Simply recovering money via duty on fuel used would also solve at a stroke the issue of older car that don't have a value for whatever yardstick is being used to determine RFL band.
Dieselman
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,198
- Car
- Peugeot 403 Convertible
Only it doesn't does it. You appear to have selective eyesight.
The full quote should read
Temperatures have also been measured in the atmosphere; over the last 50 years or so by weather balloons, and by satellite remote sensing since 1979. In the mid-troposphere, about 5 km above the surface, there has been a global-mean warming. Although data are sparse in tropical regions, according to sensors on weather balloons, there seems to have been little change in temperature in the tropical mid-troposphere over the past 25 years, which is not what models predict. This discrepancy and its implications are the subject of ongoing research
It is well known that there is little effect near the equator and a much greater effect of warming near the poles...
That means North and South..not Eastern Europeans..
And the trend line on the graph doesn't appear to agree with you either. Couple that to the hottest years on record nearly all being within the last 20 indicates things are still warming.
Far be it from me to say what is or isn't going to happen, but the majority of scientists involved in this field believe it is a real threat and so Governments will impose taxation and laws to enforce complience with reducing CO2 emissions.
munichlegend
Member
Only it doesn't does it. You appear to have selective eyesight.
The full quote should read
Temperatures have also been measured in the atmosphere; over the last 50 years or so by weather balloons, and by satellite remote sensing since 1979. In the mid-troposphere, about 5 km above the surface, there has been a global-mean warming. Although data are sparse in tropical regions, according to sensors on weather balloons, there seems to have been little change in temperature in the tropical mid-troposphere over the past 25 years, which is not what models predict. This discrepancy and its implications are the subject of ongoing research
It is well known that there is little effect near the equator and a much greater effect of warming near the poles...
That means North and South..not Eastern Europeans..
And the trend line on the graph doesn't appear to agree with you either. Couple that to the hottest years on record nearly all being within the last 20 indicates things are still warming.
Far be it from me to say what is or isn't going to happen, but the majority of scientists involved in this field believe it is a real threat and so Governments will impose taxation and laws to enforce complience with reducing CO2 emissions.
1. Global average temperatures have fallen every year since 2000, according to the Met Office/Hadley Centre (you originally stated you thought they hadn't).
2. Regarding temperature trends: There is no evidence for man-made global warming in current temperature trends, which overall show a minuscule natural warming of 0.053 degree celsius per decade across the globe. Source NOAA satellites 1979 -2002.
3. Regarding "greater warming at the poles": There is nothing unnatural occurring at the poles. Compared to headlines in the newspapers, this might come as a bit of a surprise, since we all saw not too long ago stories about the Larsen B ice shelf calving incident in the Antarctic, and Greenpeace staged a publicity stunt near the Blomstrandbreen glacier on Svalbard in the arctic to try and convince us of the reality of man-made global warming. Polar ice melting is a favourite topic of the scaremongers, and for good reason.
Flawed computer climate models, on which international policy is being based, predict that man-made global warming should have taken off in earnest after about 1950, with impact first and fastest in the polar regions. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not absorb heat in the manner of a blanket, nor does it reflect heat back to the surface like a mirror. Both are misconceptions easily available from diagrams in the media and in school text books.
Carbon dioxide molecules absorb radiant heat at a wavelength of 15 microns. Radiant heat at wavelengths either side of this value will not be absorbed. The Earth's surface, when warmed by the Sun, emits radiant heat across a wide spectrum of wavelengths, with more 15 micron radiation produced where the ground is cold. As a result of this and other factors, the polar regions should be the first to see the effects of higher carbon dioxide levels, and be most affected. Since there is no such trend visible in the data, we must be 'persuaded' that the polar regions are in distress, otherwise we would lose trust in the ability of computer climate models to reflect reality, and start to doubt the environmentalists' propaganda machine.
The Antarctic ice sheet incident produced another example of selective reporting, of not letting the facts get in the way of a good global warming frightener. When the Larsen B ice shelf incident occurred, and a large chunk of ice broke off and set sail, we were told by environmental activists that this was proof of global warming, that temperatures were soaring, that this was a 'wake-up call' and the planet would be doomed unless their demands were met. The truth is that at one locality, representing 2% of the area of Antarctica, the temperature is higher than elsewhere, which is hardly surprising as it is a peninsula protruding into the warmer waters of the southern ocean. For the remaining 98% of Antarctica temperatures are falling, and ice shelf mass is building up at the rate of 27 billion tonnes a year, according to a scientific paper published in Science by Joughin & Tulaczyk.
