The death of British Industry?

[Ford Anglia]

Coming to an industrial town YOU know, some time after 2020!

So says Phillippe Varin, CEO of Corus (UK), in an interview in the local rag last night.

Apparently, the EC are rushing through legislation that will require industry to cut carbon dioxide emmisions by 20% by that date.

The UK government, (of whichever party), will, as it has always done, enforce this to the letter of the law, while the rest of Europe ignores it, as usual.

According to Varin, it will mean large comapnies like his own transferring their work to countries with lower targets, like the USA[:@], Russia, China and India.

Then WE would have to IMPORT all our steel etc. So no less emissions, in fact MORE due to extra movements of steel stock across the globe.

In my home town, the net effect would be 20,000 job losses. This would be the same in Teesside, South Wales and Sheffield.

For someone brought up in the industrial north of England, I find this VERY scary.

Your thoughts?

[Gluestick]

When you have idiots in charge of the country and in charge of what little is left of British industry and idiots, in this case Heath the Teeth, so desperate to join what was then the EEC they don't bother to read the fine print (let alone warn the great British idiot voters what's in store!), then it's hardly surprising that the flawed, corrupt Whited Sepulchre known as the EU or to humble academics like myself as the Gang of Thieves in Strasburg are set to screw Britain like never before!

Apparently, the EU now seeks £2.25 per person per week from the UK as a sort of Carbon Fine! That's £2.25 X 66,000,000 X 52.

And all this for a scientific fable since thus far no one has proven, categorically that the much talked about Climate Change is reality.

There is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF!

In point of fact such scientific evidence available, denies climate change is happening.

However, politicians, ever ready to screw us with yet another worthless tax, delight in finding another new way to raise more billions so they can waste it and steal bundles for themselves.

And, as you say, 105E with your normal precision, the British Civil Servant and apparatchiks, will be the first to implement whatever stoooopid new rules Strasburg dreams up and hand what's left of Corus or whatever to the likes of that nice Mr Mittal, in India.

 

[Just Katie]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Apparently, the EU now seeks £2.25 per person per week from the UK as a sort of Carbon Fine! That's £2.25 X 66,000,000 X 52.

 

[/quote]

Wow, that is interesting.  Gluey, do you know the stats for the other members?

[Gluestick]

Apparently JK it's EU wide.

The UK has been given the toughest target: of a 16% CO2 reduction: whilst France and Germany are 14% and Italy 13%.

Various "Poorer" EU staes, including Romania and Bulgaria are allowed to Increase theirs!

And since France has the largest nuclear energy programme already in place......................

Anyway, the whole matter is flawed and nonsenical: alternative "Green" energy such as wind turbines are front-loaded because the CO2 produced to actually make the damned things isn't properly accounted for. In the Pas de Calais and all around us, these dreadful wind turbines are springing up all over the horizon.

I have yet to be convinced that they will ever demonstrate payback. Our local communes and farmers love 'em: since they all get paid each and every year.

The core point is, what will the EU actually do with the cash?

Like the wonderful Brown inspired "Carbon Tax" on air travel. Where's the cash actually going? Albanian immigrants?

The UK government isn't actually doing anything like huge meaningful grants for aero engine research, e.g.

Anymore than they did anything with Landfill tax; which increased the price of a skip from peanuts to well over £100!

If the tax raised was being used to fund and develop waste re-cycling plants and stop landfill, then I'b be all for it.

It simply isn't.

Grrrr!

[:@]

[Just Katie]

I thought that UK's Carbon Reduction Target was around the 9pc mark AND, we are the only EU member on track.

Unlike our Irish cousins who are way off and called us "The Lepars of Europe" in the wake of the foot and mouth crisis. 

And what about them Russians?[:@]

[raindog]

[quote user="Ford Anglia"]

In my home town, the net effect would be 20,000 job losses. This would be the same in Teesside, South Wales and Sheffield.

[/quote]

They still produce steel in Sheffield?

I thought all UK's steel came from Brazil or somewhere these days.

[Gluestick]

How can it really be measured, JK?

How can we honestly be "On Track"? We boast few nuclear power stations and are still arguing about whether to build more; we burn oil, gas and coal to generate electricity and don't have effective pollution and CO/CO2 scrubbers in the stacks; let alone Sulpher Dioxide scrubbers!

