The following Dodgers have been smited by the JDK for their crimes against Jam:
All the girls! for picking on the JDK and damaging his already delicate self esteem!
The Basserd Who Nicked Copper's Stuff For the offense of nicking Copper's stuff. You are a tw*t, whoever you are and we all hope you get run over by a tram in Nottingham. Or Liverpool. Or whereever else they have trams!
Copper For the crime of playing with her Wii instead of her Jammie pals!
I'm starting to get extremely P*ssed off that the standard response to complex issues seems to be "tax em", ffs is this the best that modern society can come up with. In this case the science dosen't fully support the claims the green lobby make yet we act as if the science has proven that the tiny amount of CO2 that humans make affect global warming when the supporting evidence is supect, distorted or just mis-interpreted.
__________________
I aint no wide eyed rebel, but I aint no preachers son.
A wise man saidThis is just another hair-brained plan piggy-backing on unsubstantiated claims about the effect our cars are having on the environment
I think it may have been Brian Hunter, chairman of the Car Drivers Club of Great Britain in that very article.
People seem to forget that the biggest factor affecting the heat of our planet is a million kilometer wide thermonucular reactor sitting about 150 million miles away. Duh.
April fools or not, the black box idea has been floated before. And the point you made in your ranty first post was an extremely good one whith which I happen to agree and worthy of a much longer rant. I think we should propogate this without further ado...
The above link gives a more reasonable scientific account of the situation and the fact is that of all greenhouse gases water vapour accounts for 95%, 99.99% of which is naturally occuring.
Co2 only accounts for 3.618% of greenhouse gas with man made Co2 only accounting for 0.117%. Even if we reduce emissions by the Koyoto proposed 30% - it's a fart in the wind compared to the natural effect of water vapour which is never properly represented in the official statistics even if we reduced by 30% Co2 we would still not effect natural climate change.
I also think for all those on the Al Gore bandwagon - why did he fail to represent the ice core data properly when looking further into it Co2 only rises AFTER a rise in temprature i.e. it cannot therefore be causing it.
I think that a lot of the data surrounding this has been manipulated to promote particular goverment policies to retard the development of the third world and impose taxation to squeeze more money out of everyday people.
__________________
I aint no wide eyed rebel, but I aint no preachers son.
Did you see Channel 4's recent and rather controversial documentary on the subject? I liked it cos it echoed my thoughts on the matter. It was kinda like the writer was reading my mind!
Man made global warming is not a scientific fact. It's speculation based on incomplete evidence, like most scientific theories and in 10 years time we'll have an all new, all singing, all dancing theory that the tabloids can spout off about and the government can tax us over.
Yup. The maker of the documentary (I forget his name), has had similar problems in the past, however it's worth pointing out that only one of the many scientists interviewed is complaining and that the main thrust of his complaint is that he didn't realise that it was going to be an anti-global warming documentary and would have declined the interview if he had.
The documentary itself is fairly one-sided and biased (as is Al Gore's), but it does make several good points that really really need to be made around the political incentives to propogate man-made global warming as fact and the lack of scientific proof.
it was a good documentary, you can tell that global warming is purly a political thing by the way they are hedging their bets and now calling it "climate change"
__________________
I aint no wide eyed rebel, but I aint no preachers son.
sha76jam wrote: Nope, sorry, that bit's crap, the scientists have been trying to tell the politicians that it's not as simple as "global warming" for over a decade.
I know! what I'm saying is that the politicians have cottoned on to the fact that the temperature might go the other way, in the 60's / 70's there was a big global cooling / second ice age scare then it was global warming. Now they can call it climate change and tax people no matter what way the temperature goes.
-- Edited by HaloBurn at 16:28, 2007-04-03
__________________
I aint no wide eyed rebel, but I aint no preachers son.
Well my theory on it is that if you stick a load of crap into the world you're going to get nasty results, just like if you stick nasty things into your body (yeah, OK, so I'm guilty of both!). So, whatever the reasoning, trying to cut down on pollutants is good. Of course that's certainly not saying I support the way the government's doing it!
sha76jam wrote: Well my theory on it is that if you stick a load of crap into the world you're going to get nasty results, just like if you stick nasty things into your body (yeah, OK, so I'm guilty of both!). So, whatever the reasoning, trying to cut down on pollutants is good. Of course that's certainly not saying I support the way the government's doing it!
I agree I think we should look after the planet more, I'm all for it.
It's just that on this particular Tax Cash Cow I think we are being exploited by making us feel guilty for something that we probably have no control over.
__________________
I aint no wide eyed rebel, but I aint no preachers son.
sha76jam wrote:if you stick nasty things into your body (yeah, OK, so I'm guilty of both!).
At the risk of lowiering the tone of this debate... ew...
And yes - we should reduce our carbon footprint as much as possible - but taxation just ain't the way to do it.
I remember reading an article or watching a tv programme or summat that said that a fully laden train had a higher carbon footprint than a bunch of cars carrying the same number of people. I'll try and find it when I get home!