Antarctica Temperature Variation 1966-2000
(C per decade)
+0.5
+0.25
0
-0.25
-0.5
In any case, an ice shelf is actually a healthy glacier which has advanced and then extended over the sea, growing out onto the water. Floating on the sea, subject to tidal forces, eroded from beneath, and warmed by sunlight above, eventually part of the floating mass must break off in a 'calving' incident. It happens, it's natural, panic over.
In the case of arctic climate, the eco publicity stunt took on a different guise but also involved a glacier. Photographs of the glacier Blomstrandbreen on the island of Svalbard were compared between 1918 and 2002, the difference in appearance being put down to man-made global warming — and so, of course, the 'conclusion' is that we are killing the planet and must stop. Professor Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre on Svalbard has a different view. He points out that glaciers there typically experience a rapid advance lasting 5 to 7 years, then retreat slowly for the next 80 to100 years. All entirely in nature's way.
Wider studies published in the Journal of Paleolimnology show that large sudden swings in temperature appear to be a consistent feature of the climate in this region, with temperatures rising and falling by as much as 2 degrees C in only a decade. Professor Humlum's records on Svalbard show that the biggest changes took place in the 1920s, well before even the IPCC believe that man-made global warming influences could have been felt. More importantly, records show that since mild warming in the 1950s and 1960s, temperatures have been falling. Remember that the polar regions should see early and rapid warming since these times if man-made global warming theory is correct. They don't, and it isn't.
4. Regarding 'the majority of scientist's' / the IPCC support man made global warming argument, please note:
that there is a petition signed by over 17,000 scientists — including more than 2000 leading climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric scientists from across the world, called the OREGON PETITION, which has the following statement at its heart:
"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate
In addition, there are flaws in the processes and reports of the IPCC which are presented so as to allow the public to mislead itself into believing that these Reports are the unanimous views of 2500 scientists. In fact the reports that make media headlines are produced by between 20 and 50 people (Senior Policy Makers), while scientific disagreement lies hidden in the Chapters of the main IPCC Assessment reports, alongside political interference.5. Regarding "laws & taxation to enforce compliance with reducing CO2" Why?
Cars are often identified by public surveys as being responsible for climate change, but even if this was true (it isn't) the numbers don't add up. Cars are responsible for 16% of UK carbon dioxide emissions, which are 2% of total international emissions, and overall mankind is responsible for 3.4% of total annually cycled carbon dioxide (according to the IPCC). So cars are responsible for only 0.01% of emissions.
-
Dieselman
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,198
- Car
- Peugeot 403 Convertible
Not my quote.
As before the text from the Hadley Centre.
Temperatures have also been measured in the atmosphere; over the last 50 years or so by weather balloons, and by satellite remote sensing since 1979. In the mid-troposphere, about 5 km above the surface, there has been a global-mean warming.
The highlited part indicates they believe there has been a global warming.
It looks like we shall have to see what happens, if you're right then we needn't do anything, if you're wrong then you will wish you had.....
Brett
Active Member
Me - I mentioned 4x4 because it appears that they are all considered "gas guzzlers" if Red Ken is anything to go by. Never mind that our previous 4x4 averaged 44mpg over the four years and 50k miles we owned it.
recycled
MB Enthusiast
One of the biggest causes of global warming is de-forestation.
So why is the government cutting all the vegetation up and building houses?
Simple so they can blame the rise in temperature on the cars and the houses.
Get more tax from the houses- stamp duty / inheritance /council tax
and more tax from the cars.
Another cause is overpopulation that leads to more resources being wasted and there being more demands on energy sources.
Solution , tax everyone who decides to have a kid.
The more kids you have the more tax you pay. that way we can discourage parents from having kids and no need for new houses or new cars and no need for candy wrappers and choccy bars.
Hard to implement isn't it
Anyone who believes the government is having a laugh.
Just ask northern rock customers.
As soon as the green 4x4 tax finishes,every car will become a target.
Since cars are more harmful than class A drugs, simple solution.
Ban them all. Crush them all.
Auto makers will now be forced to go out of business in britain or make cars run on hydrogen cells or water e.t.c .
the technology is there. Why has it been stifled ?
Nothing to do with the amount of money that that Mr BP esso Mcshell pays into the treasury now is it?
The next thing will be that non green televisions or those that have stan by buttons will pay a higher licence.
Nothing to do with jonathan ross's wages.
The green bandwagon is growing out of hand and it is becoming a joke.
Simple solution, Identify the problem, tackle it with an effective solution.