Heathrow is the busiest international airport in the World: and we are erecting yet another terminal = more flights more pollution!

I only know one person with a hybrid Lexus and no one with a Prius!

If you look into Carbon Exchanges then you find that these are a con too. Indian companies sell their "Surplus" Carbon Credits: to which they are not entitled thus most are false.

If you haven't yet done so, read Michael Chrichton's book, State of Fear. As a powerful and respected scientist, Crichton offers some very valuable research data and sources. As well as an excellent bibliography.

About the only state to play reasonably fair was Germany after the re-unification: they closed all Eastern power plants, factories and steel plants 'cos they failed to meet EU pollution and emission threshholds and threw millions out of work and onto the already groaning West German benefit system and swapped worthless Oestmarks for Deuchsemarks and nearly ruined the economy in so doing!

Then they joined the Euro!

Angela Merkel now has to try and pick up the pieces.

Hard if not impossible task.

 

[raindog]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

And all this for a scientific fable since thus far no one has proven, categorically that the much talked about Climate Change is reality.

There is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF!

In point of fact such scientific evidence available, denies climate change is happening.

[/quote]

So that makes you and George Bush who still believe this.

Maybe you could get together and have a few beers.

[Gluestick]

Apart from the fact that I have nothing in common with Dubya, since I presume you refer to the son, and since Geo W doesn't believe in anything much, apart from doing what Daddy and the Carlisle Group instruct him to do and say, please, Raindog point me at this "Proof".

I am interested only in, and concerned with, empirical scientific proof, not scaremongering for political gain and commercial profit.

Neither am I particularly interested in nor concerned with the self-promotional antics of a load of previously unrecognised quasi-scientists who like so many would-be academics have happened on a new wave theory and exploited people's gullibility and the ever-ready and equally gullible media to promolgate their misrepresentations, calumnies and fictions. For previously missing credibility and of course money.

Sadly the once hallowed BBC have bought into the gag to such an extent that just this week, their "reporters" were blaming the fresh outbreak of flooding on "Climate Change": neatly forgetting, of course the inconsequential facts such as building on flood plains: failure to include adequate storm drains in developments: failure to maintain and clear extant drains; lack of planning in environmental impact assessment and the affect of roads, carparks, and general development on water table and run off;  the collapse of the NRA as an effective and adequate custodian of the river systems since privitisation; and the odd totally unimportant causal factor like the foregoing.

The trouble with this topic and so many more, is that since Thatcher and Reagan, the old concept of Herr Dr Josef Goebbal's "Big Lie" has been most sucessfully resurrected: if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough eventually, nearly everyone believes it to be truth.

 

[Chancer]

Gluestick

I was going to post and ask if you had read "State of fear" and then saw further down that you had.

Every night on each of the French channels there are several "news" articles that start or finish chanting the mantra "rechauffement mondiale" talk about deja vu!

Fascinating book that I would recommend to anyone that has even only a partly open mind.

I am with you and Dubya, on second thoughts just with you[:)]

[Danny]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

I am interested only in, and concerned with, empirical scientific proof, not scaremongering for political gain and commercial profit.

Neither am I particularly interested in nor concerned with the self-promotional antics of a load of previously unrecognised quasi-scientists who like so many would-be academics have happened on a new wave theory and exploited people's gullibility and the ever-ready and equally gullible media to promolgate their misrepresentations, calumnies and fictions. For previously missing credibility and of course money.

[/quote]

[quote user="Gluestick"]If you haven't yet done so, read Michael Chrichton's book, State of Fear. As a powerful and respected scientist, Crichton offers some very valuable research data and sources. As well as an excellent bibliography.

[/quote]

OK - it is not really credible to argue for empirical scientific proof and then suggest a novel to read to support your view. In case anyone doesn't know, Michael Chrichton's book "State of Fear" is a work of fiction.

Here is a site with some more information concerning State of Fear just to give another side to the story.

Danny

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

I am interested only in, and concerned with, empirical scientific proof, not scaremongering for political gain and commercial profit.

[/quote]

And predicting the imminant death of British industry is not scaremongering?

Actual "proof" in science is very, very rare. Unequivocal, unassailable fact, that is. I trained as a scientst and I'm hard pushed to think of much in my field that is not still open to some discussion. What we are usually left with is a balance of liklihood. Actual proof might be available about the time that Florida and half of Western Europe disappear under six feet of water, but even then I doubt it.

