The end of the world is nigh!

mkpdavies · 31-10-2006, 07:34 AM

Prove to me that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Explain to me why this planet has always had massive shifts in climate, but now we are here, we don't expect it to do that anymore.

Prove to me that any effects of global warming are not actually beneficial.

Explain to me why another Ice Age, which we are actually due, isn't a bigger cause for concern.

Explain to me why we are not working on ways to survivie natural climate shifts, but instead wasting money on something that is going to be almost impossible to change in any great amount.

Explain to me why governments are not making sure this is tax neutral, by giving money back in other areas, thus encouraging the so called good behaviour, but not raping our bank accounts for it.

Explain to me why scientists 20 years ago had completely the opposite theory to the one we have being fosited upon us now, did they discover alien technology or something?

Explain to me why the media is so biased on the issue, when there are MANY voices against it, including environmentalists and scientists.

Explain to me why the very same people trying to scare us, fly, drive, use fossil fuels and do all the things that we are told not too, but tend to have an expense account to pay for it.

prober · 31-10-2006, 09:12 AM

Anyway, the EU is going to love this one, with the added advantage of a moral posturing green halo . Wait for a wave of more draconian regs making everything illegal in industry ( except cheap flights for Eurocrats).
The government cant wait to get its grubby hands on all that extra green tax. Any ideas on how to waste it ?

Meanwhile in China & India .........

SGK · 31-10-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

It is true that the only way they can see to reduce greenhouse gasses is through taxes etc. and planning schemes to enable GDP to continue to rise whilst reducing carbon emmissons

That is simply not true. There are many, many alternatives to tax - which has actually proved fairly useless in this area - and even if taxes are to be used there are ways of making it tax neutral. Neither is it actually necessary for GDP to rise in order to have a healthy economy.

Millennium3 · 31-10-2006, 10:58 AM

The debate earlier was concerned with whether global warming was an actuality caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps no one knows if we have made much difference to an existing problem or a great deal, but it is pretty clear to me now, this is conventional wisdom and any political party which wishes to make progress has to take it into account.

Objectively, if we are burning too much fossil fuel a rationing system is likely to be more effective than financial penalties. However, we now live at a time where bad behaviour is charged for rather than stopped. It would not surprise me to hear that Brown has bought out a 'murder' tax - all that happens if you kill someone is that you pay £1m to the exchequer.

mkpdavies · 31-10-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

conventional wisdom

Another word for brainwashed hysteria.

SGK · 31-10-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

The debate earlier was concerned with whether global warming was an actuality caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps no one knows if we have made much difference to an existing problem or a great deal, but it is pretty clear to me now, this is conventional wisdom and any political party which wishes to make progress has to take it into account.

Objectively, if we are burning too much fossil fuel a rationing system is likely to be more effective than financial penalties. However, we now live at a time where bad behaviour is charged for rather than stopped. It would not surprise me to hear that Brown has bought out a 'murder' tax - all that happens if you kill someone is that you pay £1m to the exchequer.

It's still the same debate; one of your arguments was that there were no winners in solving the environmental problems and therefore logic says that it is a legitimate concern - my reply is that if there are many ways to tackling the issue and the government has chosen a less effective way which brings in lots of extra tax revenue, then there is definately a winner - meaning that there IS doubt that the environmental problems are a legitimate concern.

Millennium3 · 31-10-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

The debate earlier was concerned with whether global warming was an actuality caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps no one knows if we have made much difference to an existing problem or a great deal, but it is pretty clear to me now, this is conventional wisdom and any political party which wishes to make progress has to take it into account.

Objectively, if we are burning too much fossil fuel a rationing system is likely to be more effective than financial penalties. However, we now live at a time where bad behaviour is charged for rather than stopped. It would not surprise me to hear that Brown has bought out a 'murder' tax - all that happens if you kill someone is that you pay £1m to the exchequer.

It's still the same debate; one of your arguments was that there were no winners in solving the environmental problems and therefore logic says that it is a legitimate concern - my reply is that if there are many ways to tackling the issue and the government has chosen a less effective way which brings in lots of extra tax revenue, then there is definately a winner - meaning that there IS doubt that the environmental problems are a legitimate concern.

