April 3rd, 2007, 06:08 PM
Humans 'not to blame' for climate change
April 3, 2007 - 8:04AM
A group of scientists is fighting a rearguard action to challenge mainstream evidence that humans are to blame for climate change.
They point to natural shifts in the sun's heat, a cooling of the planet in the mid-20th century and an apparent slowdown of temperature rises in the past decade.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in February that it was "very likely" - more than 90 per cent - that human activities, namely fossil fuel burning, explained most of an "unequivocal" warming in the past 50 years.
The panel said temperatures will likely rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius this century.
The IPCC, made up of about 2,500 scientists, is endorsed by governments.
"There is always a bit of room for doubt...it's in the nature of science," said Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN climate panel.
"But I cannot think of any tangible reasons for doubt."
The "sceptics" who doubt some IPCC claims include meteorology professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Professor Paul Reiter from the medical entomology department at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and author Michael Crichton.
Many scientists also say US President George W Bush has exaggerated the uncertainties about scientific findings to appease powerful business and oil lobbies.
Here are some of the arguments of those who cast doubt on mankind's responsibility for climate change, and beneath each a response by the Hadley Centre of Britain's Meteorological Office, its official centre for climate change research.
1. Temperatures dropped for several decades after 1945, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions
*** Along with carbon dioxide, fossil fuels also release particles called aerosols, which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight. Aerosols dominated the warming effect of CO2 prior to clean-air acts of the 1960s and 1970s.
2. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere lag temperature rises in an ice core record dating back 600,000 years.
*** Over the past several hundred thousand years, changes in the earth's orbit around the sun led to temperature changes, which in turn affected CO2 levels.
Concentrations of C02 are higher than they had been during the past 600,000 years. The counter-effect is that human-induced increases of C02, such as factory emissions, have enhanced the greenhouse effect and led to warming.
3. Changes in solar activity also produce good correlations with temperature change.
*** There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. Satellite measurements showed no big change in solar heating in the last three decades of the 20th century. CO2 has been shown to have caused most warming in the past 50 years.
4. Rising temperatures in the second half of the last century have plateaued in the past 10 years.
*** 1998 was extremely warm due to a warning of the weather anomaly El Nino warming in the Pacific Ocean, and subsequent years were colder. Ten years is too short a period to see long-term trends. While the World Meteorological Organisation says 1998 was the warmest year since records began 150 years ago, NASA says 2005 was warmer.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Hum...366197050.html
Humans 'not to blame' for climate change
April 3, 2007 - 8:04AM
A group of scientists is fighting a rearguard action to challenge mainstream evidence that humans are to blame for climate change.
They point to natural shifts in the sun's heat, a cooling of the planet in the mid-20th century and an apparent slowdown of temperature rises in the past decade.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in February that it was "very likely" - more than 90 per cent - that human activities, namely fossil fuel burning, explained most of an "unequivocal" warming in the past 50 years.
The panel said temperatures will likely rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius this century.
The IPCC, made up of about 2,500 scientists, is endorsed by governments.
"There is always a bit of room for doubt...it's in the nature of science," said Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN climate panel.
"But I cannot think of any tangible reasons for doubt."
The "sceptics" who doubt some IPCC claims include meteorology professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Professor Paul Reiter from the medical entomology department at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and author Michael Crichton.
Many scientists also say US President George W Bush has exaggerated the uncertainties about scientific findings to appease powerful business and oil lobbies.
Here are some of the arguments of those who cast doubt on mankind's responsibility for climate change, and beneath each a response by the Hadley Centre of Britain's Meteorological Office, its official centre for climate change research.
1. Temperatures dropped for several decades after 1945, despite rising carbon dioxide emissions
*** Along with carbon dioxide, fossil fuels also release particles called aerosols, which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight. Aerosols dominated the warming effect of CO2 prior to clean-air acts of the 1960s and 1970s.
2. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere lag temperature rises in an ice core record dating back 600,000 years.
*** Over the past several hundred thousand years, changes in the earth's orbit around the sun led to temperature changes, which in turn affected CO2 levels.