Most climatologists agree that the world is heating up. This may be natural, it may not be. But there is good evidence that elevated levels of certain gases - not just CO2 - in the atmosphere add to the effect. This has been actively researched for more than half a century, by better scientific brains, I would suggest, than the chairman of the CBI and Mr Chrichton.

Given the normally difficult time the scientific community has in getting politicos to take anything seriously (BSE, the rise of HIV, the damage to young brains caused by lead in petrol - "but gasoline without added lead will be too expensive for inductry to bear, etc,etc") the fact that many governments seem to take this seriously gives some clue as to the weight of evidence.

Curtailing emissions of these gases may have no actual impact on the heating effect, but until it is properly tried no-one knows. It rather comes down to how much you're prepared to gamble. Cutting emissions will be expensive, failing to do so may be catastrophic. Do you feel lucky?

[Gluestick]

Of course Crichton's book is a novel: and for me, not a very good novel.

That said, it does open the debate to think as JR said "With an open mind" rather than blindly accept that Climate Change is a reality and all we hear about the subject from politicians and the media is, inter alia, fact. Clearly it isn't.

For example, accepted science has proved that the Earth has survived much higher levels of CO2 in its atmosphere and well before the abuse of fossil fuels.

The eruption of Krakatoa caused a volcanic Winter which effect lasted for many many years. As did the impact of a number of large meteorites.

The value of Crichton's book which makes it well worth the price is the sheer volume of the research data: which allows at the very least, a starting point for the ingenue.

Your webref provides a fairly simplistic counter argument to many of the precepts Crichton uses in his novel: however it rather fails to counter the rump of the data provided in the bibiliography.

At the present time, we are informed of two disparate but connected "facts".

The first is that in general, sea levels are rising. The second is that rainfall is decreasing and causing drought conditions.

So far so good. However we are then told "fact" number three. That global temperatures are rising.

Now precipitation is caused when water - the availability of which is, we are assured - is increasing.

Over oceans, heat causes increased surface temperatures: cause  water to evaporate into vapour. Thus greater global temperatures: greater level of surface evaporation equals more water vapour in the atmosphere = more precipitation!

Thus two central planks of climate change are immediately at odds with each other.

However, never one to stand still where obscene profits are concerned, in the England, we are now told yet further "fact"!

That water shortgage caused by, wait for it, our old chum climate change, means drought conditions and dearer water!

The insanity of over-development in the South East and the real fact that infrastructure development has failed to keep up with population growth etc and the further fact that water companies have totally failed to deliver on Thatcher's central argument for privatisation and its raison'd'être, capital investment. With none in new large reservoirs, then with all the new consumers no wonder there are water shortgages!

And it's just this sort of abuse of quasi-scientific data which I deeply question.

At heart, I'm a simple chap: I like researching the global parameters of problems prior to setting out putative solutions.

Thus far with the emepheral subject of Climate Change, there is no true body of empirical research: there is no scientific basis for the varied arguments being put about in the world of climatology; however there are many and varied strategies and "solutions" being promoted by such as Fat Al Gore, who plainly is an idiot of the first water!

What we do have is prototypical erroneous syllogistic argument: for example, we may well find that even if and where CO2 levels are savagely cut, at huge human cost, the global temperature continues to rise because it is a cyclical event as has happened many times before.

However, the Climate Change "Experts" assure us that it's caused by CO2! With no actual basis in science to bolster, let alone prove their argument!

And today, with the ever increasing and awesome power of the media, a host of bored ex pop stars, not content with their tudor mansions and jet-set lifestyles leap into the fray and support "The Cause"; never actually pausing a while to consider of the cause is just or absolute!

If one stops a moment and considers, that in the 60s and 70s a raft of activist actors, actresses et al leapt into the cause of the Third World.

They bolstered their flagging public images: however the plight of the Third World worsened: and still worsens to this day.

For myself, I have to cast aside the shackles of emotive knee jerk reaction and carefully and consider the various truisms here involved.

