The Climate Change agenda

Anything else you want to talk about.
Post Reply
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:55 pm

Members of the forum outside the UK may not believe this, but our esteemed Labour Government is now using British taxpayers money to pay for television commercials exhorting us Brits to drive our cars for five less miles each week, saying that car exhaust is the single biggest cause of ''climate change.''

Not just a complete waste of our money at a time this government is cutting back on essential services that do matter to the citizens of this country, but it will of course do absolutely nothing to affect the climate.
Just another reminder that the climate change industry is more important than even social welfare in the UK. The EU would be proud of them.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:50 pm

So the die is cast. The happy marriage between the parasitic European Union and the climate change industry is rewarded today with the announcement of an EU £6.5 billion package over three years to help countries deal with the problems they say are going to happen because we apparently can change the climate.
Some of the projects will be beneficial to the recipient countries, particulary in dealing with deforestation. But this package has to be paid for, by largely the British taxpayer of course, and we must not forget the portion of spending that will be consumed by the climate change nomenklatura itself.

And there is one other certainty. It won't affect the climate anywhere one little jot.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:57 am

Now that the Copenhagen coference is over Britain is now into the second week of the coldest winter since 1981/1982, with temparatures way below seasonal norm. As a cynic I do think that our wonderful weather has posted the ideal response to the international junket recently hosted by the Danes, not to mention our very own Met Office, which recently denied that we would have a hard winter. The chief of these climate change bureaucrats has just trousered a 25% pay increase, having persistently got the long term weather forecasts wrong.
Unfortunately in our quangocracy it is the bureacrats who have the last laugh - in this case all the way to the bank. And yes, I am a taxpayer helping to bale the banks out as well.
Ah well, lets see what General February can bring us, General January isn't doing too badly so far. We obviously simply aren't pumping enough carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by hammy » Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:29 pm

A warming atmosphere predicts greater evaporation of water , which predicts greater precipitation , as rain , or in winter , as snow . Britain's prevailing winds are moist and warm and from the southwest .
That is why I did not heed advice that England could become like Morocco , do away with my grass , and plant drought tolerant species of garden plants .

There are approximately three times as many people alive today on the surface of the planet than when I was a child of six , fifty years ago ( according to Mr David Attenborough on the TV last night ) . All those extra people are enjoying a steadily increasing standard of lifestyle , and the goods and food and services they consume puts increasing quantities of "Greenhouse Gas " emmissions into the atmosphere at a steadily increasing rate . Intuitively , that would seem to be a bad thing .
How bad a thing is a moot point .

The debate over whether or not the climate is undergoing substantial manmade change is not helped by the ignorant assertions of some of those who wish us to believe that the issue is both immediate and vital , nor by the uncritical way in which these preposterous predictions are accepted and broadcast as Gospel by the media .
For example ;
The Arctic Sea Ice will melt and raise Sea levels ; -- It cant , the Sea ice is afloat and if it melts into water then the sea level stays exactly the same .

The Ronne ice shelf ( on the "other" side of the peninsular sticking up to South America in Antarctica ) is melting and breaking up and Sea levels will rise by up to 20metres as a result ; -- Firstly , some of it is floating , so SL change can only equal NIL there .
Secondly , If you look at the ice shelf in your atlas ( an irregular triangle , but for this we'll call it a square , with a surface area = greatest dimension N-S x greatest dimension E-W ) , and then calculate the area of the worlds oceans ( two thirds of the surface of a sphere with a diameter of the equator ) , using the factor that Ice is eight sevenths of the bulk of water and assuming none of it is currently displacing sea water ,
WHAT must the thickness of the ice shelf AVERAGE to cause the sea to rise 20 metres ?
How disappointed would this make Sir Edmund Hilary and Tensing Norgay ?

