing in the future.

[nightrider]

Excellent so I won’t have to dumb this down.

 

There were several sets of data they were looking at. One being real temperature, one being temperatures of tree rings. You don't use recent tree ring data if at all possible. Because trees grow and the more recent the ring the less defined it is. So they discount that data.

 

So they discount recent tree ring data because it does not reproduce the actual temperature record for recent years. And then make the assumption that it will produce the actual temperature record pre-1900? How can this possibly give any sort of reliable temperature record given we know the proxy does NOT work in a certain time period?

 

Is there a paper proving this is the case for tree rings - that you cannot measure recent ones? Because the only paper I have read in nature, 98, does not mention this and seems to conclude noone knows why the proxy relationship breaks post-1960.

 

That being the case I cannot see how tree-rings can be used as a proxy (and as far as I can tell all the studies are using them as a major component of their analysis and hence the analysis is flawed)

Edited November 27, 2009 by nightrider

[convert]

Looks like even those involved with the IPCC AR4, are calling for Jones and Mann to be barred from future IPCC work.

 

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/

 

 

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process

Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore...

 

 

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files...

 

The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

 

[convert]

Good article in the Times today.

 

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

 

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

 

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

 

Source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

 

Come on BBC, this deserves the coverage that you have so far denied it. Live up to your charter. Present both sides of the argument.

[Wildcat]

Good article in the Times today.

 

Source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

 

Come on BBC, this deserves the coverage that you have so far denied it. Live up to your charter. Present both sides of the argument.

 

And as the first comment points out the data was not lost it is still available. The Freedom of Information requests have been turned down because around 2% of the data is restricted. Such a shame the Times is guilty of such poor journalism, that it is repeating a story that has been refuted so many times.

[convert]

Wildcat, I'd be interested where you get your 2% from please, do you have a link?

[Wildcat]

Looks like even those involved with the IPCC AR4, are calling for Jones and Mann to be barred from future IPCC work.

 

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/

 

Which only goes to show the effectiveness of the deniers smear campaign and demonstrates why there is no global conspiracy to hide the truth, when you have people within IPCC saying these things based on the misrepresentations in the blogosphere.

 

I also note he says:

 

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of.