BBC News

When you start to put your words in other peoples mouths, then you expose nothing more than that what is in your mind.

It is not only rude, it is dispicable if used to enforce your point. However feeble that may be.
Here we go, we're slowly getting to the root of your belief system.

You're a Marxist revolutionary in the sly disguise of a benefactor of nature arent'cha.
You either have a very short memory or have no issues being a hypocrite.

I couldn't care less about communism, socialism, or any other idealistic paper philosophy that doesn't work in real life. Democracy barely works. But there's no excuse for corporations to make £40+ billion and duck all responsibility. They certainly don't need defended by the public. The more you talk, the more you sound like a corporate shill paid to spread misinformation.
Sponsored Links
Thanks Gonzo. With a subnormal teenager like Thunberg leading your cause, I don't think you can lecture on ignorance or blind stupidity. Keep believing! Keep the faith! :giggle:
I don't ahave a cause, and Thunberg leads kids, afaik, by ranting. Has she spoken on, say, the relative merits of blue, grey, green and turquise hydrogen? I don't think so.

If someone just rants from a position of not having looked into anything beyond one bias-confirming fact, sure, I'll think they're ignorant.
I haven't use the words "blind stupidity". DOn't misquote or use fake arguments.

A problem with some of the mechanisms by which global warming is proposed to be the result of man made CO2, can be that's they're positive feedback loops, aka vicious circles. So it's possible to blame something else in the circle for its existence. In some cases there's probably some truth.

Ice cap's shrinking, right? Oh, nothing to do with CO2 or global warming. The magnetic pole's moving as always, quite fast at the moment. so the magma's moving to the pole. So it's warming things up melting some ice, then there's less ice to reflect the sun's heat away so it gets warmer.
Nothing to do with fossil fuels.
Nope, it's garbage I made up in 30 seconds which has some truth in it. It would take a lot longer to denigrate.
If there wasn't huge money being made out of it and we weren't being fleeced every time we hear the word 'climate'. :idea:
Probably best to let this thread die but I'm genuinely interested cause google doesn't provide any answers. What charges/taxes/payments do ordinary people pay in regards to climate?

So far DorkLord still hasn't answered what taxes he was referring to and the only climate tax I've found so far is aimed at industry. Perhaps you can tell me how we, as civilians and not industry CEOs, are "being fleeced" every time climate is mentioned? Or point me in a direction to read about it?
Sponsored Links
So far DorkLord still hasn't answered what taxes he was referring to and the only climate tax I've found so far is aimed at industry. Perhaps you can tell me how we, as civilians and not industry CEOs, are "being fleeced" every time climate is mentioned? Or point me in a direction to read about it?

In so many ways - gas and electric bills include a green 'tax'.
Thanks for the link but if you dig a bit deeper, the 5 "green taxes" are somewhat misleading.

1- fuel duties came in the 90s under John Major before the climate crisis debate had any real traction and was reduced in the 2000s when climate debate was ramping up. So blaming climate debate for this is bit of a stretch
2 - Not really related to climate change, congestion charge/ULEZ is about clean air, reducing cancer causing particulates in city air where tall buildings reduce wind. Major problem in big cities, just take a look at large cities in China packed with skyscrapers. Smog is/was frequently a problem. Even if climate debate didn't exist, policies to improve air quality in cities still would
3 - Plastic bag charge is hardly a tax, don't be lazy and bring your own bag. Next to no effort if 10p is that important, it's more effort to put on socks. If you think that's worth crying about, consider yourself lucky that you don't have bigger issues
4 - Not a tax, actually beneficial for small businesses
5 - It's a tax squarely aimed at corporations, not civilians

In so many ways - gas and electric bills include a green 'tax'.
8% on electricity is hardly breaking the bank, £200 a year for the average household at today's rates, but I accept it's a green tax.

Quite the exaggeration to say it's being fleeced though, especially considering everyone got £400 from the Energy Bills Support Scheme and the Warm Home Discount helps thousands, if not millions of people. It's a tax that actually helps people instead of disappearing into Westminster's black hole, definitely worse taxes and expenditures to complain about.
In so many ways - gas and electric bills include a green 'tax'.

You are right Harry, much of the scandalous increase in gas and electric prices is due to stupid "Net Zero" schemes. You are just a cash cow for these interests.

We have largely stopped producing coal yet we are importing more and more of it from far away places. Our gas and electricity exports to other countries are up but we are told there are shortages. We have everything we need in this country but are prevented from getting at it by the parasite governing classes.

Look at the figures for our electric and gas exports. Shortages, what shortages?


All the ways the most common bit of climate misinformation is wrong

We've looked at natural cycles and causes. None of them can produce this warming.

It’s not the Sun​

The Sun is the source of energy on the surface of our planet, so it stands to reason that variations in solar activity might cause climate changes. But solar activity has been declining over the past few decades as our planet warmed, so there’s no link. Although solar energy is immense, its variations are tiny.

“It was called the solar ‘constant’ for a long time because you need extremely sensitive instruments to see any variation in the Sun's energy output,” said Owens. Over an 11-year sunspot cycle, the solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere varies by about 0.15 percent, but it rises and falls every cycle, so it can’t drive climate trends like ours.