Concentrations of C02 are higher than they had been during the past 600,000 years. The counter-effect is that human-induced increases of C02, such as factory emissions, have enhanced the greenhouse effect and led to warming.
3. Changes in solar activity also produce good correlations with temperature change.
*** There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. Satellite measurements showed no big change in solar heating in the last three decades of the 20th century. CO2 has been shown to have caused most warming in the past 50 years.
4. Rising temperatures in the second half of the last century have plateaued in the past 10 years.
*** 1998 was extremely warm due to a warning of the weather anomaly El Nino warming in the Pacific Ocean, and subsequent years were colder. Ten years is too short a period to see long-term trends. While the World Meteorological Organisation says 1998 was the warmest year since records began 150 years ago, NASA says 2005 was warmer.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Hum...366197050.html
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154 
April 3rd, 2007, 06:49 PM
Actually, it's my own theory that the much discussed increase in the obese is behind global warming. There's no argument that the obese having a greater BMI also produce a larger surface to reflect or exchange heat with the atmosphere. Ergo, incremental changes in planetary temperatures. I know it's a stroke of genius and will likely save us a fortune on any proposed carbon emissions tax but I thought I had to share it. Thank you....now don't you steal it, you little blighters!
Actually, it's my own theory that the much discussed increase in the obese is behind global warming. There's no argument that the obese having a greater BMI also produce a larger surface to reflect or exchange heat with the atmosphere. Ergo, incremental changes in planetary temperatures. I know it's a stroke of genius and will likely save us a fortune on any proposed carbon emissions tax but I thought I had to share it. Thank you....now don't you steal it, you little blighters!
Senate Member
Posts: 6,486 
April 3rd, 2007, 07:03 PM
It has always been about the money [taxation] - any which way they dressed it up !
http://www.ohio.com/mld/montereyherald/news/nation/17013929.htm?source=rss&channel=montereyherald_nat ion
Mon, Apr. 02, 2007
Some say carbon tax simpler way to curb emissions
By JULIET EILPERIN and STEVEN MUFSON
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - As lawmakers on Capitol Hill push for a cap-and-trade system to rein in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, an unlikely alternative has emerged from an ideologically diverse group of economists and industry leaders: a carbon tax.
Most legislators view advocating any tax increase as tantamount to political suicide. But a coalition of academics and polluters now argues that a simple tax on each ton of emissions would offer a more efficient and less bureaucratic way of curbing carbon dioxide buildup, which many scientists have linked to climate change.
''We want to do the least damage to the growth of GDP,'' said Michael Canes, a private consultant and former chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, who led a Capitol Hill briefing on the subject in late February sponsored by the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. Between a cap system and a carbon tax, ''a carbon tax will be the much more cost-effective way to go,'' he said, though he added that there are other ways to reduce emissions.
Robert J. Shapiro, a private consultant who was a Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration, agrees. A cap-and-trade system -- involving plant-by-plant measurements -- would be difficult to administer, he said, and would provide ''incentives for cheating and evasion.'' And the revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the deficit or finance offsetting cuts in payroll taxes or the alternative minimum tax.
A carbon tax offers certainty about the price of polluting, which appeals to many economists and businesses. William A. Pizer, a senior fellow at the centrist think tank Resources for the Future and a former senior economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that the benefit-to-cost ratio of a tax-based system would be five times that of a cap-and-trade system.
''You're going to pay one way or another, whether it's a tax or a permit program,'' Pizer said, adding that while a cap would provide more certainty on how much emissions would be cut, ''the consequences of being uncertain about emissions over any short period of time just aren't that serious.''
Under a cap-and-trade system, the government would set an overall limit on emissions and allocate permits to emitters. If one plant reduces its emissions more quickly than another, it can sell its credits to the other emitter. A carbon tax would simply increase the cost of emitting each ton of carbon, which could then be passed on to consumers.
While Democrats have vowed to push through some sort of carbon dioxide control in this Congress, Bush has consistently opposed mandatory limits, so it remains unclear whether the United States will adopt any system before the next election.
Moreover, the fact that many economists back the tax approach is no guarantee that it will prevail over the five cap-and-trade plans already proposed in the Senate.