At the present time, no one has mounted a sufficiently robust and water-tight scientific argument to persaude me that the cause is just: in fact, I conclude, the causus beli is wholly unjust: and simply yet another excuse to increase taxes for the little people, amongst whom I number myself, since unlike Mr Gore, I don't enjoy the luxury of a hugely polluting private jet to wander around the globe spouting a false doctrine.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1105786,00.html

 

 

[Gluestick]

[quote]Curtailing emissions of these gases may have no actual impact on the heating effect, but until it is properly tried no-one knows. It rather comes down to how much you're prepared to gamble. Cutting emissions will be expensive, failing to do so may be catastrophic. Do you feel lucky?
[/quote]

Nice theory!

So how, precisely, are you suggesting that we "Curtail emissions of these gases"?

Imagine: the Western world, including the USA cut their usage of fossil fuels by 50%. In so doing, they destroy their post-Kenynsian economic model which requires annual growth and destitute themselves and their societies in the process.

Meanwhile, China, India, Korea et al (the biggest polluters amongst the IDCs) continue on their paths of massive economic and industrial expansion.

The experiment fails.

What has actually been achieved?

It's just like the "Science" applied to GM crops. Since it is impossible to prevent cross-pollination from GM to non GM (since thus far mankind and scientists have not developed methodologies to control nature), claims made by such as Monsanto simply can't hold water!

However and of course, Monsanto want above everything to "prove" how safe GM crops are: and can produce at any one time, a tribe of "Experts" to "prove" their cause. What they fail to mention, of course, is their new world plants have sterile seeds, thus preventing Third World farmers from doing what they have done for thousands of years: reserve some of their crop for seeds for next year's planting!

The only way to prove either set of dynamics would be in an eco-dome. How much would it cost to build a model of the Earth and its atmosphere and honestly replicate the atmosphere, stratosphere and etc?

If not, then the experiment is valueless: and pointless.

 

 

[Danny]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Your webref provides a fairly simplistic counter argument to many of the precepts Crichton uses in his novel: however it rather fails to counter the rump of the data provided in the bibiliography.

At the present time, we are informed of two disparate but connected "facts".

The first is that in general, sea levels are rising. The second is that rainfall is decreasing and causing drought conditions.

So far so good. However we are then told "fact" number three. That global temperatures are rising.

Now precipitation is caused when water - the availability of which is, we are assured - is increasing.

Over oceans, heat causes increased surface temperatures: cause  water to evaporate into vapour. Thus greater global temperatures: greater level of surface evaporation equals more water vapour in the atmosphere = more precipitation!

Thus two central planks of climate change are immediately at odds with each other.

[/quote]

this is incredibly simplistic, given the complexities of climate science ( of which I know very little) However, if you are going to make statements and then draw conclusions from them, it would be better to make sure that your conclusions are valid (otherwise it might possibly be seen as "abuse of quasi-scientific data")

Sea levels might be rising and rainfall might be decreasing, causing drought, and there may well be greater precipitation in general caused by an increase in temperature. None of these are necessarily contradictory. Drought is an absence of rainfall in a specific area, even if there is an increase in general precipitation over the planet. It rains at sea too...

From the article you posted a link to:

 "The science is clear: although global climate change will not result in sudden catastrophe — it will not decrease food production or increase the impact of malaria — it is a reality. There is no doubt that mankind has influenced atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and that this will increase global temperatures."

That seems a very different view to what you have been saying. The author seems quite convinced that there is a problem.

The article I chose was the first that came up with a google search. I was not suggesting that it was an exhaustive criticism of the novel.

I have no axe to grind on this issue and I have no faith in any politicians to do anything useful but the points you make about over population in the South East and lack of planning etc. or Al Gore etc. might indeed be valid but are not really related to whether there is a climate change issue at all. They might be used as excuses by certain people but if you mix the two things together it just serves to further confuse matters.

Danny

[Gluestick]

Danny:

I'm not a scientist: rather an adopted engineer, alongside my original profession.

I much enjoyed the privilege, a few years ago of membership of a social club, sited near one of the UK's experimental nuclear facilities and number some of their leading scientists (of all disciplines) as friends: indeed, I became an adopted member of their beer Drinking and Philosophy Society (I still await my club tie, which reminds me! A foaming pint tankard, cocked, with the message E=MC 3: which demonstrates their keen sense of humour!).

What they taught me, were some of the immutable laws and valuable lessons of empirical science in terms of logic.

For which I will be eternally grateful.

