Al Gore Slamdunked

[Slim]

Oh yes, I remember now, you just want to tax people by the mile don't you.

 

I want to discourage wasted trips, I've suggested a bunch of ways to do that, making them more expensive is just one option. Tax is then just one way of doing that, there are others.

 

That quote is pure scaremongering. And yes I'll wait for the inquiry results, and see just how far they go. You cannot say that they won't spread to other AGW theory institutions because they may well do just that.

 

Scaremongering? Perhaps it's best to read it in context as per the FT link, it does support your point of view as far as I can tell, eg "Nevertheless, sceptics perform an invaluable service. They remind us to keep monitoring actual climate developments."

 

Again I ask you though, if it's scaremongering, what's the downside? Cleaner air, less reliance on fossil fuels, more efficiency. What do we stand to lose, even if AGW does turn out not to be happening, where's the downside to reducing emissions? You are the one who complained about airwaves killing children, isn't poisons in the air even more serious and undesirable?

 

As for the scope of the inquiry, A UK university inquiry isn't ever going to spread to Nasa now is it? Did the inquiry into the 9/11 attacks put your concerns to rest?

[Ringwraith]

I want to discourage wasted trips, I've suggested a bunch of ways to do that, making them more expensive is just one option. Tax is then just one way of doing that, there are others.

 

And who's going to define 'wasted trips' - you?

 

Scaremongering? Perhaps it's best to read it in context as per the FT link, it does support your point of view as far as I can tell, eg "Nevertheless, sceptics perform an invaluable service. They remind us to keep monitoring actual climate developments."

 

Again I ask you though, if it's scaremongering, what's the downside? Cleaner air, less reliance on fossil fuels, more efficiency. What do we stand to lose, even if AGW does turn out not to be happening, where's the downside to reducing emissions? You are the one who complained about airwaves killing children, isn't poisons in the air even more serious and undesirable?

 

Taxes! Governments aorund the world have just injected billions if not trillions into their economies via 'bail out' packages, if they are so convinced and concerned about AGW why didn't they use more of that cash for green technologies? Why didn't they give all homeowners rebates to install insulation, solar panels, wind turbines etc, etc? Action like that would have helped wouldn't it, and would have stimulated manufacturing and they could have clawed some of it back through sales / company tax.

 

You seem extremely passionate about these issues, but apart from bleat on the net about it what have you done locally? Why don't you lobby Tynwald for Island wide kerbside recycling, or whatever else it is you want? Surely that would be a better use of your time wouldn't it? If you're so convinced you can prove what it is you believe in it should be very easy for you, and if you're successful, I'm sure you'll get a great deal of satisfaction and sense of fulfillment from it.

 

As for the scope of the inquiry, A UK university inquiry isn't ever going to spread to Nasa now is it?

 

Who knows, as the details of the inquiry have not yet been decided upon who can say how far reaching it will be?

[VinnieK]

Sorry Vinnie, it just seemed appropriate after your 'poor me' - we're just all poor, honest, scientists guv' crybaby story.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but I suspect the rantings of a deluded malcontent like Monckton who desperately wishes that he had the kind of influence he believes his title deserves is not a very effective counterpoint.

 

As for the 'crybaby story', oh I wasn't really complaining about it. It's true that science is underfunded and scientists often underpaid, but in the end these are acceptable trade offs for what remains a rewarding career. I was more trying to illustrate the point that the financial rewards are so slim, and the business of getting a position so drawn out and challenging that the vast majority of scientists really are there primarily for the science and out of respect for the position. But you keep chasing your own shadow and seeing whatever it is you want to see, just don't expect many people to take you seriously.

[Slim]

And who's going to define 'wasted trips' - you?

 

Yes, why not. How about all car trips under 1 mile are wasted? I'm happy to give an opinion here rather than deride others you see.

 

Taxes! Governments aorund the world have just injected billions if not trillions into their economies via 'bail out' packages, if they are so convinced and concerned about AGW why didn't they use more of that cash for green technologies? Why didn't they give all homeowners rebates to install insulation, solar panels, wind turbines etc, etc? Action like that would have helped wouldn't it, and would have stimulated manufacturing and they could have clawed some of it back through sales / company tax.

 

Taxes? What taxes, specifically? What green taxes exist today? Hydrocarbons have more tax and duty than practically anything else, why, if the only objective is to raise taxes, would the government want us to reduce hydrocarbon consumption?

 

As for the cash injected into the banks, yep, I agree, it's mental that we should be investing into our future and not bailing out the dickheads of the past. But that was an unexpected occurance, not something that was budgetted and planned for.

 

Homeowners are given grants to install insulation, solar panels and wind turbines.

 

You seem extremely passionate about these issues, but apart from bleat on the net about it what have you done locally? Why don't you lobby Tynwald for Island wide kerbside recycling, or whatever else it is you want? Surely that would be a better use of your time wouldn't it? If you're so convinced you can prove what it is you believe in it should be very easy for you, and if you're successful, I'm sure you'll get a great deal of satisfaction and sense of fulfillment from it.

