50mph limit on country roads, anyone in favour?

[Lbm]

First part is absolutely risible. Most politicians could earn much higher salaries, for a lot less hassle, in law or in the city. Second part is almost tautological - you're blaming people who go into politics for wanting to shape the world in the way that is in line with their beliefs? That's like saying 'those damn cheese sellers, all they want to do is sell cheese'.

 

I don't think I can trust cheese sellers anymore. I must now rethink my whole stance on this dairy issue.

[extendor]

Tannhauser win.

 

 

 

ROUND... 2.

 

 

 

 

 

FIGHT!!1.

 

Rubbish. (GRIN)

 

"less reward-to-investment ratio" Says it all. The scrote that does your Granny over is a far worse criminal but harder to catch. He does not wear a number plate or stick to predefined routes.

 

"The underclass would seem to be a poor source of revenue" Agree but the point is why tax lawbreakers. That only works with those that have money to start with. Break the law and have some proper penalties rather than use the law to raise tax because when you change the law into tax collection you spend less time dealing with the less 'profitable' broken laws.

 

"By giving fines for all but the most serious cases, the law is saying exactly the opposite, isn't it? That it ISN'T an awful crime. It's a minor crime, that receives a minor penalty" But the Govt will have you believe speeding is one of the worst crimes going. There are no end of contradictory stats on this but the bottom line for me is that if it was such a bad thing to do then the penalty should be higher and not four chances to put their hand in your pocket.

 

Ref the bankers etc. Yes they were greedy and operated without any care for the consequences, guided by their own agenda and divorced of any moral or ethical compass. Although they have not broken a law they have brought immense misery to our society so in my mind they are the worst than criminals and we should see some efforts being made to curtail their powers and freedoms to act because that would bring greater rewards for everyone than dropping 10mph off the speed limit.

 

As always Tannhauser I love your posts so feel free to continue our discussion. As to whether or not you have made a strong enough case I remain to be convinced.

[AJI]

I'm not bothered if the money goes back into the roads or not. Governments need to raise revenue from somewhere.

 

Tannhauser - you really can't be serious with that comment can you?

 

I mean, the usual UK citizen is totally pi$$ed off with the way their hard earned money goes to waste by the way the government 'spends' our money.

The way it should be is that people who use the road should be taxed for the up-keep of the roads.... ie. car tax.

People who drink and smokle a lot are taxed for the burden that it puts on the NHS etc.

In effect you pay for the services you use.

 

These two examples are how the system should work.... but NO... the way the government thinks it should work is that they target easy ways to force the public to pay more than what they should for EVERYTHING.

The excuses for the fuel duty is now that it pays for schools, hospitals etc. etc. ..... why should the motorist be targetted to pay for these when they already pay income tax?

Why are the national assets/services being funded by one group of people?

 

If the money for car tax was indeed ALL spent on the roads like it should be then we would not be sitting in road works on every journey. We would have roads that were the best in Europe and something to be proud of. An educated guess would say that we would have less injury accidents on the roads due to their better condition....and the list continues.

 

And don't get me started on all this stupid CO2 tax !!

This is another area where the government have seen a way to tax the masses with fabricated 'facts' and the use of trend-setting computer models which now, a lot of government paid scientists are disputing.

 

 

 

 

Compared with virtually any other government in the world, yes, I think they are pretty trustworthy.*

 

 

Again, I'm amazed that anybody not capainging for the Labour party could have such a view.

How can they be trusted? There is now 12 years of evidence of how this government have run the UK into the ground. Not saying the previous lot were any better, but it seems which ever government is in power the PMs will have the following order of principles...(1) to see that they get as much money for themselves as possible so to set them selves a nice easy life for the future at taxpayers expense of course....and (2) to create the illusion of improvement by creating 'targets' and then having to source money for the new systems and red tape in order to police it.

 

I don't think that people these days go into government so that they have a genuine goal of improving anything and making the general population's lives a little easier. Its now all about how to dream up new taxes and how to intorduce them so that the public will not, at first, notice they are having to pay more.

 

ok...I think that little rant has woken me up this morning...better get some work done I think!

[AJI]

ah...wait.... have I just been sucked into an April fool?

if, so you got me good and proper!

[Nodalmighty]

I'm just glad I had the best part of 30 years (from 1968) of riding/driving on comparatively free roads.

 

I never thought I'd look back on the golden days of a 70 mph NSL on all roads, when I could overtake other vehicles without the overtakee reacting as if I'd just slaughtered a kitten, and when I didn't have to spend my life at 40mph (because the limit won't be 50, it'll be 40, the speed of the "large goods vehicle" you will never be able to pass).

 

This country is fucked on so many levels it's well beyond farce and heading rapidly towards complete tragedy.

 

Amen!