Additionally, I am a mild (thankfully!) asthmatic: my son, however, was a severe asthmatic from a very young age, now, thankfully, almost normal.

I experienced one of the worst cities in the World at the time, Mexico City in 1979, where I worked on a project for one week. My son's specialist, now Prof. Newman-Taylor is probably the UK's leading expert in such respiratory diseases and one of the top guys in the World. He has proven with little doubt that Nitrogen Oxide, from vehicle exhausts, in concentration (like most of London) causes asthmatic attacks.

Air pollution, indeed, holistic environmental pollution is a dire problem and urgently requires a valid and tenable solution. Today, we live in an environment surrounded by toxins: in our food, garden; on our hair; skin; clothes, cars; kitchens; bathrooms.

No wonder with the sheer levels of carcinogens from chemicals in our living environment, rates of all types of cancers increase!

However, and all that said, I have yet to see cogent and realistic proof that elevated CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere have caused and cause global warming.

In the main, drought has been caused by, for example, de-forestation. Ferdinand Marcos, as an example, encouraged stripping hills and mountains in the Philipines for mahogany: and caused land slides, soil erosion and drought in the process.

Destroying equitorial rain forests in the Amazon area for rough grazing and raising beef for hamburgers has caused all sorts of ecological problems: including reduced precipitation. However, whilst Western banks suck huge amounts out of these economies in debt service and capital repayment this will continue.

The deserts around the Mediteranean Litteral in North Africa were created by the Romans using a previously verdant area as an over-exploited food resource.

Droughts in the African hinterland have been a fact for thousands of years: unfortunately, Victorian explorers and imperialists created synthetic borders and thereafter prevented the natural perigrination of normally peripatetic tribes and animals; thus over-grazing has caused drought, soil erosion and famine. As destroying trees for building materials and firewood has simply exacerbated the problem.

None of the above, of course, has anything to do with CO2 levels and global warming: worse, they have no impact on idiot taxes to solve the problem!

As I stated before, first define the problem and its causes: next lay out putative solutions.

Perhaps politicians might be defined as people who state:"Don't confuse me with facts! We already have a solution!"

[Www]

[raindog]

There are sites on the internet for people who don't believe global warming is happening, who think Lady Di was murdered by the royal familly and who think Bush and Blair invaded Irak because Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the twin towers attack, where they can send posts to each other and Feel Really Good.

[powerdesal]

[quote user="raindog"]There are sites on the internet for people who don't believe global warming is happening, who think Lady Di was murdered by the royal familly and who think Bush and Blair invaded Irak because Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the twin towers attack, where they can send posts to each other and Feel Really Good.

[/quote]

Raindog, may I presume that your post is to indicate that anyone who disagrees with the "man is responsible for climate change" line is the same sort of nutter who believes the other two aspects that you mention. If this is your attitude then I really do consider it to be extremely insulting.

There are intelligent, professional, thinking and caring people who do not subscribe to the media driven Al Gore line of thought. You may, or may not agree with them but they have a case which is just as valid as the opposing one.

It is unfortunate that many of those who think as Al Gore seems to do, do not in fact think the whole situation through. I dont believe that the argument is that there is no climate change happening, rather the argument is about the primary cause. The extreme greenies seem to want to deny the historical facts that indicate the climate has changed in the past, its bound to have, the system is dynamic and will continue to vary / change. Those same exponents of mans responsibility appear to conveniently deny the impossibilty of generating power successfully and consistently with such sources as wind power. Blinkered vision and selective use of "facts" seem to be their stock in trade. 

    

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote]Curtailing emissions of these gases may have no actual impact on the heating effect, but until it is properly tried no-one knows. It rather comes down to how much you're prepared to gamble. Cutting emissions will be expensive, failing to do so may be catastrophic. Do you feel lucky?

[/quote]

[quote user="Gluestick"]Nice theory!

[/quote]

Thanks. I didn't think of it all by myself, though. Its been doing the rounds amongst the climate science lot for a while

[quote user="Gluestick"]So how, precisely, are you suggesting that we "Curtail emissions of these gases"?

[/quote]

Since you ask, I'd suggest technologically. There are some interesting strands being pursued toward making a carbon neutral industrialised world possible. Aside from improving the efficiency of use I mean. Fusion technology is one obvious possibility, genetic modification of algae to manufacture hydrocarbon-like fuels via photosynthesis out at sea is another. Both require a huge amount of funding.

