Craig Maire II
Global warming? Shovel my sidewalk and start my car tonight and then tell me about above normal temps...LOL
J/K
I'm afraid you hit the nail squarely on the head Mikey.
We have the same problems here amplified by appalling media spin.
To warm or mild...AGW.
Too windy...AGW.
They even blame too much snow on AGW.
It doesn't matter a jot anymore what kind of weather you have...it will be blamed on AGW.
To make matter worse...when the planet heads (naturally) out of the warming phase...they'll say we saved ourselves by increasingly taxing aircraft flights, stopping people buying Range Rovers and charging residents tax to drive into the city they actually live in.
It isn't sold Sir.
There are green taxes going on all sorts of things. You get taxed more (annually) for the larger engined car that you have...claiming it helps the environment. Btw...4 x 4 vehicles are the most heavily taxed of all.
The London Congestion Charge (also a tax primarily touted as a environment saver) is going up again for larger engined cars soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
Aircraft flights have had increased taxes laid on them with long haul flights absolutely crucified.
Petrol is being taxed even more now to make it almost unaffordable to some. To you $2.00 a litre...
I could go on...but I won't...
They spend plenty of money on research with the specific goal of disproving AGW
They also spend lobbyist money to promote their oil-based agendas and obstruct any agenda they do not like.
Exxon appears to be number one but Shell, Texaco, etc. are all actively spending in what they see as an investment in their future profit. They are decidedly more interested in that than the integrity of the science.
There is no industry comparably financially invested in proving AGW. There is no solar giant or windpower giant out there competing with the oil giants for political influence. They are oppressed Davids against the favored Goliaths.
As far as the research money goes, the reasoning has a huge flaw. Is AGW not a legitimate issue for research? Because if it is, then it deserves research dollars. However, if the science being done is not tainted by exterior economic interest--which is clearly one-sided against AGW--then generally speaking there is no projected outcome, only aggregate hypothetical posits. Conversely, a general oppposition to funding more AGW research--which is often called for by "skeptics" whose true motive is always economic--suggests an attitude that the science is settled on that side, which would involve a degree of hypocrisy (not that there isn't plenty to go around in this overheated issue).
If the contention is that grant money is given (by whom??) only to scientists that intend to prove AGW, that would be an issue, but I seriously doubt that contention and would need to see evidence of that. What's the motivation of so doing that would favor such scientists? Who stands to benefit on an economic level approaching that of oil-based industries?
Fair enough..
Would it be safe to say that in the UK one would pay aprox. $1,200 USD a year for green taxes? Or would you say more or maybe less ? Can you give a rough estimate of what green taxes costs the average UK resident per year?
Lets say your a stormchaser in the UK and drive 10k to 15k miles chasing alone per year and drive a a 4x4 vehicle.. lol
I realize that it may be so out of control you have no idea what you pay in taxes to save the environment.
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
[FONT=times new roman,times]
That's not a bad thing... I think the some media and celebrities have of more of a detriment than anything else. In such cases, the messenger is doing harm to the message. However, that does not necessarily mean that the message itself is incorrect. Exaggerated? Likely. Correct at its most basic level? Most likely.
It's worth noting that the report only addresses "man-made global warming", so it's an article about folks who dispute anthropogenic forcing. It does not indicate those scientists dispute global warming itself. Just as some anthropogenic global warming folks likely fudge their research to support the trend, I think there are also plenty of scientists against the idea of anthropogenic forcing who are doing so only to get their 10 minutes of fame. Interestingly, the most fervent "deniers" that I can think of in Oklahoma are not meteorologists or atmospheric scientists (I'm thinking of a Senator, a mathematician, etc). [/FONT]
Exaggerated? Likely. Correct at its most basic level? Most likely.
For you OU folks... isn't this the professor that Dr. Karoly wiped the floor with at the climate debate earlier this year? On a side note, does it need to be mentioned that you can have record low temps and still have globally averaged warming?
I'll believe a 7 degree rise when I see it. We've risen one degree in the last hundred years, so why am I supposed to buy into the idea that we'll rise seven in some locations over the next hundred?