 

Partly why I got out of the Tuning business, there wont be one soon unless your MotorSport (which is also on it's knee's at the moment).

 

People will just sit at home watching Sky and playing Wink Bingo. Which is why I got into the Gambling Business

 

Lyndon.

[Tannhauser]

Way too much to reply to, but let me at least have a crack at some of this.

 

Tannhauser - you really can't be serious with that comment can you?

 

Yes, why not? Let me say, by the way, that I think that the whole revenue raising thing for speed cameras is nonsense, more conspiracy theory cobblers. One of these widely received bits of wisdom from the motoring community that is repeated over and over without as far as I know, any evidence to back it up.

 

However, for the sake of argument, let's say it is for that purpose.

 

I mean, the usual UK citizen is totally pi$$ed off with the way their hard earned money goes to waste by the way the government 'spends' our money.

 

I dare say that the average UK citizen does think that, then talk endlessly and cluelessly about what they would do. Or more often not even that, because they haven't got any inkling about the issues anyway, so best just to moan about it in an unfocused way.

 

The way it should be is that people who use the road should be taxed for the up-keep of the roads.... ie. car tax.

People who drink and smokle a lot are taxed for the burden that it puts on the NHS etc.

In effect you pay for the services you use.

 

There are plenty of other cases where it doesn't work like that. My tax goes towards the costs of other people raising their children. People with children put a burden that I pay for. Personally, I'm happy to do that, because it means I live in a society that doesn't have 19th century levels of child poverty.

 

There's certainly an argument for a 'pay for what you use' system of taxation, but taken to the extremes it leads to all sorts of problems.

 

Also: you are conflating 'speeding motorists' with 'motorists'. You could take a car every day of your life and provided you stay within the speed limits, never have to pay a penny in this 'tax'. Many people do exactly that. Speeding is largely an activity of choice - it's not that hard to keep under the limit if you want to. For me, I know I'm taking a calculated risk when I do it.

 

These two examples are how the system should work.... but NO... the way the government thinks it should work is that they target easy ways to force the public to pay more than what they should for EVERYTHING.

 

Well, you can tax people at source, when they earn the money, or you can tax them for the activities they do or things they consume. Traditionally, the Labour Party went for the first option, and many other countries still do. Taxing by activity and product gives more choice to the individual, because they can choose what they want to be taxed on. If I'm, say, £500 better off from a lower income tax rate, I might have to pay £500 more for a foreign holiday or £500 for driving an expensive car, but it's my choice what activity I spend it on to pay that tax.

 

So, the easiest way for the government to raise revenue would actually be to raise income tax back where it used to be.

 

The excuses for the fuel duty is now that it pays for schools, hospitals etc. etc. ..... why should the motorist be targetted to pay for these when they already pay income tax?

Why are the national assets/services being funded by one group of people?

 

They aren't, but there's a good case for targeting them. There are too many cars on the road, because it's easier and chaeper than ever to have a car. I do agree that we've got lousy public transport as an alternative, but that's only half the story. Very few people I know bother with car sharing. Every 17 year old in the land has to have a car as part of their rites of passage. We take cars on ridiculously short journeys: I drive mine to the gym, five minutes away and I'm not unusual in that respect.

 

The result of this is unbelievable congestion, noise, frustration, dirt, depletion of resources and climate change (we'll get to that in a bit). A lot of people would like traffic to be less....so long as it was someone else and not them, so long as it is some other group that they don't belong to. One solution would be to build super-motorways everywhere - except that doesn't work, because the demand keeps growing until it outstrips the capacity.

 

Taxation is a way of changing behaviour that is damaging to society, but which individually we are too selfish to do without being pushed a little bit.

 

And don't get me started on all this stupid CO2 tax !!

This is another area where the government have seen a way to tax the masses with fabricated 'facts' and the use of trend-setting computer models which now, a lot of government paid scientists are disputing.

 

I know your views on that. A lot of government-paid scientists aren't disputing climate change or human roles in it. You would be a prime candidate for reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, so that you could see how the media just cannot grasp 'scientifc controversy'. There is 'controversy' over anthropomorphic climate change in the same way there was 'controversy' over MMR or 'controversy' over the theory of evolution. Essentially you have thousands of the world's climatologists saying one thing, a very small number of active climatologists disputing it, a few more non-active climatologist contrarians and a much larger bunch of conspiracy theorists who will believe anything as long as it makes look like they've stumbled onto some exciting hidden truth.. Oh and that clot Durkheim (?) who made that childish Global Warming Swindle thing.

 

To be fair, I think the second half of your post about the government was considerably more nonsensical than the first half, so I've left that alone.

[extendor]

T - I think that the whole revenue raising thing for speed cameras is nonsense, more conspiracy theory cobblers. One of these widely received bits of wisdom from the motoring community that is repeated over and over without as far as I know, any evidence to back it up.

