Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

[Marina]

As someone pointed out in a letter to the Telegraph, if the Government raises "fixed" ownership costs, such as annual car tax, that's an incentive for people to use their car as much as possible, to minimize the "tax per mile".

[Mailman]

Speaking of twunts ....

Talking about the IPCC like thatis heresy to some!

Mailman

[zathras]

Do you really think that is how science works? You may believe that global warming isn't exacerbated by man made pollution, but to imply scientific research is all fabricated is ridiculous. Any work is peer reviewed and scrutinised to the nth degree. It seems to me you, not them, are the one jumping to pre-decided conclusions and then disregarding evidence which does not support your view.

On your other point,there is a massive amount being poored into propaganda by those who wish to carry on polluting.

In true scientific fashion I keep an open mind, but evidence so far strongly points toward a man made effect. What if it were true? What's the worst that can happen? We are forced to use alternative technology?

Thereby successfully proving my point.

I did not say that the results are fabricated - just that they are based on computer models which are themselves suspect, since none have managed to accuratly 'predict' the historical temperature when that was used as a test. Equally as there is no historical record of temperatures so proxies are being used, the validity of which is questionable. Only recently we had the issue of sea temperatures and the way it is measured (basically from water intakes or a bucket - they result in differences). The practical upshot being that the temperature differential is actually lower. None of the climate models predicted the current lack of temperature rises. Nor do any of them account for the temperature dropping when the output of CO2 increased dramatically in the years 1945-1970.

I could go on - The 800 year difference between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rises, the fact it would take more CO2 on the entire planet to increase temperatures by some of the levels talked about. That cloud cover and solar activity shows a greater correlation with temperature changes.

I could take anecdotal evidence (such as the Viking colonies of Greenland and Newfoundland), the Chinese explorers under the Ming Dynasty who travelled within 50 miles of the North Pole.

Or hows about CO2 not being the most powerful Greenhouse Gas (97% of Global Warming is caused by Water Vapour - CO2 comes a poor third, behind methane)

Or lets start with a really obvious fact - We are still in the last Ice Age (defined as the planet having ice poles) therefore the temperature is going to go up.

Please do not assume I have not read the various articles on the subject and come to the conclusion that AGW is a load of poppycock and even if it was n't can we do anything about it and further should we do anything.

[dang65]

I think a lot of people are arguing at cross purposes here, I don't know what is causing GW or if it is happening at all, but I do know charging me £300+ to tax my car isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

[...]

I assume you agree with this guy?

Well, no , I don't agree with the Greenpeace guy, and I'm surprised he's said that (assuming it isn't a quote taken out of context in the article).

Vehicle Excise Duty is a charge on the damage done by cars (to the environment, regardless of global warming). If your car does more damage then you pay more, and that subsidises people with less damaging cars so that they pay less. (Though it's arguable about whether the pollution difference is that much between the worst and best cars.)

The Greenpeace guy is saying that that unfairly penalises people for a choice they made before the announcement of the increase, but you'd have to be pretty thick not to see this coming and go out and buy a massive saloon car to commute 10 miles to work in.

As for "the poor" being "hit hardest" - well, as I said on a previous thread, if you buy an old Mondeo for 300 quid it's going to take quite a few years of paying the higher VED rate before you're financially worse off than someone who's bought a Citroen C1 for 10 grand and pays a lower VED rate. i.e. You're still far better off financially if you buy an old car.

[sasguru]

Thereby successfully proving my point.

I did not say that the results are fabricated - just that they are based on computer models which are themselves suspect, since none have managed to accuratly 'predict' the historical temperature when that was used as a test. Equally as there is no historical record of temperatures so proxies are being used, the validity of which is questionable. Only recently we had the issue of sea temperatures and the way it is measured (basically from water intakes or a bucket - they result in differences). The practical upshot being that the temperature differential is actually lower. None of the climate models predicted the current lack of temperature rises. Nor do any of them account for the temperature dropping when the output of CO2 increased dramatically in the years 1945-1970.

