Politics And AGW/GW

[Gowon]

Hi, Higrade and welcome to the pleasuredome. B)

Anyway......just a quickie as I'm off to work shortly...........I understand that there have been food shortages (starvation? ) in some parts of the world, due to the growing of crops for fuel instead of for food.

It ain't right, it just ain't right. Is the loony fringe so blinkered that they cannot see what they are doing? We need alternative fuels, but it cannot be at the cost of peoples' lives.

Have to go now.

Thank you noggin.

Instead of concentrating on whats important i.e. poor/hungry homeless people they spend our money on things that are not even beneficial or cost effective whilst ruining the worlds ecosystem.

[Gray-Wolf]

Couldn't agree more. Our Beth who's 14 has just taken delivery of her new super dooper powered wheelchair. When we changed our motobility vehicle late last year we had to go for a converted Van as it was the only type that we could get a sensible ramp into it. it still cost us £2500 and we don't get carpets or proper seats in the back, the most basic driving and front passenger seats etc and the associated poor mileage. For families with disabled children we have enough extra costs without the added burden of extra fuel costs because we can't buy suitable fuel efficient vehicles. This may seem callous but it is a real shame that both Brown and Cameron lost their children so young because if they had survived to adulthood government may at last have appreciated the difficulties faced by many families

Why can't we have 'Red' diesel?

I've been saying that for years...Everyone thinks I'm mad! B)

No Pete, it's not the 'tax' thing your being judged on

[Thundery wintry showers]

I still can't see the problem with scrapping Vehicle Tax altogether, and putting it all on fuel. More fuel you use, more road you use, more tax you pay.

Seems simple to me.

I've been saying that for years...Everyone thinks I'm mad! B)

And, as my post #465 above illustrates, I still largely agree with you. I say "largely" because I'm not sure about the moving of insurance over to fuel tax (as insurance partly measures the likelihood of accidents)- but I'm certainly all in favour of doing that with vehicle tax, and indeed pretty much any other environmental levy on motorists.

Re. Higrade/Noggin, yes there is a lot of environmental tokenism around, finding ways of looking like something is being done about the problem but in reality achieving little other than to annoy people. However, it is important to find alternative fuels, otherwise AGW or no, we will be in for a serious economic depression and global wars when the oil reserves become scant. And that would be likely to significantly increase the number of hungry and homeless people in the world...

[noggin]

However, it is important to find alternative fuels, otherwise AGW or no, we will be in for a serious economic depression and global wars when the oil reserves become scant.

Oh, yes, I couldn't agree more. If all the money "spent" on wars and stupid, waste-of-time initiatives was spent on research for alternative fuels then we would probably have some by now.

[noggin]

http://britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/b...severn-barrage/

Here is an example of a difficult balancing act........the Severn Barrage. The link is a fairly random one.....there are so many on this subject!

Yes, a hefty amount of power would be supplied by harnessing the enormous tide of the Severn Estuary, but at what cost to wildlife. The Cardiff Weston proposal is looking the most likely, but the effects on wildlife, both "residential" and overwintering would be enormous. Wildlife does matter.....all a part of the chain of interdependent life on Earth.

I believe that the local fishing industry (elvers) would also be wiped out by the barrage.

What to do, eh? B)

[HighPressure]

As I said in my previous post I do not agree that just because a person maybe rich and can afford any tax levied at them they have the right to pollute? Unless of course the additional taxation was physically knocking off emissions somewhere else.

[LadyPakal]

A couple of articles...

This one made me smile:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story....1343246&p=1

This one, well what can I say? Sticks and stones.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog...-denier-sceptic

Now, try something disturbing...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/6320/

[Solar Cycles]

Now, try something disturbing...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/6320/

Well as a Mental Health Nurse, I might be nursing a few of you in the not to distant future ( hang on I'm a denier to. :lol: )

[Chris Knight]

Now, try something disturbing...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/6320/

It is a terrible condition to be both green and a sceptic - looking on the positive side, I find myself being classed as a "Septic", by those, presumably "Antiseptics".