 

Just check how much money is raised through them. My issue with cameras is that we are supposed to believe that speed is dangerous and a seriously anti social activity along the lines of DUI. I therefore propose that all cars are limited in their speed by passive RF technology incorporated in to cars and the road furniture. Along the lines of autobilling for Toll Roads and Bridges. It would be dead cheap and fool proof. But, it would not raise revenue.

 

Why is technology not used to cure such a deadly problem?

 

As an alternative, can we have a proper speed tax. You pay as you go. I would be prepared to go at 100mph and pay the tax. I might even be prepared to go at 150mph as a treat.

 

The most irksome thing about all this is the amount of effort that is put into detecting and processing motoring crimes when as you yourself have said that it is low grade. I suspect that the effort is warranted by the profit and that the energies of the plod are diverted for fiscal reasons away from non profitable crime. Like I said, the scrote doing your Granny over is a harder prospect for plod and only costs them time and effort.

 

edit. Whenever you incentivise someone with cash you invariable change their focus and they often ignore other more vital issues. Crime should not incur fines, rather it should incur proper penalties and deterrants that cut across means to pay, incentives and bonus and results in the desire to not commit the crime in the first place.

[j1mb0b1]

they can put speed limit down to 30 if they like i will still do 60

[DODGYDODDS]

 

 

I know your views on that. A lot of government-paid scientists aren't disputing climate change or human roles in it. You would be a prime candidate for reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, so that you could see how the media just cannot grasp 'scientifc controversy'. There is 'controversy' over anthropomorphic climate change in the same way there was 'controversy' over MMR or 'controversy' over the theory of evolution. Essentially you have thousands of the world's climatologists saying one thing, a very small number of active climatologists disputing it, a few more non-active climatologist contrarians and a much larger bunch of conspiracy theorists who will believe anything as long as it makes look like they've stumbled onto some exciting hidden truth.. Oh and that clot Durkheim (?) who made that childish Global Warming Swindle thing.

 

To be fair, I think the second half of your post about the government was considerably more nonsensical than the first half, so I've left that alone.

 

 

yOU SAY THERE IS A LARGE NUMBER SAYING ONE THING AND A SMALLER NUMBER OF ACTIVE CLIMATOLIGISTS SAYING ANOTHER (sorry for caps)

 

Do you mean more support the climate change theory than dispute it, because if you do THAT IS INCORRECT (but if you dont dont worry). ipcc are a panel of scientists, not the leading ones in their fields i might add, that support it, they are funded by big corporate and governmtents grants, basically all bought and payed for. and they are the only ones listened too, all others are ignored/ threatened or scilences, but of course the corporate mainstream media only supports the ipcc's view, how suprising

 

Al gore is being sue'd by 31'000 scientists for fraud over the issue, as alot of scare mongering and false science has been used.

 

A nasa study in 06, catagorically proves that climate change is happening on most if not all the planets in the solar system, Why because the cause is the sun, few e.g. Mercury 40% more illuminesant, ice caps on mars melting, venus hotter by 28%.

 

Climate change is Bollo**s it is being used as a pretext for tax and control. Basically blagging the sheep that carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas, that is ridiculous as it is one of the 4 elements of life with oxygen water and sunlight. Very clever to even get as far as they have with this hoax. but easy when you control the information that the people have. ( tv )

 

I read a study earlier this year saying that humans only contribute 2% off all annual carbon. What next plug volcanoes, and kill all termites.

 

But the sad fact is major issues are ignored, Chemtrails, flouride in water. Eastrogeon in the water supply from hrt and the pill feminising males and fish. rainforests. but of course there is no profit to be made in these instances:(

[Tannhauser]

We've been through this a number of times on here before you joined, so apologies in advance if this is abrupt, it's getting really old.

 

yOU SAY THERE IS A LARGE NUMBER SAYING ONE THING AND A SMALLER NUMBER OF ACTIVE CLIMATOLIGISTS SAYING ANOTHER (sorry for caps)

 

Do you mean more support the climate change theory than dispute it, because if you do THAT IS INCORRECT (but if you dont dont worry).

 

No, it isn't. There have been a number of properly researched research papers - as opposed to half-understood nonsense off the internet - on this. I can supply the references if you like. Contrarians like to try to turn it into a 'dispute', but the thing that struck me even five years ago was the extent of the consensus in the scientific community.