What is the problem. Higher temperatures have been going on for years.
there may be a lot of phenomenon taking place here so we need to establish facts and not keep beating around the bush
So why is the government cutting all the vegetation up and building houses?
Simple so they can blame the rise in temperature on the cars and the houses.
Get more tax from the houses- stamp duty / inheritance /council tax
and more tax from the cars.
Another cause is overpopulation that leads to more resources being wasted and there being more demands on energy sources.
Solution , tax everyone who decides to have a kid.
The more kids you have the more tax you pay. that way we can discourage parents from having kids and no need for new houses or new cars and no need for candy wrappers and choccy bars.
Hard to implement isn't it
Anyone who believes the government is having a laugh.
Just ask northern rock customers.
As soon as the green 4x4 tax finishes,every car will become a target.
Since cars are more harmful than class A drugs, simple solution.
Ban them all. Crush them all.
Auto makers will now be forced to go out of business in britain or make cars run on hydrogen cells or water e.t.c .
the technology is there. Why has it been stifled ?
Nothing to do with the amount of money that that Mr BP esso Mcshell pays into the treasury now is it?
The next thing will be that non green televisions or those that have stan by buttons will pay a higher licence.
Nothing to do with jonathan ross's wages.
The green bandwagon is growing out of hand and it is becoming a joke.
Simple solution, Identify the problem, tackle it with an effective solution.
What is the problem. Higher temperatures have been going on for years.
there may be a lot of phenomenon taking place here so we need to establish facts and not keep beating around the bush
recycled
MB Enthusiast
if our population is reduced to 20million, there will be less cars needed, less houses, less congestion, less waste and less rubbish being thrown out.
Can anybody really believe that one single occurencce is responsible for
Polar caps melting
fires in europe
Deserts in africa
hurricanes in america
tsunamis in asia
these are extremes at opposite sides of the spectrum.
If i get a knock on my head i expect the same pain anywhere i am in the world.
Not that it will hurt when i am in europe and that it will feel nice when i am in in japan,
and believe me if it is warm in january so what? save me some cash on the stupid gas bill anyway.
How come there is no taxation or incentive to reduce human breeding and overpopulation?
In fact single girls are even being encouraged to have ,more and more kids and more money and house provided paid for by hard working car owners.
Phew no wonder so many people are migrating
Can anybody really believe that one single occurencce is responsible for
Polar caps melting
fires in europe
Deserts in africa
hurricanes in america
tsunamis in asia
these are extremes at opposite sides of the spectrum.
If i get a knock on my head i expect the same pain anywhere i am in the world.
Not that it will hurt when i am in europe and that it will feel nice when i am in in japan,
and believe me if it is warm in january so what? save me some cash on the stupid gas bill anyway.
How come there is no taxation or incentive to reduce human breeding and overpopulation?
In fact single girls are even being encouraged to have ,more and more kids and more money and house provided paid for by hard working car owners.
Phew no wonder so many people are migrating
Last edited:
recycled
MB Enthusiast
Just to add a bit of contribution to the global warming issue.
If the train tickets are subsidised by the millions people pay in road taxes that are not used on the roads.
create more cycle lanes nationally ,not one that ends after 100yards then i would have to struggle with the HGV for road space.
In holland you can effectively cycle from rotterdam to amsterdam if you have the strength, all on cycle lanes with their own traffic lights and where it crosses with cars, the cycle always has priority like zebra crossings
pay people who recycle benefits and allowances instead of single mums and lazy sods who can not be bothered to get up and find jobs.
except real genuine cases of single mums and disabled people or really struggling job seekers.
13 yrd old mothers a clear no no. if you can not take care of your kid then the baby should be taken into care. Should discourage the council flat teenage hunters.
ensure security and high visibilty policing on the public transport network, e.g take all traffic cops off the roads and put them on buses and trains. should stop all the yobs frightening the commuters.
Those who use their cars only at weekends should be rewarded with incentives muh like the off peak travel scheme.
And if they are really after saving the environment, they should stop moaning about cost,cost,cost and profits and privatisation and stop approving environmentally damaging projects like the olympics.
Imagine how much damage that will do to the environment.
The trucks needed, the sand pits, the construction work and all the nations flying in.
What was wrong with the old wembley? No we want to modernise and then charge londoners record taxes to host the olympics.
this is just double standard to the core.
It is like a dad telling his son always clean the bathroom when you finish but then he goes in and never cleans it himself then charges the son money for the dirty bathroom.
It stinks period.
I was told to wait for 1 year for a recycling bin as they were sourced from guess where france.
So in the whole of GB we can not make recycling bins. ?