It’s not natural variation​

You're probably familiar with the El Niño and La Niña cycles that influence our weather. These repeat irregularly every two to seven years, affecting rainfall and drought across America and even altering Atlantic hurricane activity. The cycles are the strongest of several oscillations that alter how ocean heat is distributed over time and place. Mann describes them as the “random sloshing back and forth of the climate.”

It turns out that some apparently natural cycles are illusions. The 40-60-year-long “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” is one of several that are really just echoes of decades-long cooling caused by explosive volcanic eruptions in the preindustrial era. More recently, competition between human-caused warming and human-caused cooling resulting from sulfurous pollution has also left its imprint on the oscillation. Consequently, “key trends, such as the warming of the tropical Atlantic and the increase in hurricane activity associated with it cannot, as some researchers have claimed, be blamed on an internal oscillation,” said Mann. They are instead the result of human-caused warming.

Combined, all the events that are currently influencing the climate create a lot of year-to-year noise in temperatures. But a clear signal of human-caused climate change emerged back in the 1950s above the random “sloshing back and forth” variability.

It’s not volcanoes​

Volcanoes have a split personality when it comes to climate—they cool it temporarily, yet they also release CO2 that keeps Earth from freezing solid. Volcanic CO2 is the main source of geological carbon emissions that kept our planet habitable for billions of years. Without its “greenhouse effect,” the planet’s average temperature would be an icy -18° C compared to about +14° C, where it is today. And yet, “the amount of CO2 emitted from volcanoes is tiny compared to human activities,” Schmidt told me.

Geological processes emit CO2 from volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges, rift valleys, geothermal systems, and from heat and pressure on rocks at depth. Combined, these release about 0.148 billion tons of CO2 per year—just 0.4 percent of the 36.3 billion tons of human emissions in 2021. To put that in perspective, it would take 1,650 eruptions as big as the huge Pinatubo eruption in 1991, every year, to match human CO2 emissions. Even geological methane from sources such as mud volcanoes is much less than methane from human activity.

Ironically, human-caused warming will raise the altitude of the stratosphere, making it harder for eruption plumes to reach it, and will also speed up a stratospheric wind known as the “Brewer-Dobson Circulation,” which will enhance the cooling by those fewer eruptions that manage to reach the higher stratosphere.

It’s not Earth’s orbit​

Wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are actually cyclic and can affect climate. Called “Milankovitch Cycles,” after the scientist who discovered them, they're the reason the climate has alternated between cold “glacial” times, when ice sheets covered large parts of the northern hemisphere, and less cold “interglacial” times, when those ice sheets melted away. These cycles happened some 50 times in the last 2.6 million years, but they operate over 23,000-, 41,000-, or 100,000-year and longer timeframes, so they're far more gradual than modern warming.

It’s not plate tectonics​

It’s true that dinosaurs thrived in a warm climate, and the Arctic was fringed with palm trees 50 million years before the Pleistocene Ice Age. These multimillion-year shifts between “greenhouse” and “icehouse” climates were the result of plate tectonics, which sometimes breaks out in more volcanoes than usual, constructs huge mountain chains, or lets those mountains erode away.

These tectonic changes affect the balance between the CO2 emitted by geological processes (mainly volcanoes) and the CO2 removed by geological processes, mainly the chemical reaction of CO2 with water and silicate minerals, known as “silicate weathering.”

Our eroding landscape today is about 50 percent more efficient at removing CO2 than it was 16 million years ago, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have dropped and the climate has cooled since that time. But silicate weathering is much too slow to make a difference in our time. It’s like an ant eating an elephant: it will get there eventually, but at the slow pace of plate tectonics—in hundreds of thousands of years. In the meantime, half our emissions are absorbed by plants and ocean water, and the rest is building up in the atmosphere, warming the climate.

We can rule out the usual natural suspects people often bring up to sow doubt about our role in climate change, and we can rule in humans because multiple lines of evidence prove our role. As the IPCC and agencies in the US, UK, Europe, Japan, China, and others have documented in exhaustive detail, global warming is unequivocally driven by emissions from human activities.

As sure as sure can be, it’s not natural—it’s us.
Corporations tend to sell things to civilians, they tend to add on costs to the selling price.
So then why are you not complaining about these companies with record profits not paying their share and passing the buck if that's the case?

Companies make billions of profit (record profits for some) for a small number of stakeholders, while avoiding as much tax as possible or passing it on like you say. Yet people defend these companies while thinking an optional 10p plastic bag charge (where most supermarkets donate the money to charity) or an 8% green levy for a couple hundred a year is the important thing to be complaining about?

Companies like Exxon and Shell have ran hard PR campaigns spreading misinformation, purposely to direct public anger away from themselves to protect their profits. And it's working a treat, so much so people would rather say independent and verifiable data is "fake" or "with an agenda" because it doesn't fit what they've been led to believe. I'd be more comfortable thinking it's all fake too, unfortunately my job analysing environmental data from sources around the world frequently indicates that the environment is changing at a rate faster than ever.
What is it then?
It's a price tag, thought that was kinda obvious... It's an incentive to stop people being lazy. You don't have to buy one. It's optional so not a tax
unfortunately my job analysing environmental data from sources around the world
Do you look into causes, or just at the effects?
Have you for example tracked down any of the illicit producers of CFCs in the far East?
Do you have any idea/link to how GW controls the movements of Walker Cells in the mid Pacific?
Sponsored Links