 

ipcc are a panel of scientists, not the leading ones in their fields i might add,

 

 

No, of course, they got hijacked on the most serious issue of the day by a bunch of amateurs. The IPCC position, as expressed on TARWG1, is endorsed by virtually every major scientific society in the world. There is dissent over some of the details, but not over the central issues.

that support it, they are funded by big corporate and governmtents grants, basically all bought and payed for. and they are the only ones listened too, all others are ignored/ threatened or scilences, but of course the corporate mainstream media only supports the ipcc's view, how suprising

 

For goodness sake, can't you see the naked paranoia in that statement? It's more conspiracy theories. Without wishing to be rude, I don't think you've worked in academia or have much of an idea about how scientific debate and publishing works.

 

The corporate mainstream media, as you put it, as consistently over-reported the extent of the debate. The thing is, even though they don't really understand the issues and get it all muddled up in their heads trying to provide 'balance', at least there is some sort of minimal editorial control over standards. As opposed to the internet, where anyone can say anything and their authority is dictated by their SEO abilities. There are so many clowns with an agenda out there pretending to be some sort of guerilla undercover reporter bringing the 'real' truth.

 

Al gore is being sue'd by 31'000 scientists for fraud over the issue, as alot of scare mongering and false science has been used.

 

Well, that will be the Heartlands institute I guess. I wonder if that's the same crowd that produced the 10,000 signatures against global warming in the late 90s, that turned out to have Donald Duck and co. on there? Whatever: they aren't many climatologists, they are running some sort of bogus 'conference' that's a PR stunt.

 

A nasa study in 06, catagorically proves that climate change is happening on most if not all the planets in the solar system, Why because the cause is the sun, few e.g. Mercury 40% more illuminesant, ice caps on mars melting, venus hotter by 28%.

 

Again, if you use statements like 'categorically prove', then you don't really understand how Science works at all. This is all very old stuff. I give up. Read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192, it's written by a bunch of climatologists who specialise in communicating science to non-scientists.

 

You may be able to see an irony in the fact that contrarians have often denied the evidence of the shrinking ice caps on Earth, but are now using the same evidence from another planet to assert that there is global warming, but it isn't anthropogenic. Both barrels in the feet.

 

Climate change is Bollo**s it is being used as a pretext for tax and control. Basically blagging the sheep that carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas, that is ridiculous as it is one of the 4 elements of life with oxygen water and sunlight.

 

I wouldn't have thought it was possible to get so many things wrong in two sentences. It must be some sort of record. Let's take the second one:

 

1) Carbon dioxide is poisonous in sufficient concentrations

2) However, it's toxicity is plainly not part of the climate change argument at any level. It's the heat-trapping properties that are important.

3) Co2 isn't an element, it's a compound

4) Neither is water

5) Neither is sunlight

6) If you mean, it's one of the four 'things' that underpin life, that's closer but still incorrect.

7) Even if it underpins life, it could still be poisonous. Water is essential for life, but you can still drown if there's too much.

 

 

And so on.

[AJI]

Not wishing to turn this into another climate change thread.... so back to the main point....

 

Changing the speed limit down to 50mph will still achieve nothing.

If it were to happen then I guess after 10 years when the accident statistics show absolutely NO CHANGE in injury rates then some bright spark will say..."hold on, I have a great idea... why don't we drop the speed limit to 40mph?"

 

Then after 10 years when again there will be another birght spark who will say..."hold on, I have a great idea....why don't we drop the speed limit to 30mph?"

 

To police it, there might be the increased probability that they will make everyone fit a black box to their car linked to satallites that give the police your location and current SPEED. Automatic fines will be issued etc. etc.

 

And then maybe after a while it will become illegal to use a car because there might be a minute chance that you will injure somebody with it.

 

It just seems to me like people with no idea in power are not thinking things through on a logical basis. Instead they look for the easiest way to tax and police it.

 

If the government came up with a method to target the 95+% of the main causes of injury accidents then I would be very interested in their ideas..... as long as it wasn't some other form of pure taxation.

[AJI]

Just picking up on your point about how the government chooses to tax us.

I think this is one strong reason why the general public tend to be soo fed up with this lot in power.

As it is apparent they have chosen to turn much of their taxation burden onto the motorist, and the motorist is funding things like hospitals, schools, etc. etc.

This money should be the tax burden for everyone, and should be purely raised through income tax.

And then the specific taxation policies for activities/products etc. should be applied per activity/product.

 

So, tax rates for the motorist should be based on the average budget for road repairs and new road projects etc.

[AJI]

sorry, just a quick one regarding your climate change views.... there is a nice little discussion currently taking place on pistonheads... maybe you'd like to get involved?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=141&t=670996&i=180&mid=60290&nmt=Rise%20of%20the%20Sea,%20All%20a%20big%20scam

 

Note the poster called 'turbobloke'... he has done A LOT of research on all this man made global warming scammery.... he is always posting up facts which you would most certainly find censored by the likes of our government.

 

 

(ok...back to topic)

[Tannhauser]

And then maybe after a while it will become illegal to use a car because there might be a minute chance that you will injure somebody with it.