The complexity of the cap-and-trade system is part of its virtue for some politicians, since it may mask the system's impact on prices. Such a system also appeals to conservative lawmakers who like the idea of letting the market determine the price of carbon, while keeping revenue out of the hands of government. Some economists say it would channel capital to the most economically worthwhile projects first.
Environmentalists are split on a carbon tax. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, which is handing out baseball caps emblazoned with the slogan ''Just Cap It'' on Capitol Hill, called such a tax ''an interesting distraction.''
''It doesn't give us the guarantee the emissions will go down,'' he said.
But Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, said: ''It will be more effective if people know that in year 'X' they will pay this much. Companies are highly motivated by costs.'' Moreover, he worries that rationing carbon allowances based on historical emissions would reward companies that spew out the most greenhouse gases now and did the least to limit them in the past.
Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's program on global warming, said the nation may need to adopt a carbon tax in several years but ''we're not there yet.''
Some industries that have historically opposed carbon limits embrace the idea of a tax because their sectors would not be singled out for regulation. ''A poorly constructed cap-and-trade system can be as punitive as a regressive tax,'' said Scott Segal, an electric utilities lobbyist.
Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told a National Press Club audience in February that his industry prefers that lawmakers explore a range of policy options before imposing a cap.
''A cap-and-trade system isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all,'' he said. ''A carbon tax, everything, should be on the table from the beginning.''
Few lawmakers, Democrat or Republican, have the stomach for a carbon tax, however. Some are still smarting from a vote in the early 1990s when President Clinton persuaded the House to adopt a BTU tax -- a tax on the heat content of fuels -- only to abandon the effort in the Senate.
Democrats such as House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, W.Va., say they have no desire to revisit the issue. ''I'm not an advocate of a carbon tax,'' Rahall said. ''That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that.''
Some analysts said former Vice President Al Gore's endorsement of both alternatives in testimony before Congress last week was so politically unpalatable that it was a sign that he is not seriously thinking of running for president.
Only one House Democrat, Rep. Pete Stark, of Hayward, has drafted a carbon tax proposal. Stark, who first proposed such a tax 16 years ago as a way to ease the nation's energy crunch, plans to introduce a bill in April that would levy a tax of $25 per ton of carbon released for five years.
''It's more efficient, more equitable, and it's less subject to gaming, I might add,'' Stark said, estimating that it would raise the cost of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon.
As Congress debates how to regulate greenhouse gases, however, several European officials have said it would be a mistake to choose anything but a market-based trading system that could be linked to the emerging carbon market in Europe.
''Political leaders in the United States need to make a decision, and make it quickly, whether they want to be left behind in a market that is going to evolve, or whether they want to get involved quickly,'' said Stephen Byers, a member of Britain's Parliament who helped establish the European Union's trading system.
''Wall Street could become the world center of carbon trading.''
And Stavros Dimas, the E.U. environment commissioner, speaking at a recent lunch hosted by the D.C.-based European Institute, called it ironic that the United States would question the cap-and-trade system, because U.S. negotiators essentially forced Europe to agree to such a system in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in 1997.
''There was suspicion about market-based instruments,'' Dimas said. ''In a way you did us a favor, because now we also are familiar with these market-based activities. It's functioning very well, actually.''
''If we would go together into a world tax regime, that would be preferable,'' Jos Delbeke, the top E.U. official on climate change, said after a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week. ''But practically speaking, it is not a likely way to go. Emissions trading is a very solid second best.''
It has always been about the money [taxation] - any which way they dressed it up !
http://www.ohio.com/mld/montereyherald/news/nation/17013929.htm?source=rss&channel=montereyherald_nat ion
Mon, Apr. 02, 2007
Some say carbon tax simpler way to curb emissions
By JULIET EILPERIN and STEVEN MUFSON
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - As lawmakers on Capitol Hill push for a cap-and-trade system to rein in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, an unlikely alternative has emerged from an ideologically diverse group of economists and industry leaders: a carbon tax.
Most legislators view advocating any tax increase as tantamount to political suicide. But a coalition of academics and polluters now argues that a simple tax on each ton of emissions would offer a more efficient and less bureaucratic way of curbing carbon dioxide buildup, which many scientists have linked to climate change.