The Planet is subject to "Plate Tectonics" ie the continents are afloat on a deep subsurface layer of molten rock , and over time , millions of years , these islands float about on the surface .
Less well known is that where the "island" is relatively low lying , sometimes even below sea level as a continental shelf, then the underside of the island is also relatively thin and shallow .
Conversely , where the "island" has great mountain ranges ( like the Alps or the Himalayas or the Rockies ) then the underside shows a mass of comparable dimensions sticking down deeper into the molten magma .
Which all goes to show that over the vast span of geological time , the "islands" or continents are plastic in nature and you are basically looking at an extremely viscous liquid borne system in which displacement and floating is in accordance with Archimedes principles .
The Antarctic , Greenland and Northern land based ice-caps have weight .
If that weight substantially reduces due to melting and run-off then the land beneath gains bouyancy and rises .
The force of Gravity will maintain the planet as a sphere .
Therefore , elsewhere , the sea bed must start to sink .
The proposition that the whole eight sevenths of the ice-caps is available to cause sea levels to rise on every coast by the whole equivalent amount is therefore counter-intuitive .
In any event , the process of ice-cap melting is Eons in length , not decades .

Now that the capitalist system has triumphed over wicked communism , socialism , and the like , the increasing world population are all encouraged to buy and spend , and the populations of China and India and Africa will all want cars and nice houses and Air-con and consumer durables , and who are we to say no to them ?
That is Economic Growth , which we are assured is a GOOD THING .
Me driving 5 miles less per week is the equivalent of taking the paper label off a stick of Dynamite before setting it off because the label will burn and make greenhouse gases , Its pathetic , Its Balls , and I see no reason to do it .
The only way to turn the clock back is by population control , with the aim of population reduction in the next century or so ,
but in an economic system which relies on ever increasing Demand , try floating that one as an idea .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Bgile » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:07 pm

hammy wrote:The only way to turn the clock back is by population control ...
That's exactly what the Chinese are doing, isn't it? Not to turn the clock back of course, but to stabilize their population.

I think Russia has a negative "growth", doesn't it?

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by hammy » Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:52 pm

Bgile wrote:
hammy wrote:The only way to turn the clock back is by population control ...
That's exactly what the Chinese are doing, isn't it? Not to turn the clock back of course, but to stabilize their population.

I think Russia has a negative "growth", doesn't it?
I know the Chinese WERE trying , with a "two children per family" policy , but whether that is still universally enforced is a bit dubious , given the Free Market economy model currently booming there - I'd guess it's probably patchy at the moment .
They have also had great problems regarding traditional thinking about the desirability of boy children over girl children which has led to some imbalance in surviving genders , and to some very regrettable instances of parental infanticides.

The Russian depopulation of the last 20 years has been caused by several factors .

Firstly ; - Migration out . Not only Jews to Israel , but ( nominally ) Germans to Germany , Greeks to Greece , even some Spanish decended people out to hispanic countries . Plus every other nationality previously trapped there getting out , and an enormous internal moving around of people as the requirements to stay put disappeared in the chaos .The census statistics may well be suspect .

Secondly ; - Early Deaths . Given that the Economy of the state had collapsed , and pensions and benefits suspended , or become worthless , the death rate among the old , sick , weak , must have skyrocketed , but has not been noticed ( for the usual reason , that these people slip away , they are never in heaps in the streets )
As in the European heatwave one summer a few years ago , you can have tens of thousands of extra deaths in a short period without any noticeable general change becoming apparant .

Thirdly ; - Booze , Smoking , poor diet , polluted environment , financial insecurity , clinical depression . All Lifespan shortening factors .

Now that Russia is earning money again supplying energy to the West , things are looking up there , and ( once the process of clearing away the Mafiosi is largely accomplished ) , one would expect to see an increase in population again as things get better there for the average Joe+Jane ( or should that be Vladimir+Natasha ? )

I think that in the West the necessity of population control must be mentioned as an issue , in order to start the debate .
The problem is that no politician would have the balls to say it because he would have the Religious looneys , the "Human rights" campaigners , the "Womans right to choose" lobby , the Left wing ( Eugenics must be Evil , 'cause the Nazis done it ! )
and the Media ( owned by the Capitalist Establishment who want ECONOMIC GROWTH WHICH IS A GOOD THING and wont understand that you can have it AND control the population at the same time ) all rushing to condemn the notion as inspired by Satan himself .
The means by which to do it in the west are clear , and easy .

