Global Warming - A lot of hot air

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Of course the naysayers will say it doesn't matter. Well they would, wouldn't they. There is no greater protection from the consequences of climate change than ignorance (wilful or otherwise) and selective blindness. But they will be dead long before the effects of climate change hit their children, their grandchildren and especially their great grandchildren. So why should they care? :confused:

First you say -and I agree- that it is all very complex and we need to know much more before accurate predictions are made then you talk as though we know the answers. We don't. The best experts in the world cannot yet agree on very much at all in this complex area. Yes the Artic is warming up and melting. But it has often done that in the past.

And you do not mention that the Antarctic is getting colder and expanding and nobody yet knows why.

You have absolutely no idea whether or not tinkering with cars' CO2 emissions will make matters worse, or better, or make almost no difference at all. Nor do I. Nor does the Professor of Climatology at MIT. But at least he admits to the fact.
 
Last edited:
If this forum represent a reasonable cross section of society then there seem to be far more people of the persuasion that we are being hoodwinked than not.

Personally I think its all tosh. The reasons are explained by the 100 people who signed that letter to Ban Ki Moon. Read their qualifications.

Nature is far more powerful than we credit it for. Long term history shows the cycles of the earths climate and this blip is nothing but a blip compared to what has gone on before. I am not saying we should not care about the planet. We do have a moral responsibility towards our descendants. Thats why we recycle and try not to cut down the forests etc. But to blame man and the machine for climate change just doesnt stack up.

Finally I dont believe a word i'm told by civil servants myself. Particularly any report they produce. Please do not take offence by this, as none is intended at all, but the vast majority of them are politically motivated and as bad at decieving the populous as politicians. After all they are pretty much politicians without a seat in the house.

I believe independant scientists and experts in the field who make it their lifes work to study these things.
 
I'm a 100% sitter on the fence! :) I believe we are experiencing a change in climate but is that a regular phenomenon, or have we caused it?

I'm alright jack, it doesn't effect me is perhaps acceptable to us, but what about folks in the Southern Hemisphere, namely Australia and New Zealand!

In the late 60's I had fourteen days R & R in Australia where we camped on a beach and the most we wore were swimming trunks and at night a short sleeved shirt. Sun tan lotion!!!! Unless it was brown, frothy and in a can :devil: :devil: :D we weren't interested. Yes I had a nice sun tan, but can anyone last one day on a sunny beach in Australia without putting on 100 strength :eek: :eek: :devil: sun blocker? (slight exaggeration) The ozone layer is without a shadow of a doubt damaged, but just yesterday I watched our Prime Minister take a very short journey in a huge gas guzzling Jaguar with at least four top of the range gas guzzling Range Rovers, and who knows how many other large vehicles were also present.

If there is a problem, then lets sit down and get experts that can talk sense and not just have punitive taxes which are allegedly in the name of going green. Iin my opinion this does huge harm to what may be a serious iisue.

Regards
John the fence sitter
 
If there is a problem, then lets sit down and get experts that can talk sense and not just have punitive taxes which are allegedly in the name of going green. Iin my opinion this does huge harm to what may be a serious iisue.

Regards
John the fence sitter

The trouble is John there are plenty of "experts who can talk" but they are in a number of different camps. Until there is a concensus amongst the 'experts', sitting on the fence with you is the only sensible option.
 
If this forum represent a reasonable cross section of society then there seem to be far more people of the persuasion that we are being hoodwinked than not.

Personally I think its all tosh.



And your qualifications for stating this are ... what, exactly? :rolleyes:
 
Could someone list the punitive taxes (aside from VED) that are directly related to environmental issues, I'm not sure that there are that many that hit us directly.

Ade
 
Could someone list the punitive taxes (aside from VED) that are directly related to environmental issues, I'm not sure that there are that many that hit us directly.

Ade
Why say apart from??

John
 
Because in the grand scheme of things its not a lot of money compared with other non-mandatory taxes like stamp duty.

It may be useful to bear in mind, those that don't own cars don't pay VED.

Ade
 
It may be useful to bear in mind, those that don't own cars don't pay VED.

Ade
I hate being in the 'I'm alright jack' corner and we must surely consider those folks that live in areas where there is no public transport. Should we say 'Tough' and if so who will grow the crops, cattle or any other produce that is produced awya from public tarnsport?

John
 
This will turn into a tax moan soon about VED which was not my intention. Nor am I suggesting we give up cars and use public transport (1 smelly bus a day etc.) which has been done to death.

Given many on this board feel that climate change is linked to production of CO2 purely to enable the state to tax CO2 output, my question was simply how is this tax collected apart from VED?

Ade
 
This will turn into a tax moan soon about VED which was not my intention. Nor am I suggesting we give up cars and use public transport (1 smelly bus a day etc.) which has been done to death.