''We want to do the least damage to the growth of GDP,'' said Michael Canes, a private consultant and former chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, who led a Capitol Hill briefing on the subject in late February sponsored by the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. Between a cap system and a carbon tax, ''a carbon tax will be the much more cost-effective way to go,'' he said, though he added that there are other ways to reduce emissions.
Robert J. Shapiro, a private consultant who was a Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration, agrees. A cap-and-trade system -- involving plant-by-plant measurements -- would be difficult to administer, he said, and would provide ''incentives for cheating and evasion.'' And the revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the deficit or finance offsetting cuts in payroll taxes or the alternative minimum tax.
A carbon tax offers certainty about the price of polluting, which appeals to many economists and businesses. William A. Pizer, a senior fellow at the centrist think tank Resources for the Future and a former senior economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that the benefit-to-cost ratio of a tax-based system would be five times that of a cap-and-trade system.
''You're going to pay one way or another, whether it's a tax or a permit program,'' Pizer said, adding that while a cap would provide more certainty on how much emissions would be cut, ''the consequences of being uncertain about emissions over any short period of time just aren't that serious.''
Under a cap-and-trade system, the government would set an overall limit on emissions and allocate permits to emitters. If one plant reduces its emissions more quickly than another, it can sell its credits to the other emitter. A carbon tax would simply increase the cost of emitting each ton of carbon, which could then be passed on to consumers.
While Democrats have vowed to push through some sort of carbon dioxide control in this Congress, Bush has consistently opposed mandatory limits, so it remains unclear whether the United States will adopt any system before the next election.
Moreover, the fact that many economists back the tax approach is no guarantee that it will prevail over the five cap-and-trade plans already proposed in the Senate.
The complexity of the cap-and-trade system is part of its virtue for some politicians, since it may mask the system's impact on prices. Such a system also appeals to conservative lawmakers who like the idea of letting the market determine the price of carbon, while keeping revenue out of the hands of government. Some economists say it would channel capital to the most economically worthwhile projects first.
Environmentalists are split on a carbon tax. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, which is handing out baseball caps emblazoned with the slogan ''Just Cap It'' on Capitol Hill, called such a tax ''an interesting distraction.''
''It doesn't give us the guarantee the emissions will go down,'' he said.
But Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, said: ''It will be more effective if people know that in year 'X' they will pay this much. Companies are highly motivated by costs.'' Moreover, he worries that rationing carbon allowances based on historical emissions would reward companies that spew out the most greenhouse gases now and did the least to limit them in the past.
Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's program on global warming, said the nation may need to adopt a carbon tax in several years but ''we're not there yet.''
Some industries that have historically opposed carbon limits embrace the idea of a tax because their sectors would not be singled out for regulation. ''A poorly constructed cap-and-trade system can be as punitive as a regressive tax,'' said Scott Segal, an electric utilities lobbyist.
Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told a National Press Club audience in February that his industry prefers that lawmakers explore a range of policy options before imposing a cap.
''A cap-and-trade system isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all,'' he said. ''A carbon tax, everything, should be on the table from the beginning.''
Few lawmakers, Democrat or Republican, have the stomach for a carbon tax, however. Some are still smarting from a vote in the early 1990s when President Clinton persuaded the House to adopt a BTU tax -- a tax on the heat content of fuels -- only to abandon the effort in the Senate.
Democrats such as House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, W.Va., say they have no desire to revisit the issue. ''I'm not an advocate of a carbon tax,'' Rahall said. ''That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that.''
Some analysts said former Vice President Al Gore's endorsement of both alternatives in testimony before Congress last week was so politically unpalatable that it was a sign that he is not seriously thinking of running for president.
Only one House Democrat, Rep. Pete Stark, of Hayward, has drafted a carbon tax proposal. Stark, who first proposed such a tax 16 years ago as a way to ease the nation's energy crunch, plans to introduce a bill in April that would levy a tax of $25 per ton of carbon released for five years.
''It's more efficient, more equitable, and it's less subject to gaming, I might add,'' Stark said, estimating that it would raise the cost of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon.