I think I am suggesting that if it is conventional wisdom [which is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future], any party which does not incorporate this into its policies will be marginalized. However, if UKIP or another anti EU party devises policies which do not cost the taxpayer an 'arm and a leg' the issue could be a 'winner' for that party.

SGK · 31-10-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

I think I am suggesting that if it is conventional wisdom [which is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future], any party which does not incorporate this into its policies will be marginalized. However, if UKIP or another anti EU party devises policies which do not cost the taxpayer an 'arm and a leg' the issue could be a 'winner' for that party.

I would agree that probably all political parties would rather get bums on green leather than begin a battle against 'conventional wisdom', which may or may not be a vote winner.
However, I would also suggest that any political party that did just that and then got into power would have the problem of having a host of 'green' taxes propping up the system which, strictly speaking, it should then work to abolish. It would be deliberately putting a line through a tax-raising option.

mkpdavies · 31-10-2006, 12:18 PM

BBC Have Your Say shows there is a huge chunk of the population that just does not buy this BS.

UKIP has to come up with some fair green options that will protect our environment, but won't rape the people doing it.

I think UKIP being measured and putting both sides of the argument, will gain the party much more credibility than joining in the shouts to burn the witch.

Millennium3 · 31-10-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

BBC Have Your Say shows there is a huge chunk of the population that just does not buy this BS.

UKIP has to come up with some fair green options that will protect our environment, but won't rape the people doing it.

I think UKIP being measured and putting both sides of the argument, will gain the party much more credibility than joining in the shouts to burn the witch.

The real problem is that the concept that man's behaviour is either causing or exacerbating global warming is so far reaching that any responsible government has to err on the side of caution. If there are serious doubts by a respected group of scientists - then you keep monitoring the situation until the truth is known. However, in the meantime, you must assume the threat to be real.

31-10-2006, 07:34 AM	#11 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,823 Party: Libertarian Party	Prove to me that CO2 is the cause of climate change. Explain to me why this planet has always had massive shifts in climate, but now we are here, we don't expect it to do that anymore. Prove to me that any effects of global warming are not actually beneficial. Explain to me why another Ice Age, which we are actually due, isn't a bigger cause for concern. Explain to me why we are not working on ways to survivie natural climate shifts, but instead wasting money on something that is going to be almost impossible to change in any great amount. Explain to me why governments are not making sure this is tax neutral, by giving money back in other areas, thus encouraging the so called good behaviour, but not raping our bank accounts for it. Explain to me why scientists 20 years ago had completely the opposite theory to the one we have being fosited upon us now, did they discover alien technology or something? Explain to me why the media is so biased on the issue, when there are MANY voices against it, including environmentalists and scientists. Explain to me why the very same people trying to scare us, fly, drive, use fossil fuels and do all the things that we are told not too, but tend to have an expense account to pay for it. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

31-10-2006, 12:18 PM	#19 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,823 Party: Libertarian Party	BBC Have Your Say shows there is a huge chunk of the population that just does not buy this BS. UKIP has to come up with some fair green options that will protect our environment, but won't rape the people doing it. I think UKIP being measured and putting both sides of the argument, will gain the party much more credibility than joining in the shouts to burn the witch. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

31-10-2006, 09:12 AM	#12 (permalink)
prober Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 852	Anyway, the EU is going to love this one, with the added advantage of a moral posturing green halo . Wait for a wave of more draconian regs making everything illegal in industry ( except cheap flights for Eurocrats). The government cant wait to get its grubby hands on all that extra green tax. Any ideas on how to waste it ? Meanwhile in China & India .........

31-10-2006, 10:58 AM	#14 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 4,506	The debate earlier was concerned with whether global warming was an actuality caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps no one knows if we have made much difference to an existing problem or a great deal, but it is pretty clear to me now, this is conventional wisdom and any political party which wishes to make progress has to take it into account. Objectively, if we are burning too much fossil fuel a rationing system is likely to be more effective than financial penalties. However, we now live at a time where bad behaviour is charged for rather than stopped. It would not surprise me to hear that Brown has bought out a 'murder' tax - all that happens if you kill someone is that you pay £1m to the exchequer.