ha! good question!
the global warming debate is very interesting in that temperatures are rising which seems to be widely agreed upon. the reason for a rise in temperature is the sticky point. there is a rather large body of evidence to indicate that the temperature rise is not due to human activity (apart from me farts) but due to more natural events.
scam...well if the global warming argument of human activity causes it then it allows those in positions of influence to raise revenue & create social shaping (not david ike sort of shift shaping) through the introduction of carbon taxation, etc.
its fucking ace!
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:12, Share, Reply)
Does this mean the oil companies are also running a scam?
They want us to carry on consuming and having already made billions from this and have the means to carry on.
Look at who has integrity and who is in fact trying to sell something. Buying green means consuming less not more
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:18, Share, Reply)
...
there is a rather large body of evidence to indicate that the temperature rise is not due to human activity (apart from me farts) but due to more natural events.
Care to cite it? Of course, proving an exact link to anything would be difficult - but plotting temperature alongside CO2 levels - deducible from ice core samples and so on - and taking into account the relevant drag factors gives good circumstantial evidence of a link between weather patterns and human emissions. Moreover, this corroborates what one may deduce from what I believe to be reasonably basic chemistry and physics. In other words, the evidence for anthropogenic climate change comes independently from more than one direction.
it allows those in positions of influence to raise revenue & create social shaping (not david ike sort of shift shaping) through the introduction of carbon taxation, etc.
This makes no sense in one way, and is utterly trivial in another. It seems like social shaping is one of the things that we might legitimately want governments to do. If raising people out of poverty, or protecting them from misfortune is social shaping, then bring it on. In the other sense, you seem to be treating taxation as an end in itself - and that's bananas. Government ministers do not sit around planning ways to raise taxes just for the hell of it. Why would they?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:21,
Share,
Reply)