[7andY]

Try telling those who earn money from driving jobs so they can feed their children.

...ahhh, yes. Emotional blackmail. When sound discussion fails, it's always a good one to fall back on...

So you're telling me that goods should be cheaper for families just because they have kids?

Your energy bill should be lower because of more cooking/heating for more people?

Should a bigger car be cheaper because you have to transport more bodies?

How about a rebate on your food shopping?

No, thought not.

Straw man argument...

It would mean that driving job would reflect its true costs to the transport infrastructure and taxation requirement. Why should I subsidise those with a driving job. No-one does that for my job (Network Manager).

7&Y

[Methuselah]

Straw man argument...

You'll see a lot of those on here! :lol:

[Iceberg]

It would effect those in rural areas, which is one reason why I am not in favour of all the tax being on the fuel.

Rural people have by and large had any decent bus connection taken away, you can't get to work any other way other than driving, you can't get your kids to school etc etc. i.e you have no choice.

Their would be a real danger of pricing people out of the coutryside or turning the countryside into an OAP centre, which would kill alot of the local activities.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There are no "disorders", but what we can get is closed-mindedness. This arises where people develop a fixed idea that AGW does not exist, and fit evidence around it, rather than fitting it around the evidence (this sort of confirmation bias is a problem that arises across many topic areas not just AGW). So when one challenges this "evidence", a lot of circular reasoning comes out.

However, if people are looking at evidence and concluding from it that the evidence for strong AGW is weak, then those people deserve to be listened to, and most hardcore climate scientists acknowledge that.

There are pro-AGW extremists out there, and we have all already established that many times over. The Spiked-Online article merely confirms this, but it's not enough to "refute" pro-AGW positions by pointing out that there are some extremists. What is needed is to show that most pro-AGW positions are held by extremists, and I'm afraid there, the evidence is strongly on the contrary.

[Admiral_Bobski]

It is a terrible condition to be both green and a sceptic - looking on the positive side, I find myself being classed as a "Septic", by those, presumably "Antiseptics".

That's exactly why I spell skeptic with a "k"!

:lol:

CB

[Devonian]

It would effect those in rural areas, which is one reason why I am not in favour of all the tax being on the fuel.

Rural people have by and large had any decent bus connection taken away, you can't get to work any other way other than driving, you can't get your kids to school etc etc. i.e you have no choice.

Their would be a real danger of pricing people out of the coutryside or turning the countryside into an OAP centre, which would kill alot of the local activities.

It's already happened here . Or rather nearly all of the small farms around here have been bought up by the only people who can afford them, rich (often very rich) people wanting the quiet, good life. But this is peripheral Dartmoor, an attractive place I guess.

[jethro]

Now, try something disturbing...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/6320/

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I think it only right and fitting that myself and Noggin (being the two festering septics closest to the U of W eng) should take a little trip down there, and offer ourselves up for examination. After all, if we're both deemed "clinically insane" we'll have a legitimate medical reason to be as outrageous as we like. Sounds like fun to me...

Tempted, soooo tempted, being so close, it's almost an invitation.

[Thundery wintry showers]

One thing I will say about politics and AGW/GW that annoys me from the pro-AGW side. It's all well and good the extremists being in the minority, but one worrying thing is that they get a disproportionate amount of power. The extremists tend to be the ones who get promoted within campaign groups (which goes back to my point a while ago about it being incredibly hard to find campaign groups which accommodate moderate views on their subject areas). This gives their groups more publicity and helps papers to sell. But it also makes it even harder to have a sane discussion on the subject and, at least as importantly, what to do about it. I often get a sense of the politicians getting a lot more exposure to extremist views than moderate views, which in turn affects their policymaking.

[laserguy]

One thing I will say about politics and AGW/GW that annoys me from the pro-AGW side....