If the train tickets are subsidised by the millions people pay in road taxes that are not used on the roads.
create more cycle lanes nationally ,not one that ends after 100yards then i would have to struggle with the HGV for road space.
In holland you can effectively cycle from rotterdam to amsterdam if you have the strength, all on cycle lanes with their own traffic lights and where it crosses with cars, the cycle always has priority like zebra crossings
pay people who recycle benefits and allowances instead of single mums and lazy sods who can not be bothered to get up and find jobs.
except real genuine cases of single mums and disabled people or really struggling job seekers.
13 yrd old mothers a clear no no. if you can not take care of your kid then the baby should be taken into care. Should discourage the council flat teenage hunters.
ensure security and high visibilty policing on the public transport network, e.g take all traffic cops off the roads and put them on buses and trains. should stop all the yobs frightening the commuters.
Those who use their cars only at weekends should be rewarded with incentives muh like the off peak travel scheme.
And if they are really after saving the environment, they should stop moaning about cost,cost,cost and profits and privatisation and stop approving environmentally damaging projects like the olympics.
Imagine how much damage that will do to the environment.
The trucks needed, the sand pits, the construction work and all the nations flying in.
What was wrong with the old wembley? No we want to modernise and then charge londoners record taxes to host the olympics.
this is just double standard to the core.
It is like a dad telling his son always clean the bathroom when you finish but then he goes in and never cleans it himself then charges the son money for the dirty bathroom.
It stinks period.
I was told to wait for 1 year for a recycling bin as they were sourced from guess where france.
So in the whole of GB we can not make recycling bins. ?
Last edited:
Dieselman
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,198
- Car
- Peugeot 403 Convertible
What does, your bathroom..??
Colin_b
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,779
- Location
- Leicester
- Car
- C250CDI (C320CDI & SLK350, Sold) & the Trusty Citigo
Course its about tax.
Produce CO2 in you car, and it is taxed around 50p/kg. The same KG is taxed at 2p if you produce it by using electricity or gas. Eating a burger the government subsidises you to produce it...
If HMG were serious about CO2, they would stop burning coal and gas for heating and power, and build those nice low CO2 emitting nukes. (but that won't produce alll the nice tax revenue, will it?)
Produce CO2 in you car, and it is taxed around 50p/kg. The same KG is taxed at 2p if you produce it by using electricity or gas. Eating a burger the government subsidises you to produce it...
If HMG were serious about CO2, they would stop burning coal and gas for heating and power, and build those nice low CO2 emitting nukes. (but that won't produce alll the nice tax revenue, will it?)
recycled
MB Enthusiast
just watching 5th gear. They spent 55million sorting out a roundabout congestion on the M40, only to create a third roundabout and artificially create more congestion and made the situation worse.
Smells like artificial traffic jams to introduce congestion charges to me.
Smells like artificial traffic jams to introduce congestion charges to me.
verytalldave
MB Enthusiast
That's a very cynical viewpoint. Next you will be claiming road tax isn't spent on the roads.
BonzoDog
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Messages
- 734
- Location
- Luxembourg
- Car
- 280 cdi Break S211 Avantgarde, B200 CDI, W245, Autotronic
I guess the North West Passage (no Frankie Howerd jokes please) opened up merely of its own accord.
R2e
Active Member
This discredited threat has long been used by the religious against atheists. It is no argument for taking unnecessary action and just as I haven't started praying, I'm not taking any action to reduce my carbon footprint until the science proves a) that it is us that is causing global warming, and b) that any action we take can make a difference..
Munichlegend has very ably pointed out the flaws in the global warming swindle. Whether you accept his arguments or not, at least it shows clearly that there is not the blanket agreement by scientists or indeed anyone else that the politicians like to use spuriously as an excuse for further taxation.
Hi,
We already have a CO2 tax it's called fuel duty i.e. the more you 'burn' (mpg) the more you pay.
I think that the approach to begin to dissuade people to buy 'gas guzzlers' by introducing a 'purchase penalty on new vehicles is a good one (especially as it will help maintain the value of mine) as it's all about pointing people in the right direction rather than a blunt instrument.
Relating to the respiratory problems raised earlier (Miro) isn't most diesel particulate pollution (in London) down to public transport (and taxis).
There can be no doubt that weather patterns are changing. How much is 'natural' and how much is man made appears to be the central argument.
But whatever your bias to the above changes in greenhouse GASSES (not just CO2 but methane, NOx and H2O etc.) overall this reflects the balance between their production and removal.
So this is a global problem cos as I've writ before I don't think I can tell the Brazilians to stop chopping down their rain forests to provide housing and food for their citizens.