 

It just seems to me like people with no idea in power are not thinking things through on a logical basis. Instead they look for the easiest way to tax and police it.

 

You don't agree with the policy, so that means that they cannot have logic on their side? Your argument about "this will lead to this, which in turn will lead to this" is itself an error in logic - a so-called' slippery slope argument in which you arrive at a conclusion based on a series of unjustified causal links. IMO.

 

However, I do agree with the sentiment that in a general way, we are becoming over-regulated in a bid to reduce danger.

 

sorry, just a quick one regarding your climate change views.... there is a nice little discussion currently taking place on pistonheads... maybe you'd like to get involved?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=141&t=670996&i=180&mid=60290&nmt=Rise%20of%20the%20Sea,%20All%20a%20big%20scam

 

Note the poster called 'turbobloke'... he has done A LOT of research on all this man made global warming scammery.... he is always posting up facts which you would most certainly find censored by the likes of our government.

 

 

(ok...back to topic)

 

Thanks for the invitation, but I think I'll pass. I am head-achingly, eye-meltingly familiar with the contrarian arguments. I've seen all the same tiresome arguments over and over and over and over again. They make no more sense than they did the first time they were posited.

 

It's pretty wearisome to do rebuttals on here, but when I see half-arsed, half-baked conspiracy theories being advanced over painstaking hard-won research, it sticks in my craw and worries me how many think 'there might be something in it'. Extending that to another patch is a step too far.

 

You may, however, notice a common element in contrarian belief. You could correlate it strongly with groups who don't want to believe it, because it is personally inconvenient for them. Contrarian belief is therefore more popular in car forums and amongst Republicans and other right-wing groups (because of the implication that government might need to regulate or that international concerns might supercede national ones).

 

This fuels my belief that human nature fires the arrow into a barn door, then paints the target around it. That's the very opposite of what Science does - it faces conclusions no matter how much we want to preserve a theory/a belief/a lifestyle, based on the careful weighing of evidence.

 

As for the government censoring scientific information: C'mon Aji, you're a bright guy, you don't seriously believe that, do you?

[Snooze]

This fuels my belief that human nature fires the arrow into a barn door, then paints the target around it.

 

Nice imagery.

 

I've noticed in many areas of life that the ongoing financial crisis appears to be causing a lot more people to feel "out of control" of their lives and I think this fuels a lot of the conspiracy theories that all seem to be re-surfacing in conversations everywhere at the moment.

 

Personally, I think the onus really has to be on the G20 to come up with something that actually evokes support from the various populace in order to quell peoples' fears. That's a tough challenge for the most loyal of populations, but in the face of good old British cynicism, I reckon it's next to impossible!

[DODGYDODDS]

We've been through this a number of times on here before you joined, so apologies in advance if this is abrupt, it's getting really old.

 

 

 

No, it isn't. There have been a number of properly researched research papers - as opposed to half-understood nonsense off the internet - on this. I can supply the references if you like. Contrarians like to try to turn it into a 'dispute', but the thing that struck me even five years ago was the extent of the consensus in the scientific community.

 

 

 

 

No, of course, they got hijacked on the most serious issue of the day by a bunch of amateurs. The IPCC position, as expressed on TARWG1, is endorsed by virtually every major scientific society in the world. There is dissent over some of the details, but not over the central issues.

 

 

For goodness sake, can't you see the naked paranoia in that statement? It's more conspiracy theories. Without wishing to be rude, I don't think you've worked in academia or have much of an idea about how scientific debate and publishing works.

 

The corporate mainstream media, as you put it, as consistently over-reported the extent of the debate. The thing is, even though they don't really understand the issues and get it all muddled up in their heads trying to provide 'balance', at least there is some sort of minimal editorial control over standards. As opposed to the internet, where anyone can say anything and their authority is dictated by their SEO abilities. There are so many clowns with an agenda out there pretending to be some sort of guerilla undercover reporter bringing the 'real' truth.

 

 

 

Well, that will be the Heartlands institute I guess. I wonder if that's the same crowd that produced the 10,000 signatures against global warming in the late 90s, that turned out to have Donald Duck and co. on there? Whatever: they aren't many climatologists, they are running some sort of bogus 'conference' that's a PR stunt.

 

 

 

Again, if you use statements like 'categorically prove', then you don't really understand how Science works at all. This is all very old stuff. I give up. Read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192, it's written by a bunch of climatologists who specialise in communicating science to non-scientists.

 

You may be able to see an irony in the fact that contrarians have often denied the evidence of the shrinking ice caps on Earth, but are now using the same evidence from another planet to assert that there is global warming, but it isn't anthropogenic. Both barrels in the feet.