I could go on - The 800 year difference between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rises, the fact it would take more CO2 on the entire planet to increase temperatures by some of the levels talked about. That cloud cover and solar activity shows a greater correlation with temperature changes.

I could take anecdotal evidence (such as the Viking colonies of Greenland and Newfoundland), the Chinese explorers under the Ming Dynasty who travelled within 50 miles of the North Pole.

Or hows about CO2 not being the most powerful Greenhouse Gas (97% of Global Warming is caused by Water Vapour - CO2 comes a poor third, behind methane)

Or lets start with a really obvious fact - We are still in the last Ice Age (defined as the planet having ice poles) therefore the temperature is going to go up.

Please do not assume I have not read the various articles on the subject and come to the conclusion that AGW is a load of poppycock and even if it was n't can we do anything about it and further should we do anything.

Perhaps that's a good summary of the points against. Got any points for - or did you just read one side of the story?

[dang65]

As someone pointed out in a letter to the Telegraph, if the Government raises "fixed" ownership costs, such as annual car tax, that's an incentive for people to use their car as much as possible, to minimize the "tax per mile".

Uh, fuel isn't a "fixed" ownership cost, and it isn't getting cheaper. If you put all the taxes onto fuel though, you'd end up with people having about ten cars each, for different occasions, which would do even more damage to the environment. Better to restrict car ownership as much as possible by taxing the f**k out of the things whichever way you can.

[dang65]

Personally I'm unhappy about the government hijacking what could/could not be a very serious issue and using it as a means to generate revenue, if people want to use trains and buses then why not give us a transport system that works? Or would that damage the 'cash cow' income stream they have tapped into??

This public transport issue is a difficult one. From what I understand (and it's fairly obvious to anyone that travels on it) the rail network in many parts of the country is completely overloaded already. It's hard to see how that could be sorted out. Making the carriages cleaner and fitting nice modern toilets doesn't help to reduce crowding. Maybe they could add more carriages and build longer platforms? That would just increase the bottlenecks in other places, as thousands more people try to squeeze through ticket barriers etc.

It's the same with the roads, where they build bigger and bigger carriageways and bypasses, which just jam up within a couple of years or months.

As others have said on here, stuff like home working, financial encouragement for cycling (same mileage allowance as cars for example), and maybe much bigger discounts when the trains are off-peak to encourage flexible working... that sort of thing might help a bit.

Certainly the money taken off of those that insist on carrying on driving should be passed on to those who are willing to try other options.

[Marina]

Uh, fuel isn't a "fixed" ownership cost, and it isn't getting cheaper.

Obviously - I'm not saying vehicle tax is the only consideration. But, taking an extreme example (probably unrealistic, but for illustration), if "Chelsea tractors" were taxed at £5000 per annum, their owners would be far less willing to use public transport after paying all that (not that they're likely to do much anyway, I'd admit).

[zathras]

Perhaps that's a good summary of the points against. Got any points for - or did you just read one side of the story?

Yes, but they all seem to be of the 'We ran this computer model and it says we are all going to be charbroiled if we do not stop using our 4x4's'

Seriously for a moment - Yes I have read the other sides argument but it does seem to be based on the idea that the computer models said the temperature would go up, but with no validation of the accuracy of that model.

[gingerjedi]

Vehicle Excise Duty is a charge on the damage done by cars (to the environment, regardless of global warming). If your car does more damage then you pay more, and that subsidises people with less damaging cars so that they pay less. (Though it's arguable about whether the pollution difference is that much between the worst and best cars.)

If you examine the tax bands and compare like for like the diesel version of any particular model with comparable performance will have lower co2 emissions therefore a lower tax band, so if you do take GW out of the equation it makes no sense as diesel is dirtier and more damaging to the environment than a modern lean burn petrol engine.

When I used to cycle to work it was always obvious when the vehicle in front was a diesel as you could literally taste the fumes.