Drivers to pay extra climate costs

[Porker]

Well, there's plenty of literature available to help us inform ourselves - far more than I could sensibly cite here. The solecism of Beck's segment is his elision of "global warming" (a term that has fallen out of use because it's widely recognised as misleading) with "climate change".

David

I'm well aware of the literature on both sides of the argument.

However, the question was "which part of what he said was untrue?".

P.

[fungus]

kfae8959 wrote:
Well, there's plenty of literature available to help us inform ourselves - far more than I could sensibly cite here. The solecism of Beck's segment is his elision of "global warming" (a term that has fallen out of use because it's widely recognised as misleading) with "climate change".

David

But, by using the term "climate change", as opposed to "global warming", governments have covered themselves if it doesn't go as predicted.

Nigel ADI
IAM observer

[kfae8959]

I'm well aware of the literature on both sides of the argument.

However, the question was "which part of what he said was untrue?".

P.

And I think that would have been a good question if Beck were offering an argument - we could then have looked at the reasoned progression of what he had to say, and suggested a point, or a number of points, where the flow of his argument broke down or might be brought into question. What he's offering, though, is polemic. To answer your question, I chose a polemical move made by Beck that seems to me conspicuously flawed. On reflection, maybe I went for the wrong one: I've come to think that he's chosen entirely the wrong approach to attacking his target. Beck's objection seems to be that Harrabin should not have allowed "Jo"'s polemical approach to influence him, and yet he, Beck, employs a similar hectoring to try to sway his audience. If Beck seems reasonable, so must his target, and we're no farther forward.

David

[nodigitsever]

wouldn't taking Taxes without absolute proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that mankind causes Climate change be classed as Fraud, or even taking Money under false pretences?

just like there would be "NO Birmingham relief Road"?, thought so everyone has forgot that promise!

Damn Liars the lot of em!

[martine]

So which statements do you (anyone) agree/disagree with:
1) the earth is warming
2) it is man-made

[Gareth]

So which statements do you (anyone) agree/disagree with:
1) the earth is warming
2) it is man-made

I have no idea whether statement 1 is true. Since "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change" I infer that those who study this topic in detail no longer think it is necessarily true.

I have no idea whether the man-made changes to the environment are significant. I understand, for instance, that the output of a few good volcanoes puts the level of man-made pollutants in the atmosphere to shame.

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus of how the climate should be. If we don't know what we are trying to achieve, and don't know whether we're having a significant impact, it is impossible to decide whether we should take action let alone what form it should take.

Considering that the climate has always been changing perhaps we should remember Canute's words.

[martine]

And that's my point really...climate is a very technical subject. It's very difficult for the average Joe to make a sensible, considered opinion.

The IPCC has many of the finest minds in climatology and they consider as a group...yes the climate is changing and yes it's man-made to a large degree.

Who are you or I to disagree in the vain hope it's not true?

You can tell I have no time for conspiracy theorists...some people claim it's the politicians who exagerate the effects but the IPCC scientists have been trying to impress on the politicians (in the IPCC) for a long time the seriousness of the effects being observed. The politicians have been watering down the official reports believing they couldn't sell it to their voters.

The 'it's all to raise taxes' argument is laughable and as for claiming the earth has cooled since 1998 so therefore warming is not happening is so simplistic as to beggar belief.

Apart from the pure climate science...there is so much evidence of warming from different sources...shifting seasons, melting glaciers, changes in wildlife colonisation etc.

I'm not a doom merchant however - I believe we will either learn to live with it or make some changes (technical and social) to minimise the effects.

[jont]

The IPCC has many of the finest minds in climatology and they consider as a group...yes the climate is changing and yes it's man-made to a large degree.

Who says the IPCC has the finest minds? The IPCC? Of course, they have no vested interest whatsoever in making sure their funding doesn't dry up . A lot of research is now so far tied into politics that it can only pretend it's true science. Where is the doubly-blind funded research? And look what happened to the latest scientific advisor that dared to disagree with the current political agenda of the day (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm)

Meanwhile, courts are treating views on climate change as a religious position:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 339652.stm
which is an interesting take on things.

[nodigitsever]

as there is still no absolute proof that climate change is man made, to charge for it is simply FRAUD! and I for one want my money back!