 

 

 

I wouldn't have thought it was possible to get so many things wrong in two sentences. It must be some sort of record. Let's take the second one:

 

1) Carbon dioxide is poisonous in sufficient concentrations

2) However, it's toxicity is plainly not part of the climate change argument at any level. It's the heat-trapping properties that are important.

3) Co2 isn't an element, it's a compound

4) Neither is water

5) Neither is sunlight

6) If you mean, it's one of the four 'things' that underpin life, that's closer but still incorrect.

7) Even if it underpins life, it could still be poisonous. Water is essential for life, but you can still drown if there's too much.

 

 

And so on.

 

just to add i have a degree in environmental science, and because of this i look deep into the issues, it doesnt take much research and investigating to find that it is indeed a joke, all the major things like sea ice is shrinking, sea levels are going to rise, have been torn apart, even the ipcc had to come out last year with a reassment of their claims that sea levels would rise a couple of meters by 2050, they had to do this because 8 yrs after this statement, anyone with eyes in there head can see it is lies.

 

and havent you heard the term elements of life used before, i am aware the that c02 is a compound of 3 molecules, and sunlight is photons and water is a compund of three molecules, but they are taught in uni and schools under the guise of THE ELEMENTS OF LIFE, but i can see you can be quite anal to win your point across.

 

the ipcc is uncredible, they are yes men, they are not entirely supported as you say.

 

i mean heres a recent one for you

 

This last year has seen the expansion of the polar ice caps and glaciers throughout the world. In fact, the sea ice today is equivalent to the sea ice first measured by satellite in 1979 the year record keeping began.

 

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

 

and Ice is not the only thing expanding but the satellite imagery that the global fraudsters so love to reference shows the “endangered” polar bear population is at record high levels. Experts say the research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species,

 

and have a read of this on sea level rising

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html Yes one of the worlds top sea level experts, saying it is a hoax/ scaremongering.

 

but they are just a few some other points include

- The hypothesis that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to a rise in temperature has not been proven and is even at odds with the observations.

- Satellite-based temperature measurements show that the earth has warmed a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1979 and 1998. It is not likely that this is caused by mankind.

- There is still a lack of scientific understanding, required to model all assumed radia¬tive forcings. The most important one, for which there are not sufficient quantitative data to date, is the variable impact of clouds.

- Climate models, which are being used to achieve a better understanding of the climate system, are not suited to serve as basis for predictions. This is, inter alia, related to the stochastic nature of climate.

- The global climate is very much determined by extra-terrestrial phenomena, of which the fluctuation of sun activity is the most important.

- Should there still be global warming in the future, for which there are only model-based indications, then mankind will not be able to do something about it. Moreover, also according the IPCC, a modest additional warming (e.g., of 2 degrees Celsius) will on balance be beneficial for mankind.

- The IPCC has ignored the climate projections of astrophysicists, which suggest global cooling.

 

 

AGW proponents LIKE YOURSELF often claim that there is a consensus among scientists about man-made global warming. However, this is contradicted by the facts. A recent opinion poll among 133 German climatologists, by Hans Kepplinger and Senja Post, revealed that 37% of climate researchers adhere tot the AGW hypothesis, whereas 36% remain sceptical. The rest occupies an intermediate position. It is likely that in other countries the outcome would not have been substantially different. By no stretch of imagination this can be construed as a pro AGW con¬sensus.

 

The IPCC has been tarnished by a couple of agonizing affairs. you will probably be familiar with the row about the so-called hockey stick . But a far more serious affair already occurred in 1996.

 

In addition to these affairs, the practical functioning of the IPCC has been criticised. There are strong indications that the IPCC systematically ignores alternative scientific views, which are inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis – a practice which is colloquially called ‘cherry pick¬ing’.

 

 

i like the way your conditioning make you say that anything not supporting the main issue must be a conspiracy theory,

 

i to can produce lots of peer reviewed studies that prove the oppostite to your studies. But of course you trust the ipcc. even though their goal posts are ever changing, remember when it was global warming, but had to be changed to climate change because it was being proved time and time again that the earth was cooling

 

the bottom line is The real prize for these fake environmentalist is to establish social and economic controls on the Earths population through regulation and taxation.#

 

TAN, your mind is made up so any other opinion not depicting the joke that is climate change is conspiracy nonsence, , you obv love big government, will welcome carbon taxes. public opinion now THANK GOD, is starting to realise it is all aload of tosh.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, becuae you think im wrong, and i think your wrong, we wont get anywhere

[Gaz6002]

As for the government censoring scientific information: C'mon Aji, you're a bright guy, you don't seriously believe that, do you?

 

I understand your stance on this, but as you mention earlier it's the editorial policy-backed media that enable everyday folk to learn about these things. In that way, the media controls what people feel able to look into. If all the long scientific words get too much, Joe Public will just turn on the Playstation again. It's an unfortunate fact, which as part of the media I both resent and welcome in equal(ish) measure.

