Huhne calls for carbon clampdown (From This is Hampshire)

Absolute waste of time and money, but of course, a wonderful source for governments to tax their residents and businesses.

CankyMunt wrote:
Absolute waste of time and money, but of course, a wonderful source for governments to tax their residents and businesses.

It amazes me that climate change deniers always use this argument - as if the government NEEDS a reason to tax us more.

If Chris Huhne wanted to tackle climate change, like the signs entering Eastleigh borough state, he wouldn't have allowed the new signs stating "tackling climate change" to have been manufactured and installed at a cost to the environment before the old signs were life expired.

world temps have not warmed since 2001 whilst co2 has been rising.
ice cores have shown that temps have risen before co2 levels for the last 1/2 million years.
the co2 in the atmosphere is so saturated that adding more makes virtually no difference.
30000 scientists have signed the petition project stating
"there is no convincing evidence that human release of co2, methane or other greenhouse gases is or will cause catstrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere or climate"
uk scientists have been caught "cooking the books"
how much more evidence do you need global warming is a con trick

Well said DJ
Old hippies who failed in mainstream life will always look for the cause which will allow them to get even.

Nice beards - poor logic

derek james wrote:
world temps have not warmed since 2001 whilst co2 has been rising. ice cores have shown that temps have risen before co2 levels for the last 1/2 million years. the co2 in the atmosphere is so saturated that adding more makes virtually no difference. 30000 scientists have signed the petition project stating "there is no convincing evidence that human release of co2, methane or other greenhouse gases is or will cause catstrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere or climate" uk scientists have been caught "cooking the books" how much more evidence do you need global warming is a con trick

Wrong - even allowing for the tiny snapshot period you're looking at since 2001 (just 8 years as no 2010 data is available yet) you'll see that the trend is upwards. Even though there may be no difference between 2001 and 2008 due to natural cycles if you look at the individual years and do analysis on that you'll still see the trend going up.
The 30,000 signatures is a con - only 0.1% have a climatology background, 0.5% if you include those whose background is atmospheric science. The rest may be scientists but have no knowledge of climate - would you trust a dermotoligist to diagnose if you had a heart problem? No, then why listen to a medical scientist (3,046 of which signed the petition) about climate?
Lastly, try researching the names of some of these "scientists" who signed the petition. You'll find many who have no information about them other than the fact they signed the petition. Trustworthy? Hardly.

DCM wrote:

derek james wrote: world temps have not warmed since 2001 whilst co2 has been rising. ice cores have shown that temps have risen before co2 levels for the last 1/2 million years. the co2 in the atmosphere is so saturated that adding more makes virtually no difference. 30000 scientists have signed the petition project stating "there is no convincing evidence that human release of co2, methane or other greenhouse gases is or will cause catstrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere or climate" uk scientists have been caught "cooking the books" how much more evidence do you need global warming is a con trick

Wrong - even allowing for the tiny snapshot period you're looking at since 2001 (just 8 years as no 2010 data is available yet) you'll see that the trend is upwards. Even though there may be no difference between 2001 and 2008 due to natural cycles if you look at the individual years and do analysis on that you'll still see the trend going up. The 30,000 signatures is a con - only 0.1% have a climatology background, 0.5% if you include those whose background is atmospheric science. The rest may be scientists but have no knowledge of climate - would you trust a dermotoligist to diagnose if you had a heart problem? No, then why listen to a medical scientist (3,046 of which signed the petition) about climate? Lastly, try researching the names of some of these "scientists" who signed the petition. You'll find many who have no information about them other than the fact they signed the petition. Trustworthy? Hardly.

Nice beard DCM, poor logic.