This then introduces the true reality of 'global warming'. Is it predominantly a side effect of the increasing world population (6 billion and going up)? So what to do? Your guess is as good as mine!
This is a truly global problem with only a proper global solution. However this does not mean that examples cannot be set but let's see the monies raised actually address green house gas balance e.g let's build those nuclear power stations (the French appear to live in harmony with theirs) rather than subsidise free London travel for Toyota Prii.
Cheers,
We already have a CO2 tax it's called fuel duty i.e. the more you 'burn' (mpg) the more you pay.
I think that the approach to begin to dissuade people to buy 'gas guzzlers' by introducing a 'purchase penalty on new vehicles is a good one (especially as it will help maintain the value of mine) as it's all about pointing people in the right direction rather than a blunt instrument.
Relating to the respiratory problems raised earlier (Miro) isn't most diesel particulate pollution (in London) down to public transport (and taxis).
There can be no doubt that weather patterns are changing. How much is 'natural' and how much is man made appears to be the central argument.
But whatever your bias to the above changes in greenhouse GASSES (not just CO2 but methane, NOx and H2O etc.) overall this reflects the balance between their production and removal.
So this is a global problem cos as I've writ before I don't think I can tell the Brazilians to stop chopping down their rain forests to provide housing and food for their citizens.
This then introduces the true reality of 'global warming'. Is it predominantly a side effect of the increasing world population (6 billion and going up)? So what to do? Your guess is as good as mine!
This is a truly global problem with only a proper global solution. However this does not mean that examples cannot be set but let's see the monies raised actually address green house gas balance e.g let's build those nuclear power stations (the French appear to live in harmony with theirs) rather than subsidise free London travel for Toyota Prii.
Cheers,
recycled
MB Enthusiast
the new tax on 4x4 will not solve anything.
Define new cars.
If a dealer buys all his stock and registers them in his name, the car will be second hand then and the public will buy a week old car, thus nulling the new car tax, as it is not new anymore.
if you ask me i think the dealers can absorb 2k anyway as most cars are 2k overpriced.
check with car supermarkets and you can get cars for up to 2k less than forecourt prices.
There is way too much emphasis and taxes on cars and the car industry. It is the easiest form of tax to collect and the car owner is hit from all sides eery minute.
it is like carrying a disease with you wherever you are, owning a car.
How about birth control, fossil fuel control, cow control, vegetation/forest control, building control , all these contribute to global warming not just cars/cars/cars/cars.
Africa that has less cars per head of population, is way hotter than anywhere in europe so is it the cars fault there then? or is it just a natural cycle
Define new cars.
If a dealer buys all his stock and registers them in his name, the car will be second hand then and the public will buy a week old car, thus nulling the new car tax, as it is not new anymore.
if you ask me i think the dealers can absorb 2k anyway as most cars are 2k overpriced.
check with car supermarkets and you can get cars for up to 2k less than forecourt prices.
There is way too much emphasis and taxes on cars and the car industry. It is the easiest form of tax to collect and the car owner is hit from all sides eery minute.
it is like carrying a disease with you wherever you are, owning a car.
How about birth control, fossil fuel control, cow control, vegetation/forest control, building control , all these contribute to global warming not just cars/cars/cars/cars.
Africa that has less cars per head of population, is way hotter than anywhere in europe so is it the cars fault there then? or is it just a natural cycle
Last edited:
recycled
MB Enthusiast
As you cannot tax the sun, it will be hard pushing that theory forward.
prprandall51
MB Enthusiast
Birth control: China had a strict one-child-per-family law for a long time - ruthelessly enforced. India's PrimeMinister (Ghandi?) tried offering a free radio for every man who had a vasectomy. It didn't prove popular, though... In Britain, we have an imploding indigineous population, so there isn't much we can do.
Fossil fuel control - err, isn't that what this thread is about? There are already taxes ("climate control levy") on domestic and commercial heating bills.
Cow control - you've got me there, nobody seems to be doing anthing about that. Do you eat meat? If so, you are part of the problem.
Vegetation / forest control - Globally, again (like the cows) nothing seems to be done. However, the British government has strict controls on de-forestation - even down to protecting individual trees.
Building control - we now have very strict controls on building emissions in all areas from the amount of insulation in the walls and windows through to the efficiency of the central heading boiler and even your log burner has to have an insulated chimney now.
This proposed car tax may just be a blatent bit of robbing the middle classes to keep funding an out-of-control spending machine, but you can't argue that nothing is being done in any other area to combat global warming.