Given many on this board feel that climate change is linked to production of CO2 purely to enable the state to tax CO2 output, my question was simply how is this tax collected apart from VED?

Ade

I think part of the problem is that personal transport is being taxed disproportionately. How much tax per kilo of CO2 or equivalent produced are you being taxed on, for example..

Your car.
Domestic heating.
Electricity consumption.
Food.
Public Transport.

Given MMGw is a problem, why isn't taxed uniformly?
 
I think part of the problem is that personal transport is being taxed disproportionately. How much tax per kilo of CO2 or equivalent produced are you being taxed on, for example..

Your car.
Domestic heating.
Electricity consumption.
Food.
Public Transport.

Given MMGw is a problem, why isn't taxed uniformly?

Because the different rates of VED are designed to raise awareness of the high emmision vehicles.

The system is working very well otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it here.

In what way is VED being taxed disproportionately?

Anyone with a band D or lower car is paying les than they used to and if it's band B it's £35 and band A it's free.

Hard to see how that is more than the previous system which taxed dependant on engine size.
 
It is being imposed on a claimed environmental platform but if every car owner in the UK allegedly owned a huge gas guzzling automobile the pollution globally would be insignificant! I am not jumping off the fence, I am simply saying I need proof before I reach any conclusions.

The owners of these larger vehicles will be paying large amount of taxation on the fuel they use, far far more than the likes of the owner of an A-class diesel. Does a 6.3ltr C-class take up more space on our highway compared to a 2ltr C-class? Why should the larger powered vehicle pay more to use the roads. We all seem to be forgetting that the 'Road Fund Licence' was just that and Ade fails to recognise that the 'government' (NOT specifically any particular government) has slowly and very craftily changed this name and we have allowed it to happen and now some folks are even defending this taxation.

John
 
I think part of the problem is that personal transport is being taxed disproportionately. How much tax per kilo of CO2 or equivalent produced are you being taxed on, for example..

Your car.
Domestic heating.
Electricity consumption.
Food.
Public Transport.

Given MMGw is a problem, why isn't taxed uniformly?

That where personal carbon credits come into being. Pls read the BBC news what the MPs are trying to do. I even created a new thread.
 
And your qualifications for stating this are ... what, exactly? :rolleyes:

Simply counting the number of people who argue the points either way. Its not difficult to do. GCE maths was a sufficient qualification for this one. ;)

One hundered emminent scientists think its tosh to try and change it as already shown. I think they know a lot more about it than you do.

I dont want this to turn into a personal rant. I respect you have your views and think i've shown enough evidence on my side of things.
 
Simply counting the number of people who argue the points either way. Its not difficult to do. GCE maths was a sufficient qualification for this one. ;)

One hundered emminent scientists think its tosh to try and change it as already shown. I think they know a lot more about it than you do.

I dont want this to turn into a personal rant. I respect you have your views and think i've shown enough evidence on my side of things.

Unfortunately the research I'm involved in at the moment has thrown up a number of the guys who are signatories to that letter as less then eminent in this field...

The letter is a political gesture, and although it sounds great has not real science included in it. As I said before, you can accept the biased writings / rantings of those on either side who cannot get published in credible, peer-reviewed journals but you won't be guaranteed of getting the right answer.

It is because there is so much other rubbish hanging onto this topic - whether it's taxation, government action, geopolitical bias, etc - that you need to go to the source research. Letters sent to the UN Sec Gen and published in the media with no reference to published science is as much use in sensible debate as any other speculative thought raised here in this forum or elsewhere.

You're right - governments are doing nothing but clouding the issues, and it's made worse by the the constant bickering and carping that takes place on both sides. That's why my current project is about 10 man-years in duration, and we're from a background that has no perceived bias one way or another in terms of business or political background.
 
Because the different rates of VED are designed to raise awareness of the high emmision vehicles.

The system is working very well otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it here.

In what way is VED being taxed disproportionately?

Anyone with a band D or lower car is paying les than they used to and if it's band B it's £35 and band A it's free.

Hard to see how that is more than the previous system which taxed dependant on engine size.

Cars fine. What about electricity, gas and food? Why are the latter exempt from charging, when thje emissions are just as harmful?
 
Unfortunately truth and common sense will always be the very first casualties of any important issue such as this.

I put forward the MMR debate. Name one authorative paper that clearly proves the MMR jab has any connection to autism! Then on a much less serious issue VHS vs Betamax.

The truth unfortunately cannot compete against media influence.

Farmer Martin being another example of media influence and the truth.:devil: ;) but that would be going waaayyy off topic and only mentioned to highlight media influence and how it effects our opinions.:eek: :eek:

Regards
John the fence sitter
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom