When this AGW scam is finally debunked, I wanted my so called "green taxes" back.
I am keeping an account!

Originally Posted by Barry

When this AGW scam is finally debunked, I wanted my so called "green taxes" back.
I am keeping an account!

These taxes are ridiculous.
They are punishing people to change rather than giving incentives.
If you want to change people's attitudes, you need to do so through incentives when they act in the correct manner, not to punish them into the correct manner.

This is must a scam to allow our Government to impose more taxes. Next there will be the recycling tax. If you refuse to recycle you pay the recycling refusal tax as well as the green tax.

Then there is the breathing tax... That one is costly.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

These taxes are ridiculous.
They are punishing people to change rather than giving incentives.
If you want to change people's attitudes, you need to do so through incentives when they act in the correct manner, not to punish them into the correct manner.

This is must a scam to allow our Government to impose more taxes. Next there will be the recycling tax. If you refuse to recycle you pay the recycling refusal tax as well as the green tax.

Then there is the breathing tax... That one is costly.

Surely if a company recycles lots (for instance) and doesn't get as much environment tax as a result, that's an incentive...

Originally Posted by DougieG

Surely if a company recycles lots (for instance) and doesn't get as much environment tax as a result, that's an incentive...

Not exactly how I meant it Dougie.
You should not tax them like this. What you can do is say, if you do move to a more environmentally friendly activity, we will give you a 5% rebate on corporation tax. That is a reward for doing it.

Just something that made me laugh this morning . There was a meterologist,I think thats what they call the weather girls now saying that there are less penguins now because of global warming.I had a bit of time to kill before I went to work so switched over to national geographic and there was some bloke talking about Great White sharks being on the increase due to them being put on the indangered species list .\erm..

Hi,

just a taster - as I'm talking with The Sunday Times & NotW - so sorry can answer questions but I thouught you might like to know;

The closure of the Steel wirks at Redcar listed as owned by Chorus is a fudge for financial gain.

Tatta Steel India are the ultimate owner.

Redcar has a footprint of £200,000,000 a year Carbon Cost. Closure results ina £200M Carbon Credit per annum and is valid for X years by closure.

Tatta would seem to be building a massive new steel plant in India to close an Indian Plant, incorporater Redcar output and allow for increased oputput - this is rated as per the archaic & dirty Indian plant - the gained Carbon Credits of the new ratings on the new factory and the Credits for shutting down Redcar would seem to amount to between £1.2B & 1.4B (leaving plenty of noughts for LA to leave out still leaving a sum I need to take my shoes and socks off to calculate!)

This means the economically illiterate Gordon Brown and his idiotic cronies are paying out £Millions to export British manufacturing jobs to satiate the mythology of the new religion which has the life giving gas CO2 listed as a dangerous substance by the liars, cheats and figure 'fixers' in their obscene determination to tax us for Anthropogenic Global Warming - where the Warmist Priests are todays flat earthers in denial of scientific FACT.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Not exactly how I meant it Dougie.
You should not tax them like this. What you can do is say, if you do move to a more environmentally friendly activity, we will give you a 5% rebate on corporation tax. That is a reward for doing it.

**** that!
No one should get a rebate on corporation tax!

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

**** that!
No one should get a rebate on corporation tax!

Do you actually hold these views or are they just what you perceive the stereotypical left wing opinion to be?

If a company were to receive a rebate on their corporation tax they may be able to lower the cost of the product or service and pass this saving to the customer (maybe one of those poverty stricken souls you often speak of) whereas, if the company in question, in their desire to be environmentally friendly is taxed at an increased rate what do you think happens to the cost of the product or service and who eventually pays for it?

I saw this as well. I am sceptical of the whole saga, but I do agree that we need to cut back on carbon emissions and carbon based fuels anyway.

We are running out of oil and coal is going to be a hell of a lot more polluting. These are finite resources too, even if we can get away with using coal natural gas and oil, what is the point? In 100 years we would have a society so dependent on fossil fuels that once we hit the brakes it will collapse back into the 1800s.

Without the global cooling/global warming scares how else can leaders effect changes that will be beneficial in the long run anyway? At least in the eyes of modern leaders, fear is a more effective (and cheaper) agent than education.

Hoax or no hoax, renewable energy is the way forward.

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

There is evidence that Mars is undergoing Global warming. There is also evidence other planets in our solar system are undergoing climate change.

Yes, maybe we are not helping but I do believe there is also an element of natural warming.

Climate change hits Mars - Times Online

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

SPACE.com -- Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest

In a country where everything, including our heritage, is for sale, it cannot be surprising that we are bankrupt morally and financially.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

just a taster - as I'm talking with The Sunday Times & NotW - so sorry can answer questions but I thouught you might like to know;

The closure of the Steel wirks at Redcar listed as owned by Chorus is a fudge for financial gain.

Tatta Steel India are the ultimate owner.

Redcar has a footprint of £200,000,000 a year Carbon Cost. Closure results ina £200M Carbon Credit per annum and is valid for X years by closure.

Tatta would seem to be building a massive new steel plant in India to close an Indian Plant, incorporater Redcar output and allow for increased oputput - this is rated as per the archaic & dirty Indian plant - the gained Carbon Credits of the new ratings on the new factory and the Credits for shutting down Redcar would seem to amount to between £1.2B & 1.4B (leaving plenty of noughts for LA to leave out still leaving a sum I need to take my shoes and socks off to calculate!)

This means the economically illiterate Gordon Brown and his idiotic cronies are paying out £Millions to export British manufacturing jobs to satiate the mythology of the new religion which has the life giving gas CO2 listed as a dangerous substance by the liars, cheats and figure 'fixers' in their obscene determination to tax us for Anthropogenic Global Warming - where the Warmist Priests are todays flat earthers in denial of scientific FACT.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by LeonGunning

I saw this as well. I am sceptical of the whole saga, but I do agree that we need to cut back on carbon emissions and carbon based fuels anyway.

We are running out of oil and coal is going to be a hell of a lot more polluting. These are finite resources too, even if we can get away with using coal natural gas and oil, what is the point? In 100 years we would have a society so dependent on fossil fuels that once we hit the brakes it will collapse back into the 1800s.

Without the global cooling/global warming scares how else can leaders effect changes that will be beneficial in the long run anyway? At least in the eyes of modern leaders, fear is a more effective (and cheaper) agent than education.

Hoax or no hoax, renewable energy is the way forward.

Hi,

I was interested in your regurgitation of the perceived propaganda - perhaps you could enlighten as to a viable form of cost efferctive renewable energy and how it could be employed viably.

The only really inexaustible forms of viable energy found to date would seem to be either nuclear or oil. That coal is also available in prodigious quantities is indisputable.

Astonishingly on the one hand you point out the Government is not to be trusted nay even Governments as they seek to cut costs by utilising rule by fear rather than attempt education thus having clearly shown they are unable to educate why on earth have you so willingly swallowed their duplicitous propaganda?

There is absolutely no sound evidence that on a global scale there is an anthropogenic quotient of any relevant note in effect on either global warming (for which we have little honest scientific evidence) nor for climate change (of which we have little understanding).

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by coalition

In a country where everything, including our heritage, is for sale, it cannot be surprising that we are bankrupt morally and financially.

Hi,

can there be any greater reason for repatriation of our democracy, reinstating our borders, recreating our standards and values, reconfirming our system & style of Justice, regenerate our industry, reinvigorate our economy and rejoice in our Sovereignty which grants us the right to hire and fire our own Government at the ballott box to make laws in our own interest at our own Parliament at Westminster.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

can there be any greater reason for repatriation of our democracy, reinstating our borders, recreating our standards and values, reconfirming our system & style of Justice, regenerate our industry, reinvigorate our economy and rejoice in our Sovereignty which grants us the right to hire and fire our own Government at the ballott box to make laws in our own interest at our own Parliament at Westminster.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Only a Coalition government can do it

Originally Posted by coalition

Only a Coalition government can do it

Hi,

I agree in theory - sadly turkeys don't vote for Christmas and it will only be by e pluribus unum witholding their mandate and making sure they realise that if they do not serve the people they will find themselves the 'subjects' of a Civil War' to regain our liberty.

There are few things mankind is willing to die for but throughout history Liberty has been the one frequent ground for war and sacrifice.

IF the EU is not carefully and caringly dismantled there is every probability that it WILL lead to Civil War and famine, Wars of Dissassociation and the failure of the EU to feed its peoples.

It is NOT global warming that is at issue since every period of global warming of which we have records has brought prosperity to mankind it is the danger of man fiddling and footling when currently we seemingly face global cooling with one of the longest, lowest recordings of sun spots and thus solar activity ever recorded by man when it is the very solar wind that brings warmth to our planet.

A drop in temperature of very small amounts due to the faux science of the Warmist flat Earth Religion could well lead to a crop collapse in marginal areas which are the great grain producers!

When I was born the population of this planet was about 2 Billion and now as it approaches 7 Billion we should in fact fear a drop in temperature which would leave several Billion starving and when hunger comes that strongly then famine stalks the plains setting man against man as he fights to feed himself and in surplus his family.