I'm supposed to be on a self-imposed hiatus for a while so's I don't get too carried away,but can't let this baby go!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7927668.stm

'The move was a "last resort" after the democratic process failed, she said'.

That's a statement from the linked item. In other words,the teddy is out of the pram because she couldn't get her own way. And I agree with your post above,TWS. Shock! Horror!

[Gowon]

...ahhh, yes. Emotional blackmail. When sound discussion fails, it's always a good one to fall back on...

So you're telling me that goods should be cheaper for families just because they have kids?

Your energy bill should be lower because of more cooking/heating for more people?

Should a bigger car be cheaper because you have to transport more bodies?

How about a rebate on your food shopping?

No, thought not.

Straw man argument...

It would mean that driving job would reflect its true costs to the transport infrastructure and taxation requirement. Why should I subsidise those with a driving job. No-one does that for my job (Network Manager).

7&Y

My friend, I was just trying to point out that we already fork out too much on taxes.

Surely they have enough of our money to spend on transport infrastructure.

I do respect your other points though.

[noggin]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I think it only right and fitting that myself and Noggin (being the two festering septics closest to the U of W eng) should take a little trip down there, and offer ourselves up for examination. After all, if we're both deemed "clinically insane" we'll have a legitimate medical reason to be as outrageous as we like. Sounds like fun to me...

Tempted, soooo tempted, being so close, it's almost an invitation.

Well, I see that we have also been referred to as "reptiles". I must say, I have never thought of myself as a festering, septic, clinically insane reptile in need of an eco-lobotomy but it takes all sorts I suppose!

I am literally 5 minutes drive from UWE. I am seriously thinking of going along to see what I can see. B)

[Gowon]

Im sorry if this has been mention before but has anybody heard of the illuminati, check it out on u tube.

[noggin]

Some more insults for us s©eptics here.......http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/04/climate-change-creationist-denier-sceptic

Try again....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog...-denier-sceptic

Edited March 6, 2009 by noggin

[Gray-Wolf]

...ahhh, yes. Emotional blackmail. When sound discussion fails, it's always a good one to fall back on...

7&Y

So when your 'soul/spirit' kicks in it's too difficult to handle?

You'll see a lot of those on here!

Ooooh Yersssss!

That's exactly why I spell skeptic with a "k"!

CB

As I said " in the other place", hard to B negative with Joanie M sayin' it how it is ( in H.H.O.)

EDIT: " I really don't know clouds......at all"

Edited March 6, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

Some more insults for us s©eptics here.......http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/04/climate-change-creationist-denier-sceptic

Try again....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog...-denier-sceptic

Read some of the comments left by those delightful middle class socialist!

[Thundery wintry showers]

My friend, I was just trying to point out that we already fork out too much on taxes.

Surely they have enough of our money to spend on transport infrastructure.

I do respect your other points though.

I don't think anyone has explicitly suggested increasing the overall tax burden on motorists- I certainly haven't. The suggestion a few of us were making was to remove taxes from things like vehicle tax and move them over to fuel taxes- thus relating the cost of driving more directly to consumption- so that the more you pollute/consume, the more you pay.

A couple of points re links:

Laserguy's link: refers to an extremist pressure group, Plane Stupid. We already established on another thread that they are... well, plain stupid.

Noggin's link: actually, I agree with a large majority of what the writer says. The writer is not dismissing genuine sceptics, who have considered the available evidence and are sceptical about the conclusions that most scientists have reached- in fact he implies that it's an honourable position. The writer is dismissing the sort of people who work backwards from the premise that AGW isn't happening and fit evidence around it- "denialists" would be a fair assessment here as such people are simply ignoring the evidence, preferring instead to sit behind the "AGW is a myth" wall of security.

I would agree with replacing "creationists" with "deniers". It would not, however, be a fair term to describe many of those who suspect that AGW is occurring but is somewhat weaker than the scientists think, because that is a legitimate position with some evidence available to back it up with.