The great liberal conspiracy to swindle increased taxes out of us:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_report
( Matoosh would rather like a biscuit, Fri 1 Aug 2008, 15:44, 11 replies)

Troll.
Trolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltroll
trolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltroll
trolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltroll
trolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltroll
trolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltrolltroll.

The chemistry behind anthropogenic climate change has been understood for over 100 years. The evidence has been gathering for decades. The overwhelming scientific consensus - in the high-90s percent - agrees that it's real: the only significant argument concerns its degree and severity.

And - just for a moment - why would tax-gathering be an end in itself? And what has this to do with being a "liberal"? (Unless you mean the bogeymen of the "liberal elite" who have the temerity to know what they're talking about and talk about it disinterestedly... the bastards.)

Did I say "troll", by the way? I did?

Oh, well. Troll.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 1 Aug 2008, 15:50, closed)

The same liberals who have caused the breakdown of society by letting women speak their minds, and black people roam the streets unchallenged.


And just in case any one missed the point:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
( Matoosh would rather like a biscuit, Fri 1 Aug 2008, 15:57, closed)

Poe's Law?
Poe's Law

Or maybe this version of it,

Khad's Law

(Rotten_Cointreau is a proper scientician, Fri 1 Aug 2008, 16:24, closed)

@matoosh hmm
You meant irony surely.

Although it wasn't that ironic.
( rofl harris, Fri 1 Aug 2008, 16:42, closed)

@Enzyme
stop yelling troll! That's three things in the whole wide world that we disagree on now. Climate change has been happening for millennia. We're in an interglacial - the climate is supposed to change. That humans have an influence is probable but the planet manages to do it all by itself on an even bigger scale. Anyway, why should it matter a damn if the climate does change? We only care cos it might mean human casualties. No biggy- the Earth will be fine.

Meantime, start a green company and fleece the eco-cunts.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Fri 1 Aug 2008, 16:45, closed)

What she said.
Also, methane from cows and other livestock is a significant contribution to global warming. So are underground mine fires eg. Centralia.
( idonthaveafunnynickname Drink-Aware? Sure. I'm aware I want another drink., Fri 1 Aug 2008, 17:03, closed)

I have a massive problem with climate change too...
... no, not that I'm in denial, but that I do not trust our current crop of politicians - who happen to be facing a record budget defecit - to deal with the issue.

I have a huge problem with environmental taxes and the double standards being operated by the government; namely that while car useage needs to fall (in the name of emissions), they've no problem with building more airport runways.

We could reduce car emissions at a stroke by banning the import of any vehicle emitting more than 120g/km from the 1st April. Instead, we're getting a policy which will punitively tax cars made up to eight years previously, hitting the very people who can ill afford to finance a newer, cleaner car.

As far as I'm concerned, from a PR perspective Green Taxes are the worst thing to happen to the green movement in decades.

*edit* While I'm at it, fares for public transport continue to escalate at a higher rate than inflation. The "comprehensive, efficient and cost effective" public transport system promised to us by Prescott in 1998 is nothing of the sort unless you live in central London.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 1 Aug 2008, 17:13, closed)

there is a difference
between climate change happening on timescales of tens or hundreds of millennia or more; and anthropogenic climate change which happens on the scale of a hundred years.

It is much harder for ecosystems to adapt on these shorter timescales; and it's harder still if they are being stressed by pollution, over-exploitation (fishing, logging, etc) -- the damage is considerably greater.

Back to timescales. Biology and geophysics conspired to extract vast quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and ecosystems, and bury it underground in process taking hundreds of millions of years.

Human use of this stored carbon (ie fossil fuels) will dump it back in the atmosphere over a hundred years or so. ONE. MILLION. TIMES. FASTER.

But hey, who cares. Lets see how much it costs to move almost every major coastal city inland. Lets see what the Russians think of perhaps half a billion desperate refugees heading north. But who cares: after all, you'll be dead.

Edit (for below):

chcb: (a) but generating our own catastrophe thorough inaction is just stupid (b) I'm not sure a few tens of thousands of men with guns will stop half a billion. (c) overdue a supervolcano! great, let's set one off now!
(haberman is singing in the changes, Fri 1 Aug 2008, 17:20, closed)

I just lolled really hard
at "fleecing the eco-cunts"
(Stevie Ruggling, Sat 2 Aug 2008, 0:23, closed)

@haberman
Yes, there are global cyclical changes that occur over millennia, but the earth can also throw out a few of its own catastrophic events on a much shorter time scale, and far more devastating than humans can manage. There were two such events during the Bronze Age, one of which, around 1159BC (thought to be attributable to the Hekla III eruption), led to major flooding pushing people into marginal upland areas and causing massive social change. Nowadays - you're right - people can't migrate in such manners: there are men with guns at borders to stop them.

We're overdue a supervolcano, btw.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Sun 3 Aug 2008, 16:44, closed)

@Haberman
Aren't the water levels going to rise at about 1m per 100 years IF we don't cut down on our use of fossil fuels (of which we haven't got that much remaining anyway)? Even british builders could build a 1m wall in 100 years. Even a 10M rise would hardly be insurmountable through the use of walls. 100M would be tricky but not impossible.

And if it causes larger tidal changes- as I've heard some fear- then fantastic! We can use tide-pool generators and the like to get more power.
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Tue 5 Aug 2008, 14:27, closed)