First , you target the young , prior to breeding , and confront them with the smelly and unpleasant realities of raising babies , under the guise of "Parenthood training" .
I cant think of anything better than waking a young lad up on the hour , every hour , for four days , with the sound of recorded infant screaming , and then making the handsome young brave change a nappy , complete with foul contents , on a doll .
In this country there are already some exercises where the Girls are made to bring a fresh Hens egg to school with them and are made to take "care" of it for a week , which ought to be done universally , and expanded by making them take a baby carriage with 35 pounds of sand aboard ( to represent family shopping ) up a steep street on foot , ( nuturing the egg meanwhile ) and then on a prolonged bus journey downtown , an hours walk in the rain , and then home by the same route .
You wont stop the young from screwing by doing this but by God they'll use contraception .
You will also dispell the constant subliminal message that is universally disemminated ( by all those interest groups above ) that you cant be happy without Kids , whereas the truth is that you can be perfectly happy and a damn sight better off without your own . Should you ever get desperate , you just borrow someone else's , they are very willing to have a rest from them , and the good thing is that when your urge wears off ( after about six hours in the childs company usually ) you have the facility to return them whence they came !

Secondly , you use the Tax/Benefits system . You give parents the full " child allowance " ( Government paid benefit or tax refund ) for the first child , just as you do now . The second child gets half of this amount . for the third child you get nothing , and for the fourth , and subsequent progeny , you pay tax . ( There is still a degree of Infant mortality , and as this exercise is to limit the total living population , not control the number of births per se , then any couple who lose a child have the allowances shifted accordingly .)
With that system , most couples would opt for two or possibly three children , but relatively few for four or more . Given that fewer couples would be "propagandised" into having children at all , I would say that in most of the West , you would stabilise the population in a quarter century , and start a gentle reduction in the population over the following 75 years , AND do it without gross economic problem making in the State.

You would also have to remove the present extra tax burdens on childless couples , AND the preferential treatment and prioritisation given to couples with children for housing .
The Politicians here are always blethering on about giving people "choice" . Fine , lets give it to them then say I .

Note that under these tax proposals no Existing child or family would be disadvantaged - You would set a start date for this to come into effect a couple of years down the line , so even those undergoing fertility treatments , etc , get a fair chance to complete the course of their treatments .

But the Propaganda / Realism / Re-education stuff would start almost straight away .

So much for the Western , developed nations . In the rest of the world the problem arises out of poverty , high child mortality rates , children contributing economically to the average family life , poor or unavailable contraception , religious pressure , social pressures and so on . Nothing there we didnt have here up till WW1 and sometimes later than that , the remedies are well known , the means to alter the situation available .
The Groups likely to resist such a programme are the same , and would require to be overcome in the same way .
Again , I think you could probably achieve stability within 50 years , and start into a steady reduction within the next 50 , again without any global economic upsets .

I doubt any of it will happen though .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Bgile » Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:57 pm

I believe in China it's ONE child per family, and I've not seen anything to indicate it isn't still being enforced. Female infanticide is of course a serious problem.

With regard to "Climate Change agenda" I don't have a strong position either way, but it's obvious to me that lately the "politically correct" view is to heap doubt on the idea of climate change. It's become kind of like kids in high school being "non conformist" when actually what they are doing is conforming to their own peer standards of dress.

With regard to your Hammy's unwillingness to drive five miles less per day, I won't do it voluntarily either unless it's in my financial interest and I think most people are like that. However, I don't like smog, and what I WILL do is vote for high taxes on gasoline so there will be fewer cars on the road.

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by hammy » Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:30 pm

You're quite right , One child per family is ( was ? ) the plan .
I dont see how that is sustainable without major economic disruption though , because ( assuming that the number of extra children borne to "refuseniks" are approximately equal to the couples who have no children , or whose children do not survive to have children of their own ) then you would half the number breeding each 20 years , which combined with rapidly increasing longevity , would create a huge care burden on the state in due course - say forty years down the line .
No Western style economy could cope with that fast a change , you need the totalitarian state to do it , in which the individual becomes irrelevant .
Thats why I am skeptical as to whether that policy is still efficiently enforced , given the strong Liberalisation of the economy , and the return in attitudes to personal benefit as a life-aim , overiding the former total subjugation to the requirements of the State . I wonder whether the old line can still be held .
We already see the mass migration from an almost Medieval rural countryside into the economic powerhouses of the cities there .