 

I personally will not subscribe to the global warming farce. Even if it is happening, the world will just shrug it off and start again. It won't be the first time and certainly not the last.

 

...Maybe the dinosaurs liked using their patio heaters a bit too much. Who knows?

[Nick]

Japan is a perfect example of the way the UK is heading and trust me it's not something you want.

 

Side street - 30kph (18mph)

Urban road - 40kph (25mph)

Country road - 50-60kph (31-34mph)

Expressway - 80kph (50mph)

Larger Expressways - 100kph (62mph)

 

The limit on side streets and urban roads is reasonable. It's hard to describe the density of Tokyo unless you see it. The houses and apartments are tightly packed together and the roads very tight and narrow. No pavements either, so lots of people walking and cycling in the street, as well as salary men staggering home from the bar blind drunk.

 

It gets silly when you get out of the cities. Max limit is 35mph on the main roads and it gets really daft on the expressways. Can you imagine everyone driving at 50mph on the M1 ?

 

Those that break the limit on the expressway all drive at 120-140kph, depending on whether it's an 80 or 100kph limit. The reason being that 40kph+ over the limit is a criminal offence, not just a whole load of hassle, points, fine, ban and safety lectures. The rest (majority) amble along in a catatonic trance.

 

Common sense is dead.

[Nick]

For those that are interested here's the penalty list for traffic violations in Japan.

 

BTW when it says court, that's criminal court.

 

http://www.pref.ibaraki.jp/bukyoku/seikan/kokuko/e-ibaraki-report/0612demerits.html

 

Yes, there still are guys that race up the Wangan at 300kph + but they're mostly in with the Yak.

[AJI]

However, I do agree with the sentiment that in a general way, we are becoming over-regulated in a bid to reduce danger.

 

Well, this was the main point I was trying to convey.

Basically the way many people in power come up with a so called solution without thinking about what it actually means in the broader terms.

 

As I work in a business which maintains roads/bridges, engineer new solutions to accident blackspots etc. etc. I see on a daily basis how we are becoming more and more controlled in what we are allowed to do on the roads.

More and more responsibility is being taken away from the driver and replaced by traffic control methods such as simple speed limits, traffic calming measures, extra unecessary signing, signing which has to be able to collapse in a certain way, sight lines which are purposly reduced so that drivers have to stop or slow down unecessarily.

As more responsibility is being taken away from the driver then concentration levels will drop. (And the accident databse shows this).

But as the company I work for is basically under the control of the government in what we can or can not do then I can see how they have little idea on many things.

 

 

Thanks for the invitation, but I think I'll pass. I am head-achingly, eye-meltingly familiar with the contrarian arguments. I've seen all the same tiresome arguments over and over and over and over again. They make no more sense than they did the first time they were posited.

 

I think you would find 'turbobloke's' arguments very solid and based on the proper un-biassed reports that are being done today. The science research on this topic is moving along very fast.

I too have been following the arguments on both sides of the issue for a long time and I have to say that 'turbobloke' has a very level head and has reasearched this subject much much better than myself.

I come from a science background and base my own views on science fact. When I see time and time again the spin that is required from governments and pro-MMGW theologists to put their points accross as opposed to the blatent facts that proper science reasearch has proved on the subject I am left with a clear view on my stance.

 

 

 

As for the government censoring scientific information: C'mon Aji, you're a bright guy, you don't seriously believe that, do you?

 

I think you must really be governmently nieve to think that the governments of the world don't withold information for their own benefacturary goals in terms of taxation, party advantage, personal wealth etc. etc. etc.

 

Governments only tend to 'come clean' after a story has been exposed.

 

And my terminology of 'censoring' was to imply that the governments tend not to publish many of the facts that go against MMGW theory.

 

We all heard about the Al Gore's implication that 'millions will die' and that 'sea level rises will wipe out many cities' etc. etc. (Backed up by flood map diagrams etc. I might add)

The UK and the USA governments fully supported the views and by doing so brought in extra CO2 taxatation as soon as they could.

But did they appologise or remove CO2 taxation when the facts came to light that 'millions will not die' and 'cities will not be wiped out' ???

We were all told that we are under impending danger and it could be the end of the world very soon. These key words and impacting scare tactics along with many others have found Al Gore in court being sued by many.

 

I think you'll find that as you go to the fuel pumps today you'll notice an extra 2p tax that you'll be happy to pay the government.

 

 

Sorry, wandered off topic again.

I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I fully respect everyone's views. I think it is good to argue out the points as it leads to clearer points of view and brings together many of the facts.

[benkei]

Basically the way many people in power come up with a so called solution without thinking about what it actually means in the broader terms.