 

I've got kerbside recycling. I think general advocacy is important, and I enjoy it. I'm not patient, popular or charismatic enough for politics! Besides, it's boring as fek.

 

Who knows, as the details of the inquiry have not yet been decided upon who can say how far reaching it will be?

 

So you agree with the outcome of the 9/11 inquiry?

 

Did you read that Monckton report by the way? Did you see his raw data?

[Ringwraith]

And who's going to define 'wasted trips' - you?

 

Yes, why not. How about all car trips under 1 mile are wasted? I'm happy to give an opinion here rather than deride others you see.

 

Taxes? What taxes, specifically? What green taxes exist today? Hydrocarbons have more tax and duty than practically anything else, why, if the only objective is to raise taxes, would the government want us to reduce hydrocarbon consumption?

 

As for the cash injected into the banks, yep, I agree, it's mental that we should be investing into our future and not bailing out the dickheads of the past. But that was an unexpected occurance, not something that was budgetted and planned for.

 

Homeowners are given grants to install insulation, solar panels and wind turbines.

 

I've got kerbside recycling. I think general advocacy is important, and I enjoy it. I'm not patient, popular or charismatic enough for politics! Besides, it's boring as fek.

 

You're not prepared to engage the politicians but are prepared to don your facist cap and tell people when and where they can drive their cars, just about sums you up eh Slimy!

 

Wait and see on the taxes, see what comes out of Copenhagen.

 

The bail out cash did include money for green energy, it could have been more though. My point was that if governments are so convcinced and concerned about AGW why didn't they just print more money for green energy. I mean what's a financial collapse compared to 'climate chaos'?

 

Again if the issue is so pressing why aren't all homes just given the cash to cut their energy loss?

[Slim]

You're not prepared to engage the politicians but are prepared to don your facist cap and tell people when and where they can drive their cars, just about sums you up eh Slimy!

 

I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm expressing my opinion about what they should do based on my experience. I think this is more constructive than posting links to other peoples derisory opinions without adding anything to it myself.

 

Wait and see on the taxes, see what comes out of Copenhagen.

 

Right, so there's no taxes. So I'll ask the question again, whats the downside? Cleaner air, less dependence on hydrocarbons, a more efficient society that's better able to sustain the numbers. Where's the downside? Even if it is taxed, take a peek at the following:

 

 

We're taxed already, what's the difference? Give me a downside to reducing emissions, even if you don't support AGW as a justification, reducing emissions and increasing efficiency is highly desirable.

 

The bail out cash did include money for green energy, it could have been more though. My point was that if governments are so convcinced and concerned about AGW why didn't they just print more money for green energy. I mean what's a financial collapse compared to 'climate chaos'?

Again if the issue is so pressing why aren't all homes just given the cash to cut their energy loss?

 

That's pretty much the point we've been trying to make. This is a hard sell to governments, they don't want it and the fact that they're giving it any time of day attests to the seriousness of the situation and the quality of the research. Governments are re-elected in short terms, they need short term results and success, and the way to drive this is through rapid and probably unsustainable economic growth. Reduction in emissions isn't about this, it's about sustainable industry which would, for many countries, result in a shrinking economy. It also makes western countries uncompetitive, because developing nations can't manage the same sort of cuts, which is largely what's behind the news item you linked to regarding Oz's cap n trade.

 

Governments would rather drill and burn. It's easy, it's profitable, it works.

 

Homes are given cash, my insulation bill was halved through government grants, and I got a load of dosh for changing my boiler.

 

PS, good summary of this thread:

[Dr_Dave]

The bail out cash did include money for green energy, it could have been more though. My point was that if governments are so convcinced and concerned about AGW why didn't they just print more money for green energy. I mean what's a financial collapse compared to 'climate chaos'?

 

Always good at this point to take a step back and summarise the points raised by conspiracy theorists. I know you'll say that you're not claiming this is what's happening, that you're just asking questions, but permit me some leeway.

 

Every government on the planet has fabricated a myth of global warming to enable them to raise taxation and form a single world governance. This has involved a decades-long control of the scientific community, in which highly regarded scientists have been paid to find results that agree with this conclusion. Similarly, the peer-review process has been subverted on every major scientific journal in the world to allow the publishing of bogus results and conclusions.

 

To cover up their plot, many governments (the US, for example) have denied climate change until only the last few years, and have actively ignored any calls to curb emissions. Similarly, China - who needs no excuse to raise taxation - has agreed to limit their growth drastically in order to propagate the myth.

 

Furthermore, the governments of the world have arranged for the world's glaciers to recede measurably and visibly, and for the northern polar ice cap to shrink year on year. To support taxation.

 

To prevent this fraud being discovered, CRU researchers have destroyed raw data - chosing, for some reason, not to just fake the data. They subsequently manipulated results to prevent a global temperature decline being seen. To cover this up, they openly discussed it in major scientific journals. Also, they agree to redefine peer review to prevent a number of dissenting papers being included in the IPCC report - and then included them anyway.