As Congress debates how to regulate greenhouse gases, however, several European officials have said it would be a mistake to choose anything but a market-based trading system that could be linked to the emerging carbon market in Europe.
''Political leaders in the United States need to make a decision, and make it quickly, whether they want to be left behind in a market that is going to evolve, or whether they want to get involved quickly,'' said Stephen Byers, a member of Britain's Parliament who helped establish the European Union's trading system.
''Wall Street could become the world center of carbon trading.''
And Stavros Dimas, the E.U. environment commissioner, speaking at a recent lunch hosted by the D.C.-based European Institute, called it ironic that the United States would question the cap-and-trade system, because U.S. negotiators essentially forced Europe to agree to such a system in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in 1997.
''There was suspicion about market-based instruments,'' Dimas said. ''In a way you did us a favor, because now we also are familiar with these market-based activities. It's functioning very well, actually.''
''If we would go together into a world tax regime, that would be preferable,'' Jos Delbeke, the top E.U. official on climate change, said after a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week. ''But practically speaking, it is not a likely way to go. Emissions trading is a very solid second best.''
Senate Member
Posts: 6,486
April 3rd, 2007, 07:21 PM
And what will the money be spent on? Goods and services. What will it take to create goods and services? Energy. What will using more energy create? More carbon dioxide. Which will create more carbon tax/carbon cap schemes. Great scam for awhile. Some people will get very rich.
And what will the money be spent on? Goods and services. What will it take to create goods and services? Energy. What will using more energy create? More carbon dioxide. Which will create more carbon tax/carbon cap schemes. Great scam for awhile. Some people will get very rich.
April 3rd, 2007, 07:29 PM
I'm really skeptical of the carbon tax idea. I mean if it actually could force emissions down and the money was spent on energy alternative R&D, well that would be great. In reality, I'm sure the money goes into the coffers to spend on whatever whims the government levying said tax decides to spend on.
There is allready an exchange in Chicago, up since 2003. The members of the exchange are required to reduce emissions as part of their membership. If anyone's interested I posted some details in http://forums.canadiancontent.net/articles-debates.
I'm really skeptical of the carbon tax idea. I mean if it actually could force emissions down and the money was spent on energy alternative R&D, well that would be great. In reality, I'm sure the money goes into the coffers to spend on whatever whims the government levying said tax decides to spend on.
There is allready an exchange in Chicago, up since 2003. The members of the exchange are required to reduce emissions as part of their membership. If anyone's interested I posted some details in http://forums.canadiancontent.net/articles-debates.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,492
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
April 3rd, 2007, 07:42 PM
OK everyone! stop worrying! get into your SUVs and start revving! spray your aerosol cans! burn some oil! do what you can because it won't matter!
OK everyone! stop worrying! get into your SUVs and start revving! spray your aerosol cans! burn some oil! do what you can because it won't matter!
House Member
Posts: 3,046
April 3rd, 2007, 07:57 PM
So, it was accepted science for many years, that during the time of the dinosaurs the Earth was warmer because it was full of extra carbon, turning the planet into a steamy jungle with the denser air that allowed many unaerodynamic pterosaurs to fly.
But now that would acknowledge that putting all that dinosaur carbon back into the biosphere by digging it up and recirculating it , would in fact make us that warm again.
Its a real shame we didn't know that the science would go from being unequivacabley right to all of a sudden 100% wrong. God, why did both NASA and the Commies think this basic principle could be used in terraforming?
Thank god we had direct stakeholders who have invested wealth in the matter to clear it all up.
Now excuse me, I am going to have a non-addictive, non-dangerous cigarette, since many many studies how shown there is no condusive link between cancer and smoking, nor cigaretters and nicotene addiction.
So, it was accepted science for many years, that during the time of the dinosaurs the Earth was warmer because it was full of extra carbon, turning the planet into a steamy jungle with the denser air that allowed many unaerodynamic pterosaurs to fly.
But now that would acknowledge that putting all that dinosaur carbon back into the biosphere by digging it up and recirculating it , would in fact make us that warm again.
Its a real shame we didn't know that the science would go from being unequivacabley right to all of a sudden 100% wrong. God, why did both NASA and the Commies think this basic principle could be used in terraforming?