And there's the rub. It would be investment that might not be necessary. Huamnkind might not be having an effect on climate at all. But being wrong about that has the potential for complete and utter catastrophy. Not recession in Western economies but complete disintergration.

[quote user="Gluestick"]Imagine: the Western world, including the USA cut their usage of fossil fuels by 50%. In so doing, they destroy their post-Kenynsian economic model which requires annual growth and destitute themselves and their societies in the process.

Meanwhile, China, India, Korea et al (the biggest polluters amongst the IDCs) continue on their paths of massive economic and industrial expansion.

The experiment fails.

What has actually been achieved?

[/quote]

If they do this without first establishing replacement technologies then no arguement from me. Your absolutely right. But throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem of developing your alternatives and you'd probably have them in a decade. Think of the Manhattan project. I have a feeling that many of our leaders are already convinced of this, which is why they are trying to raise the cash at every turn....

[quote user="Gluestick"]It's just like the "Science" applied to GM crops. Since it is impossible to prevent cross-pollination from GM to non GM (since thus far mankind and scientists have not developed methodologies to control nature), claims made by such as Monsanto simply can't hold water!

However and of course, Monsanto want above everything to "prove" how safe GM crops are: and can produce at any one time, a tribe of "Experts" to "prove" their cause. What they fail to mention, of course, is their new world plants have sterile seeds, thus preventing Third World farmers from doing what they have done for thousands of years: reserve some of their crop for seeds for next year's planting!

[/quote]

Well, we have developed methodologies in some areas - take the Pill: control of reproductive biology achieved for hundreds of millions of women. That said, some of the behaviour adopted by the big agro-chems stink, in my view, though to be fair farmers in the developing world still don't have access to some of the best yielding crops because they cannot afford F1 hybrid seeds each year. F1 hybrids do not breed true so keeping seed back is not possible, à la GM. Though I thought the idea of a "terminator" gene had been dropped already?

[quote user="Gluestick"]The only way to prove either set of dynamics would be in an eco-dome. How much would it cost to build a model of the Earth and its atmosphere and honestly replicate the atmosphere, stratosphere and etc?

If not, then the experiment is valueless: and pointless.

[/quote]

Well, you could build one I suppose. It would cost billions and whatever results you got people would argue about and the whole exercise might take thirty years by which time it might be far too late to do much about climate change if it is real.

So we might as well get on and try and do somethiong now.

[Gluestick]

RRE:

We think very much on the same lines, in fact.

I agree almost totally with your last post: interestingly I also cite the Manhattan Project as an example of solving the apparently insoluble, by endless funding and multi-approach strategy.

However and that said, I'm a realist and I do not think for one moment believe that the huge vested interests of the Oil and Gas lobby will drop their stranglehold on energy.

I have written for years that automotive engines could quite simply be made to be twice as fuel-efficient: and cars could be designed and built in a far more environmentally manner.

However, the oil gas and automotive lobby enjoy a synergy of collective self-interest to prvent such ideas.

As do the energy utilities.

I do believe that self-sustaining nuclear fusion net energy out could be possible: if, for example a combined programme similar to CERN was developed.

You can really imagine the USA funding part of that! Particularly with Dubya's andf the Bush family's oil and gas involvement......................

I listen to such as Jonathan Porrit and despair: his "solutions" take no account of reality: and I have heard nothing from any green or environmental group which does.

At the moment "Green" issues in a practical sense are in the main, a con: as a ready example, local authorities only collecting rubbish bi-weekly (which saves them money!) on the illusory basis that it will cut pollution!

Last year the idiot in charge of the Dartford Crossing tried to justify his authority's doubling the toll, in the cause of envioronmental pollution and global warming!

Thus the brilliant concept is that those who live in Kent and work in Essex will retire; resign; or die and stop travelling; and visa versa for those living in Essex!

What utter tosh; what ineffable bilge!

Sadly, such nonsense is prototypical when and where global warming is a ready excuse, these days.

There could be and very much SHOULD be some solutions: and quite urgently.

However, blaming everything on a scientific myth (Thus far) and resorting to increased taxation is not and never will be any form of solution.

And that's my conceptual and core problem with the whole of this debate.