 

Luckily, the oil/gas industry knows the truth of the plot, and pumps huge amounts of money into funding scientists to expose the fraud. We can trust them because they have no vested interest in the situation.

 

Sounds plausible...

 

Dave

[Ringwraith]

Always good at this point to take a step back and summarise the points raised by conspiracy theorists. I know you'll say that you're not claiming this is what's happening, that you're just asking questions, but permit me some leeway.

 

Every government on the planet has fabricated a myth of global warming to enable them to raise taxation and form a single world governance. This has involved a decades-long control of the scientific community, in which highly regarded scientists have been paid to find results that agree with this conclusion. Similarly, the peer-review process has been subverted on every major scientific journal in the world to allow the publishing of bogus results and conclusions.

 

To cover up their plot, many governments (the US, for example) have denied climate change until only the last few years, and have actively ignored any calls to curb emissions. Similarly, China - who needs no excuse to raise taxation - has agreed to limit their growth drastically in order to propagate the myth.

 

Furthermore, the governments of the world have arranged for the world's glaciers to recede measurably and visibly, and for the northern polar ice cap to shrink year on year. To support taxation.

 

To prevent this fraud being discovered, CRU researchers have destroyed raw data - chosing, for some reason, not to just fake the data. They subsequently manipulated results to prevent a global temperature decline being seen. To cover this up, they openly discussed it in major scientific journals. Also, they agree to redefine peer review to prevent a number of dissenting papers being included in the IPCC report - and then included them anyway.

 

Luckily, the oil/gas industry knows the truth of the plot, and pumps huge amounts of money into funding scientists to expose the fraud. We can trust them because they have no vested interest in the situation.

 

Sounds plausible...

 

Dave

 

What point is this then Dr_Dave?

 

I think it's fair to say that any government will impose taxes on people wherever and whenever they can, especially if they have a good story to back themselves up with.

 

I think it's also fair to say that western governments are increasingly intruding on peoples lives, hell Slimy's even offered to become the car monitor for the Island.

 

Climate change has always occured, glaciers have always grown and receded, and yes it looks as though some of the climate scientists have been lying, twisting, leaning on journal editors, dumping data etc., etc and now there will be an inquiry into that to find out exactly what's been going on.

 

Perhaps you should be out planting trees all day long instead of posting on a local forum if you're that concerend about AGW?

[manshimajin]

Heard an interesting and somewhat concerning interview on RTE this morning about carbon taxes.

 

The Minister for Finance in Ireland is facing some very difficult choices on how to manage the balance between cutting costs and raising revenue. Fundamentally he does not want to raise the top rate of tax for the wealthiest people in Ireland. Instead he is seeing a carbon tax as a good alternative for raising revenue.

 

Now I am not against CTs per se but it is rather clear that some (maybe most?) politicians do not see them as a way of reducing emissions but as a way of increasing government income through manipulating the excise duty stream.

 

There will be those who argue that it is a good thing to bring in these taxes whatever the motivation of the politicians. IMO this really misses the point of carbon taxes. If they simply go into the general revenue stream (like road taxes eventually did), as an easier alternative to increasing higher rates of income tax when the financial going is tough, what are the chances that politicians will deliver on much better public transport, alternative energy, nuclear power, re-aforestation etc etc...Will the money from CT just go 'down the drain' in terms of improving the environment?

 

I don't think that this is just an Irish problem either.

 

IMO introducing carbon taxes should be seen as part of a long term environmental programme - not simply another easy option for getting more money from taxpayers.

[Slim]

What point is this then Dr_Dave?

 

Woosh!

[Ringwraith]

What point is this then Dr_Dave?

 

Woosh!

 

No, I saw what he did there, I was referring to what Dr_Dave said here

 

Always good at this point

 

What point, Page 16 of a thread or what?

 

Don't you feel guilty about your whoosh post Slimy, you just burnt through some more fossil fuels typing that out, shouldn't you be off flagellating yourself with some organically grown birch twigs or something?

[ans]

What point, Page 16 of a thread or what?

 

At the point where people have started arguing in circles with no clear end in sight.

 

I think it's interesting that in a post which highlights the outlandish nature of your claims, the only thing you choose to reply to is a bland and pointless semantic question. You strike me as someone who only holds an opinion because it was given to him.

[Slim]

Don't you feel guilty about your whoosh post Slimy, you just burnt through some more fossil fuels typing that out, shouldn't you be off flagellating yourself with some organically grown birch twigs or something?

 

Are you ten years old?

[angelo]

I hate to say this, but the world needs to stop all car and plane transport right NOW, for a one year test run.

 

Plus we should shut down all the non-nuclear power stations. But it would have to be for at least ten years to get a meaningful result. It would be fun sitting at home waiting for the results.

[GD4ELI]

Don't you feel guilty about your whoosh post Slimy, you just burnt through some more fossil fuels typing that out, shouldn't you be off flagellating yourself with some organically grown birch twigs or something?

 

Are you ten years old?

Are you sure you should be asking this in public forums ?