 

I disagree... I believe they know exactly what they're doing and all the implications of doing so. You think a government building filled with all kinds of educated individuals specifically educated in certain areas were not thinking of the bigger picture? Like when they bring in new traffic acts. They know they aren't making the roads safer, they're just telling you they are and making up figures to 'prove' it, and being 'unsafe' or disrespecting their 'acts' will cost you financially.

 

And the Government lies to us left right and centre! Everything in the News Papers is rubbish controlled by the Government and designed for scare mongering and hyping up the public, to which the Government conveniently saves the day by bringing in new laws, acts and legislations to save us! By 'save' I mean 'cost'

[Tannhauser]

just to add i have a degree in environmental science, and because of this i look deep into the issues.....

 

....and havent you heard the term elements of life used before, i am aware the that c02 is a compound of 3 molecules, and sunlight is photons and water is a compund of three molecules, but they are taught in uni and schools under the guise of THE ELEMENTS OF LIFE, but i can see you can be quite anal to win your point across.

 

It's pretty difficult to believe that you have a degree in environmental science, or any sort of science, for several reasons:

 

1) I don't know many scientists who would use the phrase 'prove categorically', especially in climate science. Anyone who has studied scientific papers knows that they just aren't couched in that sort of language.

2) Even when you correct your earlier basic error, you've got it wrong again. CO2 is a compound of 'three molecules'? It's difficult to credit that any science graduate, let alone one who has presumably studied climate change at a highly academic level, could make such a basic error. Is this being anal? If I claimed that I was a car guru and then said ' the injectors keep the petrol tank supplied with custard', I would expect to get called on it.

3) The presentation of arguments copied and pasted in their entirety, complete with typographical anomalies, from Hans Labohm's report (e.g. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/other/whatiswrongwiththeipcc.html) without proper citation. A cynic might argue that you were trying to pass that off as your own.

 

The worst bit of silly cut-and-pasting is here. Here's your version:

 

The IPCC has been tarnished by a couple of agonizing affairs. you will probably be familiar with the row about the so-called hockey stick . But a far more serious affair already occurred in 1996.

 

In addition to these affairs, the practical functioning of the IPCC has been criticised. There are strong indications that the IPCC systematically ignores alternative scientific views, which are inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis – a practice which is colloquially called ‘cherry pick¬ing’.

 

Notice that para one is clearly introducing a point to be developed...but then goes nowhere, just telling us that something happened in 1996, but not what. This makes it nonsensical.

 

Here's the original:

 

The IPCC has been tarnished by a couple of agonizing affairs. you will probably be familiar with the row about the so-called hockey stick . But a far more serious affair already occurred in 1996.

 

In his book, ‘Global Warming: Myth or Reality. The Erring Ways of Climatology.’ (Springer, 2005), the French climatologist, Marcel Leroux, exposes the flaws in the current state of cli¬mate science.

 

[Paragraphs then follow that outline what Leroux 'revealed' in 1996]

 

See the difference? One has a logical flow of ideas by someone constructing an argument. The other is somebody randomly assembling a collection of uncredited quotations. Now admittedly, Hans Labohm is an economist, not a climate scientist, but he's still put together an argument that links points together in some sort of rational order.

 

Incidentally, seeing as you are fond of conspiracy theories, try this one:

 

The nexus for most contrarian arguments - including the laughable petitions - is the 'Heartland Institute'. The Heartland Institute is one of a number of far-right think tanks associated with Padden and Bast ( I forget their first names, but they are easy to find). Their political agenda is crystal clear. In addition to climate change denying, they do a sideline in denying passive smoking is dangerous (and in favour of deregulating the tobacco industry). That's why they receive generous funding from Phillip Morris, the tobacco company - a matter of public record. Other contributors are ExxonMobil (Buchholtz, an Exxon executive, was their 'government relations' advisor).

 

As for the consensus, I'll take Doran and Zimmerman's 2009 paper showing (a) very strong consensus (b) that as you move down the scale of expertise in climate science, the level of doubt grows and © that the general public -at least in the US - completely underestimate the degree of consensus.

 

Here it is: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

Tannhauser, comprehensively over and out.

 

P.S. I don't believe you can bench press 400-450lbs either.

[DODGYDODDS]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

im allowed to make mistakes, it is late, and usually im half asleep on here at night after a long day, molecules my bad, ignore that and replace with atoms, ( that made me giggle)

IT's good to copy and paste, some of us aint got the time to sit there, trying to lord it over others opinions, and if i might say in a very patronising way. but what i selected was fair.

 

like i said you believe what you want, i'll believe what i want

 

maybe i believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus, one thing is for sure. 1rm press is between stated figures, but to be fair strapped, and in training it's 310lbs in my routine

i wish i was like you though