In EUrope alone you could reasonably see over 200 Million slaughtered and it matters little to the riders of The apocalypse what gender age or status they are the rich will die with the poor - It has happened before and the harbinger was the humble flea on the black rats that wiped out almost half the population with buebonic plague.

The dishonesty of Copenhagen beggars belief!

Will The EU last long enough to be destroyed by us or will events overtake it as it withers and dies in agony!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

I agree in theory - sadly turkeys don't vote for Christmas and it will only be by e pluribus unum witholding their mandate and making sure they realise that if they do not serve the people they will find themselves the 'subjects' of a Civil War' to regain our liberty.

There are few things mankind is willing to die for but throughout history Liberty has been the one frequent ground for war and sacrifice.

IF the EU is not carefully and caringly dismantled there is every probability that it WILL lead to Civil War and famine, Wars of Dissassociation and the failure of the EU to feed its peoples.

It is NOT global warming that is at issue since every period of global warming of which we have records has brought prosperity to mankind it is the danger of man fiddling and footling when currently we seemingly face global cooling with one of the longest, lowest recordings of sun spots and thus solar activity ever recorded by man when it is the very solar wind that brings warmth to our planet.

A drop in temperature of very small amounts due to the faux science of the Warmist flat Earth Religion could well lead to a crop collapse in marginal areas which are the great grain producers!

When I was born the population of this planet was about 2 Billion and now as it approaches 7 Billion we should in fact fear a drop in temperature which would leave several Billion starving and when hunger comes that strongly then famine stalks the plains setting man against man as he fights to feed himself and in surplus his family.

In EUrope alone you could reasonably see over 200 Million slaughtered and it matters little to the riders of The apocalypse what gender age or status they are the rich will die with the poor - It has happened before and the harbinger was the humble flea on the black rats that wiped out almost half the population with buebonic plague.

The dishonesty of Copenhagen beggars belief!

Will The EU last long enough to be destroyed by us or will events overtake it as it withers and dies in agony!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Is this dishonesty any different to the schemes which forced us into the ' The Great War'?

Originally Posted by coalition

Is this dishonesty any different to the schemes which forced us into the ' The Great War'?

Hi,

I'm starting to see it as inevitable!

IF the EU and this Anthropogenic Warmist Religion are not carefully and caringly dismantled there is every probability that it WILL lead to Civil War and famine, Wars of Dissassociation and the failure of the EU to feed its peoples.

That could well account for some 200,000,000 lives lost in EUrope alone, setting us back to at best The Middle Ages as there would be little hope of our clean water systems, sewage sustems and power grid surviving - technology would be an early victim.

It will take little more than a random shooting in Sarajevo! I believe it will 'kick off' as a result of the increased Police Brutality and propensity for exacerbating problems to inculcate response and the willingness of even the British Police to form death squads and murder people in the street as they have done not infrequently in recent years.

We have infinitely more danger from our police and politicians than we have from ALL terrorists including the ones they invent!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

I agree in theory - sadly turkeys don't vote for Christmas and it will only be by e pluribus unum witholding their mandate and making sure they realise that if they do not serve the people they will find themselves the 'subjects' of a Civil War' to regain our liberty.

There are few things mankind is willing to die for but throughout history Liberty has been the one frequent ground for war and sacrifice.

IF the EU is not carefully and caringly dismantled there is every probability that it WILL lead to Civil War and famine, Wars of Dissassociation and the failure of the EU to feed its peoples.

It is NOT global warming that is at issue since every period of global warming of which we have records has brought prosperity to mankind it is the danger of man fiddling and footling when currently we seemingly face global cooling with one of the longest, lowest recordings of sun spots and thus solar activity ever recorded by man when it is the very solar wind that brings warmth to our planet.

A drop in temperature of very small amounts due to the faux science of the Warmist flat Earth Religion could well lead to a crop collapse in marginal areas which are the great grain producers!

When I was born the population of this planet was about 2 Billion and now as it approaches 7 Billion we should in fact fear a drop in temperature which would leave several Billion starving and when hunger comes that strongly then famine stalks the plains setting man against man as he fights to feed himself and in surplus his family.

In EUrope alone you could reasonably see over 200 Million slaughtered and it matters little to the riders of The apocalypse what gender age or status they are the rich will die with the poor - It has happened before and the harbinger was the humble flea on the black rats that wiped out almost half the population with buebonic plague.

The dishonesty of Copenhagen beggars belief!

Will The EU last long enough to be destroyed by us or will events overtake it as it withers and dies in agony!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

There was and is only one target for the French and thier German brothers, the destruction of England.
They never forget, we freed them 4 times from tyranny and handed then thier country back.... generorsity is always costly.