With regard to Climate change , of course I believe it .
19 out of 20 Scientists worldwide over the last quarter century of research is , in my book , a convincing consensus .
Whether the RATE at which the changes will occur is as fast as the Doomsayers predict , is far more debateable , not helped by figures who ought to have better evaluation skills running about like Chicken Little wailing that the sky is falling , and propagating nonsensical scare stories that five minutes with a pencil , a pocket calculator and Junior school arithmetic prove to be patent Balls .
Unfortunately the whole issue has now become so emotionally charged that anyone expressing any skepticism about any aspect of the core orthodoxy or latest piece of Eco - B*****ks , is promptly ranked with the most extreme "Denier" and treated as if your doubts were the product of some untenable and unpleasant personal perversity .

As stated in that entertaining fantasy novel " Jurassic Park " It is not the Planet that is in danger , but mankind's present civilisation upon it . Like lemmings , our population has exploded , and in due course nature will provide a mass extinction event to deal with it , possibly leaving a small population of survivors to cary on and probably start the whole mess over again . The "End As We Know it" will be a long drawn out whimper rather than a Bang , and I dont give a stuff , because I wont be here .
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:25 am

hammy wrote:
with regard to Climate change , of course I believe it .
19 out of 20 Scientists worldwide over the last quarter century of research is , in my book , a convincing consensus .
hammy,

I can agree with most of what you say in your posts, but the statement I quote here is exactly the sort of tosh that permeates the politics of the matter. 19 out of 20? Did you personally count all the scientists of the world and collate their views? Has anyone?
It is nowhere more credible than the claim by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that it represents the views of 2,500 scientists. It simply aggregates the entire scientific profession it believes it owns and claims they all agree with its view, without even consulting the great majority of them.

Of course the Earth is subject to constant micro-climatic change. I don't think that is the issue, as no one is likely to disagree with such a basic concept. What is serious is the hijacking of science for political ends.

With respect to poulation control and the need to contain population growth, we are coming back to Malthus. Indira Ganghi tried to stabilise India's population growth with a programme of compulsory mass sterilisation, which raises questions of morality and basic human rights, along with all other attempts to contain the growth in numbers of people.
Improvements in technology and the management of food production should be sufficient to deal with growing demands for food and resources for the next fifty years. We should be developing an international space programme with a view to faster travel in deep space with the ultimate objective of colonising and terra forming other planets, so we are not dependent on Earth for our existence.
Issues of population control raise fundamental issues and the mentality of the debate needs to be watched - or we could end up with another Third Reich using mass murder as a means of one group of people lording it over everybody else. It is crowd situations that causes violence, and extreme pressure causes extreme solutions.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:22 am

Bgile wrote:... and what I WILL do is vote for high taxes on gasoline so there will be fewer cars on the road.
Geez Steve, what about the Intolerable Acts, the Boston Tea Party, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, limited government, private property rights, and generally Individual Freedoms? Why is that every proposal for every phoney baloney crisis that comes along results in bigger, more controlling, less efficient governments, restrictions and deprivation of private property, wealth, and individual freedoms, more and more and higher and higher taxes, marxist/communistic ideals, re-distribution of property and wealth at local, national, and international levels, and the "sacrfice of the indvidual for the good of the (whole)" ( quoting Hitler)? Isn't that what this particular "crisis" is really all about?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:49 am

Bgile,

In Britain we have the highest fuel taxes and the most expensive fuel in the world. We even have two separate taxes on fuel, excise duty on the fuel itself, and then Value Added Tax levied on the price at the point of sale. That means that with the VAT we are actually being taxed again on what we are already paying in tax.

And it doesn't reduce the number of cars on the road at all.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Bgile » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:30 am

RF wrote:Bgile,

In Britain we have the highest fuel taxes and the most expensive fuel in the world. We even have two separate taxes on fuel, excise duty on the fuel itself, and then Value Added Tax levied on the price at the point of sale. That means that with the VAT we are actually being taxed again on what we are already paying in tax.

And it doesn't reduce the number of cars on the road at all.
Do you really have the sort of grid lock we do? I don't have that impression. I haven't been to England, but I was in Copenhagen many years ago and there were a lot more bicycles than cars. Also, there weren't hardly any cars with poor fuel consumption. I don't really think people will stop driving, but they might be induced to buy more efficient cars. Otherwise we are going to hit a wall one of these days during some crisis and our economy is going to crash for good.