Thank god we had direct stakeholders who have invested wealth in the matter to clear it all up.
Now excuse me, I am going to have a non-addictive, non-dangerous cigarette, since many many studies how shown there is no condusive link between cancer and smoking, nor cigaretters and nicotene addiction.
Council Member
Posts: 1,435
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
April 3rd, 2007, 11:36 PM
>>>It has always been about the money [taxation] - any which way they dressed it up !<<<
No truer words spoken..... I had an '85 Toyota 4Runner, airconditioner was working fine then one day it gave up the ghost, took it to Toyota dealership asked what the problem was, said needs regasing, oh ok do it, cant, Y, I say, not allowed to use that gas(freon) anymore..have to upgrade the aircon unit to use the new approved gas...A35/A95 or sum such, Aripoff more like it...$900 + taxes, never worked the same after that...... how many others had to forkout for the same upgrades ? + taxes ... all in the name of stopping global warming.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html
just here in north america ... imagine the number of transports on the road and the taxes each one generates per day(tires, fuel, insurance, ) and god knows what else......
If the gov was REALLY serious about cutting emissions...they build railway lines (employment) increase the amount of frieght transported by railway (employment) and cut down on the amount of emissions from transports and also damage to roads, less accidents too, probably(less cost to taxpayer) a lot less taxes to gov....cant have that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1672928/posts
cars are that complicated to own and work on...it now requires a "technician" at $70 an hr and a computor to change ya plugs, imagine the taxes in that, I can change my plugs, myself for a small outlay of $20, and a small contribution in taxes no computor and no "technician" required.
http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000145.html
a friend of mine purchased a caravan, rather a smart one...anyway, a check engine light came on, he takes it to the dealer and the "technician" hooks up the computor and the result?...it appears that there is a sensor in the neck of the gas tank...it "sensed" one day that he had "overfilled" his gas tank.... $100 plus dollars later, and taxes and the computor was reset.
I can see the gas rising up the neck as I fill mine...my eyes are my sensor...when it gets near the top I stop....... but in the newer, more taxingvehicles, there is only a small hole to fit the nozzle in so you cant see a thing..... ah well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/120259.stm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/ClimateWatch/GW/
>>>It has always been about the money [taxation] - any which way they dressed it up !<<<
No truer words spoken..... I had an '85 Toyota 4Runner, airconditioner was working fine then one day it gave up the ghost, took it to Toyota dealership asked what the problem was, said needs regasing, oh ok do it, cant, Y, I say, not allowed to use that gas(freon) anymore..have to upgrade the aircon unit to use the new approved gas...A35/A95 or sum such, Aripoff more like it...$900 + taxes, never worked the same after that...... how many others had to forkout for the same upgrades ? + taxes ... all in the name of stopping global warming.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html
just here in north america ... imagine the number of transports on the road and the taxes each one generates per day(tires, fuel, insurance, ) and god knows what else......
If the gov was REALLY serious about cutting emissions...they build railway lines (employment) increase the amount of frieght transported by railway (employment) and cut down on the amount of emissions from transports and also damage to roads, less accidents too, probably(less cost to taxpayer) a lot less taxes to gov....cant have that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1672928/posts
cars are that complicated to own and work on...it now requires a "technician" at $70 an hr and a computor to change ya plugs, imagine the taxes in that, I can change my plugs, myself for a small outlay of $20, and a small contribution in taxes no computor and no "technician" required.
http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000145.html
a friend of mine purchased a caravan, rather a smart one...anyway, a check engine light came on, he takes it to the dealer and the "technician" hooks up the computor and the result?...it appears that there is a sensor in the neck of the gas tank...it "sensed" one day that he had "overfilled" his gas tank.... $100 plus dollars later, and taxes and the computor was reset.
I can see the gas rising up the neck as I fill mine...my eyes are my sensor...when it gets near the top I stop....... but in the newer, more taxingvehicles, there is only a small hole to fit the nozzle in so you cant see a thing..... ah well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/120259.stm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/ClimateWatch/GW/
Council Member
Posts: 1,494
April 6th, 2007, 12:37 PM
I'll call Bear's group of scientists and raise another 2,500 internationally renowned scientists.
