The Global warming blow-hards...

Lots of governments are saying that there's a problem, so let's examine what these governments are doing about it.

If you look carefully at what they are doing about it you will find that it all comes down to imposing taxes of one sort or another.

What does that tell us? It tell us that things will be ok as long as we pay the tax. But if you think about it that also means that things will be ok even if we don't pay the tax. So as far as governments are concerned this is purely an exercise in taxation.

Now, lets assume for a moment that there really is a problem. You may think that means that we need to cut consumption, but that's misguided. Most energy is used in production, not consumption, so what we actually need to do is cut production. What's more, if we reduce production then we automatically reduce consumption.

But higher taxation means that we have less disposible income, so the only way we can maintain standards of living is by increasing our productivity, in other words by increasing production. The result is exactly the opposite of the supposed desired effect.

So if there really is a problem that we can affect, the worst thing we can do is impose taxation.

I don't think taxation is going to solve anything either, in fact I agree that many governments are exploiting global warming purely as a revenue source.

I don't agree that production needs to be cut though. What needs to be done is either develop cleaner production methods or use technology to filter the pollution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Thank you for your response.



If you'd taken the time to notice, every one of my posts (close to fifty in this thread, only 2 C & Ps, and one link) has as it's main thrust the idea that we cannot be at all sure of the precise reasons we should be alarmed, nor whether being alarmed will be of any use, in and of itself.

Personally, I feel it to be of little use.

If it is happening, I suspect it is happening alongside, and in spite of, any trespasses of man.

In one case, we fight the effects of our own excesses.

In the other, we're choosing off God, Mother Nature, Allah, or any other force to which you would attribute the warming trend.

In the first instance, perhaps we can have some effect.

In the latter?

Tell me how we can even try?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

an island in the indian ocean goes under - people die or lose homes. and remember all the space we lose is just that, lost. so that's food and living space lost.

---

No.

It is merely a piece of land which has become less hospitable to/compatible with human existence, at a time when lands previously inhospitable/incompatible (think polar) would become viable.

Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i don't know where you got the thing about water shortages, we get hosepipe bans in britain and it's a small island in comparison to most places. i think it's because the hot weather evapourates the water from reservoirs. so a warmer climate is a bad thing.

---

You are correct, Britain is indeed a small island when compared with Saharan Africa, which is a bit dryer, I think you'll agree.

Hot weather evaporates water?

Right again!

The water rises into the atmosphere, where it re-condenses as vapor, forming clouds, which release precipitation, and also, uh, cools the Earth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

right now the world seems to be about as hospitable as it can be. most of the land happens to be in the right place for an ecosystem to support us. the poles are freezing and the equator is uncomfortable and white folks get skin cancer there.

---

So there's no hope whatsoever for Africa, is there? :(

Terrifically reasoned, really... :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

change really would be quite a bad thing

---

Yes, in fact, I'm sure the dinosaurs thought so, too.

---

ermm. 'k i don't know where to start.

i don't think the poles will suddenly become inhabitable. if it could happen over night there would be no deserts in the world. vegetation would have to shift towards the poles if temperatures changes much, which would cause the equator to suck more.

i don't know what your point about africa is. i say it's uncomfortable in england to make a point about how bad hot weather can be and you counter(?) by saying africa is worse :blink:

The outlook for Jan 14


73 degrees:O

21.2F here for Jan 14.

:shuriken:

89.6F here ... January 8th.

I hate converting to F. :dabs:

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I don't think taxation is going to solve anything either, in fact I agree that many governments are exploiting global warming purely as a revenue source.

I don't agree that production needs to be cut though. What needs to be done is either develop cleaner production methods or use technology to filter the pollution.

---

I think you missed my point.

Without governments pushing the issue, most people would be dismissing the idea that mankind is causing global warming as the ravings of a bunch of cranks. Yet if governments really believed it would have any effect they would be doing far more than they are, rather than treating it as a measure for taxation. The fact that they merely see it as a source of revenue illustrates that those who advocate change most are doing so purely for financial reasons. In Britain at least, these are the very same people who gave us the mess in Iraq, and let's face it that's really all about oil. Somehow I don't feel inclined to trust them.

On the point of production, any sane company would look for ways of improving productivity. More efficient production means better profits as well as lower emissions. But even with improved efficiency, higher taxes means that the same people have to produce more to stand still, so taxes by there very nature cause increased emissions. Using taxes as an argument that emissions will be reduced is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I don't think taxation is going to solve anything either, in fact I agree that many governments are exploiting global warming purely as a revenue source.

I don't agree that production needs to be cut though. What needs to be done is either develop cleaner production methods or use technology to filter the pollution.

---

I think you missed my point.

Without governments pushing the issue, most people would be dismissing the idea that mankind is causing global warming as the ravings of a bunch of cranks. Yet if governments really believed it would have any effect they would be doing far more than they are, rather than treating it as a measure for taxation. The fact that they merely see it as a source of revenue illustrates that those who advocate change most are doing so purely for financial reasons. In Britain at least, these are the very same people who gave us the mess in Iraq, and let's face it that's really all about oil. Somehow I don't feel inclined to trust them.

On the point of production, any sane company would look for ways of improving productivity. More efficient production means better profits as well as lower emissions. But even with improved efficiency, higher taxes means that the same people have to produce more to stand still, so taxes by there very nature cause increased emissions. Using taxes as an argument that emissions will be reduced is nonsense.

---

Using Britain as the example they are putting in place tougher regulations, emission controls etc. which over here have been relaxed under this administration. There is a theory over here that "the market" is the best environment protector. I disagree as IMO the environment will nearly always take second place to the bottom line, the cleanest production method usually isn't the cheapest. Also I probably worded it badly but it isn't the production that is the problem but how they deal with the resulting pollution. So regulations are the most effective way. I am not talking about forcing companies to do things right away but instead as improvements are made they have to meet the new standards. So if a polluting company expands the new expansion must meet higher standards. Similar to the way that newer cars have to maintain higher emission standards than older cars.
In Britain they appear to be doing both. Regulations for emissions and "green taxes". The first I believe is actually tackling the issue, the second I believe is taking advantage of the issue. (to a degree).
Here (for the past six years at least) they seem to be looking for more ways to allow companies to increase pollution and reduce their accountability for cleaning up their mess.

Well,even if you check the figures of the global warming enthusiasts,man has only contributed 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...tmosphere.html
The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%)

So its 0.01 to 0.1 % CO2 that we are talking about(big deal)
Although it seems to be ignored,the most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor.

So,if we except that only 1 to 2 % of carbon dioxide has been added to the atmosphere by man,then the above figures prove that nothing of nothing has been added.

Have you ever noticed that the Man made global warming enthusiasts, only ever quote this in tons or parts per millon of CO2?. As it sounds ridiculous in % especially as CO2 is not a very efficient green house gas!

if you are interested in this another good site is. The is an English ver there as well.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen6/Carbonifero.html