 

[Quillan]

I read State of Fear as well, an average book I thought. I have also spent some time reading a few, selected at random, references he gives in the back which as he says make your own mind up. As said the book is worth buying for those alone.

I don't think that the rise in CO2 is just man made. Likewise I also believe that it is in the interest of the G7/8 countries to support this myth for their own financial gain. They are very scared of the rise in industry amongst the Asian countries which can produce goods at a miniscule cost compared to the west.

Sometimes you don't have to go scientific to prove or disprove a point. As an example, the lack of resources to support the new build homes in the UK. If you look a the houses on the TV that are flooded the majority seem rather modern. My argument is that the UK is running out of space and has been building on known flood planes for years. The lack of resources for these houses is because, at the time, why build them, I mean who in their right mind would build housing estates on areas that have a history of flooding.

The building of new houses also effects the old ones because of displacement of water so in turn some areas which either never flooded before or did not flood to such an extent now do so.

Where I was bought up there was a school with two very large playing fields, one had 4 football patch's and the other 3 rugby pitches plus almost twice as much land again. Every couple of years the fields flooded and those that had lived there prior to the school being built often wondered why they built the school because the land always flooded. The school then sold the land to developers and now there are very large housing estates on them. Whilst some protection against flood was installed they still flood every 5 or 6 years. Of course when they do flood a TV team appears and they blame it on global warming.

This is not an isolated case. I have a friend who was bought up in Carlisle and remembers areas there flooding which now have houses built on them and guess what, they still flood.

What I really detest about the 'pro' lobby is that they can't stand anyone who disagrees. If you disagree and stick your head up over the parapet they jump on you either in a most venomous way and give you a 'good kicking' verbally or just call you an idiot. They can't stand people asking questions and in particular for proof..

[Ford Anglia]

[quote user="Quillan"]

What I really detest about the 'pro' lobby is that they can't stand anyone who disagrees. If you disagree and stick your head up over the parapet they jump on you either in a most venomous way and give you a 'good kicking' verbally or just call you an idiot. They can't stand people asking questions and in particular for proof..

[/quote]

And in the same vein, HM government are arranging for teaching in secondary schools to include Al Gore's fil about so-called Global Warming, but ARE NOT incuding reference to ANY evidence to the contrary[:@]

[Caussenarde]

@ Gluestick

" For myself, I have to cast aside the shackles of emotive knee jerk reaction and carefully consider the various truisms here involved."

Absolutely!  Couldn't agree with you more;  you can't say fairer than that in my view.[Www]

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Gluestick - we seem to share much the same views.

Personally, I think it highly likely that not only that global warming is real but that it is least partly due to human activity. That is where the balance of sober evidence seems to point. It strikes me, therefore, as being pretty sensible to try and do something to halt it. We COULD wait until it was undenable, but by that time if the effects are real, and due to us, we would probably be finished.

A parallel from human history might be the attempts to appease Hitler: something could have been done at considerable expense and inconvenience in 1935/6, but instead many people chose to ignore what was going on and lots of people got killed.

It bugs me hugely that some idiots try and blame absolutely anything they can on climate change - houses getting flooded on flood plains being a fine example - because it cheapens the debate. I don't think the Al Gore stuff helped either.

[Gluestick]

I agreee: we ought to actually try and do something: even in the singular cause of better air to breathe.

However and unfortunately, what?

Already, the new EU diktats allow an open dispensation for states such as Romania et al: and I give you all one guess where highly polluting multinational industries would open new plants and thereby neatly avoid the carbon issue!

Simply taxing pollution will not actually change the dynamic: but will raise the holistic cost base.

I would be far happier with negative taxation: e.g. rating certain activities which are proven to be carbon-neutral as tax rebate territory, as is done in France with -e.g.-  wood burners and some geo-heating.

That said, the rebates have to be so significant that people are super-encouraged! Which also demonstrates government's serious perspective for once.

Overall, I fear that whatever minor step changes the West achieves, Asia will simply carry on as before and as their economies expand, exponentially, in net terms, the global environment will in fact remain pretty much the same.

As an example of where the World currently stands, despite China's quite recent membership of the WTO, all apart from achieving low import tariffs, they have made little or no changes in areas such as software and music/video piracy and design thefts. And the West has no viable sanctions to hit them with!