I'll call Bear's group of scientists and raise another 2,500 internationally renowned scientists.
Quote:
"Report Confirms Climate Change Is a Fact"
The United Nations on Friday issued its most dramatic warning yet about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on the planet. European political leaders say we must cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a climate change process that is already underway.
REUTERSClimate change may result in an increase in crippling droughts like this one in Australia.
Climate change in the coming century may lead to disasters ranging from famine in Africa to the thinning of Himalayan glaciers, according to the long-awaited second part of an extensive United Nations report on global warming. More than 100 countries represented in the UN's panel on climate change spent a tense Thursday night in Brussels trying to agree unanimously on the language of a final draft.
The report, prepared by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), provides the first confirmation from the entire international scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels by humans is one of the main culprits of global warming.
Scientists "have finally established at the global level that there is an anthropogenic, there is a man made climate signal coming through on plants, animals, water and ice,"...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...476074,00.html
The United Nations on Friday issued its most dramatic warning yet about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on the planet. European political leaders say we must cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a climate change process that is already underway.
REUTERS
Climate change in the coming century may lead to disasters ranging from famine in Africa to the thinning of Himalayan glaciers, according to the long-awaited second part of an extensive United Nations report on global warming. More than 100 countries represented in the UN's panel on climate change spent a tense Thursday night in Brussels trying to agree unanimously on the language of a final draft.
The report, prepared by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), provides the first confirmation from the entire international scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels by humans is one of the main culprits of global warming.
Scientists "have finally established at the global level that there is an anthropogenic, there is a man made climate signal coming through on plants, animals, water and ice,"...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...476074,00.html
Quote:
"Report Confirms Climate Change Is a Fact"
Spiegel Online - 1 hour ago
The United Nations on Friday issued its most dramatic warning yet about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on the planet.
Emissions Already Affecting Climate, Report Finds New York Times
International report details impact of global warming International Herald Tribune
24dash.com - Canada.com - FOX News - Reuters AlertNet
all 787 news articles »
Spiegel Online - 1 hour ago
The United Nations on Friday issued its most dramatic warning yet about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on the planet.
Emissions Already Affecting Climate, Report Finds New York Times
International report details impact of global warming International Herald Tribune
24dash.com - Canada.com - FOX News - Reuters AlertNet
all 787 news articles »
Executive Member
Posts: 9,122
April 6th, 2007, 02:26 PM
There is no longer any doubt that human endeavor is causing global warming.
The 2nd of February 2007 will one day hopefully be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from the debate on whether human activities are driving climate change, said the head of the UN Environment Programme at the launch of the most authoritative scientific report on climate change to date.
The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says there is 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change. Read the global reaction to the report here.
“The word unequivocal is the key message of this report,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, adding that those who have doubts about the role of humans in driving the climate “can no longer ignore the evidence”.
http://environment.newscientist.com/...humankind.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11096
There is no longer any doubt that human endeavor is causing global warming.
The 2nd of February 2007 will one day hopefully be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from the debate on whether human activities are driving climate change, said the head of the UN Environment Programme at the launch of the most authoritative scientific report on climate change to date.
The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says there is 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change. Read the global reaction to the report here.
“The word unequivocal is the key message of this report,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, adding that those who have doubts about the role of humans in driving the climate “can no longer ignore the evidence”.
http://environment.newscientist.com/...humankind.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11096
Les
Posts: 6,040
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
April 6th, 2007, 03:05 PM
Who gives a crap?
The important part of the issue is whether people will actually chamge their idiotic habits or not. Will people eventually realize that whatever we do will have an impact on things. Bad activities like polluting have negative effects. You sh|t in your house, your house stinks and attracts bugs.
As far as consensuses go, I don't put a whole lot of stick in them because they've been shown to be wrong. Scientists used to be of the opinion that tomatoes were poisonous and the planet was flat. Consensuses are only expressions of whatever popular opinion happens to be the fad of the moment. Ot's a good thing that we have developed more discerning methods of discovering facts than simply relying on consensuses of opinion.
Who gives a crap?