Byron Angel

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:58 pm

Bgile wrote:
RF wrote:Bgile,

In Britain we have the highest fuel taxes and the most expensive fuel in the world. We even have two separate taxes on fuel, excise duty on the fuel itself, and then Value Added Tax levied on the price at the point of sale. That means that with the VAT we are actually being taxed again on what we are already paying in tax.

And it doesn't reduce the number of cars on the road at all.
Do you really have the sort of grid lock we do? I don't have that impression. I haven't been to England, but I was in Copenhagen many years ago and there were a lot more bicycles than cars. Also, there weren't hardly any cars with poor fuel consumption. I don't really think people will stop driving, but they might be induced to buy more efficient cars. Otherwise we are going to hit a wall one of these days during some crisis and our economy is going to crash for good.

..... I've been to Great Britain many times and driven all over England and Wales. Traffic conditions are much like the US, with the countryside generally quite free and the metropolitan areas subject to horrendous gridlock. Traffic around London, Birmingham, and Manchester can generally be every bit as heavy as that of any American city.


B

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:33 pm

The main difference Bgile is that we Brits have smaller cars generally than the Americans, so it terms of aggregate roadspace road usage is more efficient. Traffic congestion is a major problem in all of our cities, especially London, and this can be seen in the pollution haze that can be seen over our biggest cities. Glasgow is particulary bad in that respect.
London uses a computer operated congestion charge system which has reduced some congestion in Inner London, but at the price of businesses there losing trade, and moving into the suburbs.
Most of our conurbations have featured a population outflow into the suburbs and adjacent city boundaries, so this has to some extent alleviated the worst congestion, where jobs and workplaces have followed people. For example I can move around locally where I can avoid town centre's and travel as much as I can on foot.

Cars here are more fuel efficient - they have to be so you can afford the fuel! I drive a diesel Peugeot 205 which can do over 55 miles to the gallon (that is over 90 KM to the gallon) even though we have the most expensive diesel in the world. Many people living on the South Coast who regulary travel to France for shopping etc find it cheaper to fill up on the French side, where the taxes are so much lower.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:21 pm

The problems with energy taxes are that they hurt the little guy, are counter productive toward economic growth, cause inflation, and discourage capital investment, particularly into more advanced technology R&D.

Gas taxes are the most regressive form of taxation short of Gov sponsered gambling. Energy taxes can represent a significant % of the average Joe's spendable income, and he will probably not have the choice to drive less or to drive a 55 mpg car. I know people that must drive 180 miles every day to work and back so they can pay their taxes and their rent. I need a heavy duty 4x4 pickup truck every single day. Moreover, it's the end consumer that must pay the costs that are passed on from higher energy taxes from producers, shippers, and retailers. If you think that they will bear the additional costs from their profit margins, instead of passing them on to the consumers, your dreaming. The average Joe not only pays more for his own fuel but he bears the burden of the increased cost of everything else that results. For a millionare like Al Gore the higher costs and high taxes are nothing, but for you and I, they can be crushing.

Energy is necessary for all forms economic growth and productivity. Farmers and producers depend on low cost diesel to make a profit. Increased energy taxes, especially some kind of cap & trade tax scam, will force many farmers and other small bussinessmen out of bussiness. They cannot create more real jobs, but probably must cut back on real jobs. When people don't have real and good paying jobs, and they must pay high taxes, they don't have much money and they can't buy anything, including more advanced cars. The economy suffers further.

Significant amounts of capital are being transfered out of the private sector to the Gov sector with energy taxes. This always results in less real jobs, less productivity, and less captital investment. The cost of capital increases, along with the trend toward higher and higher prices each cycle. Everything costs more. Keeping the cost of capital artificially low has a price. This produces greater infalation and the devaluation of currency.

The real answer to cheaper and cleaner energy is in technology (and I don't mean windmills and solar panels because all of them combined can't produce the energy of one large coal fired power plant). Innovation invariably comes from the private sector if there's money to be made. The private sector can't invest in innovation if they are being taxed to death.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Post Reply