Atpost wrote:

DCM wrote:

derek james wrote: world temps have not warmed since 2001 whilst co2 has been rising. ice cores have shown that temps have risen before co2 levels for the last 1/2 million years. the co2 in the atmosphere is so saturated that adding more makes virtually no difference. 30000 scientists have signed the petition project stating "there is no convincing evidence that human release of co2, methane or other greenhouse gases is or will cause catstrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere or climate" uk scientists have been caught "cooking the books" how much more evidence do you need global warming is a con trick

Wrong - even allowing for the tiny snapshot period you're looking at since 2001 (just 8 years as no 2010 data is available yet) you'll see that the trend is upwards. Even though there may be no difference between 2001 and 2008 due to natural cycles if you look at the individual years and do analysis on that you'll still see the trend going up. The 30,000 signatures is a con - only 0.1% have a climatology background, 0.5% if you include those whose background is atmospheric science. The rest may be scientists but have no knowledge of climate - would you trust a dermotoligist to diagnose if you had a heart problem? No, then why listen to a medical scientist (3,046 of which signed the petition) about climate? Lastly, try researching the names of some of these "scientists" who signed the petition. You'll find many who have no information about them other than the fact they signed the petition. Trustworthy? Hardly.

Nice beard DCM, poor logic.

Excellent - can't challenge me on the facts so resort to name calling. Hilarious.

DCM

I could challenge you for hours on the facts. The FACT is that nobody really knows.
The earth is constantly evolving, under the control of natural forces.
Anyone can be selective with a few facts, and concoct a pseudo-scientific case.

People who are anti oil, industry and progress tend to be losers who hate the world for not rewarding them for being able to analyse and talk the hind legs off a donkey.

Atpost wrote:
DCM I could challenge you for hours on the facts. The FACT is that nobody really knows. The earth is constantly evolving, under the control of natural forces. Anyone can be selective with a few facts, and concoct a pseudo-scientific case. People who are anti oil, industry and progress tend to be losers who hate the world for not rewarding them for being able to analyse and talk the hind legs off a donkey.

With your comments you are destroying the sceptic case rather than mine. You are correct when you say that it cannot be proved for certain. But my argument is that the climate change case is made up of taking all the facts and forming a viable theory, whereas the sceptic case is built up of untruths and exploiting the fact that it isn't proven, rather than by producing a serious argument.
Again, please refrain from attacking me personally simply because you are trying to discredit me. As you don't know who I am then you have no idea what you're talking about. You are simply making yourself look silly.

DCM wrote:

Atpost wrote: DCM I could challenge you for hours on the facts. The FACT is that nobody really knows. The earth is constantly evolving, under the control of natural forces. Anyone can be selective with a few facts, and concoct a pseudo-scientific case. People who are anti oil, industry and progress tend to be losers who hate the world for not rewarding them for being able to analyse and talk the hind legs off a donkey.

With your comments you are destroying the sceptic case rather than mine. You are correct when you say that it cannot be proved for certain. But my argument is that the climate change case is made up of taking all the facts and forming a viable theory, whereas the sceptic case is built up of untruths and exploiting the fact that it isn't proven, rather than by producing a serious argument. Again, please refrain from attacking me personally simply because you are trying to discredit me. As you don't know who I am then you have no idea what you're talking about. You are simply making yourself look silly.

You do have a beard then?

CO2 is not a poison. It is a requirement for life. AGW is a con.

I'm with DCM & Forest Hump on this one. Atpost seems to have swallowed the AGW fantasy whole.

It seems that some people still have not read the East Anglia E-mails, which proved beyond doubt that AGW climate scientists around the world are liars and cheats. They falsify the evidence, cherry-pick data to give dstorted results and willfully create a panic in government circles so that they will get lots more money for their research. There are plenty of highly qualified scientists (even apart from the 30,000) who do publicly question the AGW theory. In fact, four world leading climate scientists of the Hadley Centre in Devon have come out and signed a protest against the IPCC's claims. Wake up! What about David Vaughan of the British Antarctic survey who concluded there was no evidence that the icecaps were melting at more than an infinitesimal rate or that sea-levels were going to be affected? What about Georg Kaser the glaciologist who warned that the IPCC's theories were not based on scientific research? It seems to be the AGW fanatics who are incapable of accepting logical evidence, - and keen to use all sorts of sly tactics to avoid debate.

As for Chris Huhne, he is a hypocrite. He is a multi-millionaire, with a jet-setting lavish lifestyle, a string of cars and a string of homes. Oh, and several electric trouser-presses that he bought on expenses. Yet he tells other people to make cuts. Why doesn't he lead the way? Maybe he should go and live in a shack in Zimbabwe if he really believes in the AGW religion.