The important part of the issue is whether people will actually chamge their idiotic habits or not. Will people eventually realize that whatever we do will have an impact on things. Bad activities like polluting have negative effects. You sh|t in your house, your house stinks and attracts bugs.
As far as consensuses go, I don't put a whole lot of stick in them because they've been shown to be wrong. Scientists used to be of the opinion that tomatoes were poisonous and the planet was flat. Consensuses are only expressions of whatever popular opinion happens to be the fad of the moment. Ot's a good thing that we have developed more discerning methods of discovering facts than simply relying on consensuses of opinion.
Council Member
Posts: 1,675
April 6th, 2007, 03:52 PM
Quoting #juan
What rubbish. Humans have as much effect on the climate as a fart in a windstorm. Climate, as always, is affected and changed by that great big ball of fire in the sky we call the Sun. The IPCC scientists only want to keep their well-paying jobs. If they say humans are not the cause of climate change they are out of work.
There is no longer any doubt that human endeavor is causing global warming.
Executive Member
Posts: 9,122
April 6th, 2007, 04:28 PM
The important part of the issue is that it will effect every single one of us and our children and their children. Consensus, except among the twenty five hundred climate scientists of IPCC, is of little importance. That some people thought at one time that the Earth was flat or that tomatoes were poisonous is irrelevant. The collective opinions top scientists from a hundred and thirty countries, who after six to ten years of studying various aspects of global warming, are telling us in their newest report that global warming is worse than thought and it is caused by man. Hardly a fad.
Quoting L Gilbert
Come on L.G.
Who gives a crap?
The important part of the issue is whether people will actually chamge their idiotic habits or not. Will people eventually realize that whatever we do will have an impact on things. Bad activities like polluting have negative effects. You sh|t in your house, your house stinks and attracts bugs.
As far as consensuses go, I don't put a whole lot of stick in them because they've been shown to be wrong. Scientists used to be of the opinion that tomatoes were poisonous and the planet was flat. Consensuses are only expressions of whatever popular opinion happens to be the fad of the moment. Ot's a good thing that we have developed more discerning methods of discovering facts than simply relying on consensuses of opinion.
The important part of the issue is whether people will actually chamge their idiotic habits or not. Will people eventually realize that whatever we do will have an impact on things. Bad activities like polluting have negative effects. You sh|t in your house, your house stinks and attracts bugs.
As far as consensuses go, I don't put a whole lot of stick in them because they've been shown to be wrong. Scientists used to be of the opinion that tomatoes were poisonous and the planet was flat. Consensuses are only expressions of whatever popular opinion happens to be the fad of the moment. Ot's a good thing that we have developed more discerning methods of discovering facts than simply relying on consensuses of opinion.
The important part of the issue is that it will effect every single one of us and our children and their children. Consensus, except among the twenty five hundred climate scientists of IPCC, is of little importance. That some people thought at one time that the Earth was flat or that tomatoes were poisonous is irrelevant. The collective opinions top scientists from a hundred and thirty countries, who after six to ten years of studying various aspects of global warming, are telling us in their newest report that global warming is worse than thought and it is caused by man. Hardly a fad.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,352
Location: Calgary
Location: Calgary
April 6th, 2007, 04:55 PM
Quoting #juan
How about calling it a movement because it sure stinks.:flush:
Come on L.G.
The important part of the issue is that it will effect every single one of us and our children and their children. Consensus, except among the twenty five hundred climate scientists of IPCC, is of little importance. That some people thought at one time that the Earth was flat or that tomatoes were poisonous is irrelevant. The collective opinions top scientists from a hundred and thirty countries, who after six to ten years of studying various aspects of global warming, are telling us in their newest report that global warming is worse than thought and it is caused by man. Hardly a fad.
The important part of the issue is that it will effect every single one of us and our children and their children. Consensus, except among the twenty five hundred climate scientists of IPCC, is of little importance. That some people thought at one time that the Earth was flat or that tomatoes were poisonous is irrelevant. The collective opinions top scientists from a hundred and thirty countries, who after six to ten years of studying various aspects of global warming, are telling us in their newest report that global warming is worse than thought and it is caused by man. Hardly a fad.