Originally Posted by Tete123

Do you actually hold these views or are they just what you perceive the stereotypical left wing opinion to be?

If a company were to receive a rebate on their corporation tax they may be able to lower the cost of the product or service and pass this saving to the customer (maybe one of those poverty stricken souls you often speak of) whereas, if the company in question, in their desire to be environmentally friendly is taxed at an increased rate what do you think happens to the cost of the product or service and who eventually pays for it?

Nah, just tax them then the government can spend the money, instead of just giving consumers tiny savings.
These compaies can have a shiny gold star and be happy with it.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Nah, just tax them then the government can spend the money, instead of just giving consumers tiny savings.
These compaies can have a shiny gold star and be happy with it.

You appear to have absolutely zero concept about financial and economic forces and how they work in the marketplace! Perhaps I should also add that despite being told the same thing over and over, you seem to have no will to learn or understand about them either! All you do is just keep on repeating the same old "tax, tax, tax".

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Nah, just tax them then the government can spend the money, instead of just giving consumers tiny savings.
These compaies can have a shiny gold star and be happy with it.

Politicians nor Governments have no money, they only spend ours. With thier crappy degrees none of these bandits would ever get a well paid job in the real world.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

I'm starting to see it as inevitable!

IF the EU and this Anthropogenic Warmist Religion are not carefully and caringly dismantled there is every probability that it WILL lead to Civil War and famine, Wars of Dissassociation and the failure of the EU to feed its peoples.

That could well account for some 200,000,000 lives lost in EUrope alone, setting us back to at best The Middle Ages as there would be little hope of our clean water systems, sewage sustems and power grid surviving - technology would be an early victim.

It will take little more than a random shooting in Sarajevo! I believe it will 'kick off' as a result of the increased Police Brutality and propensity for exacerbating problems to inculcate response and the willingness of even the British Police to form death squads and murder people in the street as they have done not infrequently in recent years.

We have infinitely more danger from our police and politicians than we have from ALL terrorists including the ones they invent!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Absolutely on the spot, but don't forget they are filling thier snouts at the trough as well

Originally Posted by Midas

You appear to have absolutely zero concept about financial and economic forces and how they work in the marketplace! Perhaps I should also add that despite being told the same thing over and over, you seem to have no will to learn or understand about them either! All you do is just keep on repeating the same old "tax, tax, tax".

Trading was trading until the creeps found out how to screw it. With of course political blessings.

John Coleman | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Latest Headlines

8 minute video about CO2 / Global warming.

Originally Posted by Barry

John Coleman | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Latest Headlines

8 minute video about CO2 / Global warming.

Meaning exactly what? Visual media is from Hollywood. Did USA really land on the Moon - with one short step?

The planet has been cooling down for 11 years

"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

Although it does fluctuate, but the doom mongers like Brown and Obama tell us its spiralling out of control.

Originally Posted by newspresenter

The planet has been cooling down for 11 years

"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

Although it does fluctuate, but the doom mongers like Brown and Obama tell us its spiralling out of control.

Actually CO2 levels have not changed since 1942, but you are right not be bamboozzled by scientific balderdash.

Originally Posted by coalition

Actually CO2 levels have not changed since 1942, but you are right not be bamboozzled by scientific balderdash.

A study from the University of Bristol by Wolfgang Knorr proves that the airborne fraction of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) has not increased during the past 160 years.Mr Knorr, based at the Department of Earth Sciences at his university, analysed atmospheric CO2 and emissions data gathered since 1850 and has shown that “the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4 percent per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”
In other words, the data shows that there has been no increase in atmospheric CO2 volume for the past 160 years.
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub xmlns="">2</sub> emissions increasing?#

I notice in the news today that the climate tax invaders are having to track back, hopefully voters will be put off voting labour, conservative etc.

Originally Posted by newspresenter

A study from the University of Bristol by Wolfgang Knorr proves that the airborne fraction of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) has not increased during the past 160 years.Mr Knorr, based at the Department of Earth Sciences at his university, analysed atmospheric CO2 and emissions data gathered since 1850 and has shown that “the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4 percent per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”
In other words, the data shows that there has been no increase in atmospheric CO2 volume for the past 160 years.
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?#

I notice in the news today that the climate tax invaders are having to track back, hopefully voters will be put off voting labour, conservative etc.

That's not what it says at all. The study is related to the amount of CO2 that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems sequester (absorb) and how much remains in the atmosphere over a given period of time. It's the variance in this that that the report highlights, not the fact that there's been no increase in CO2 itself.

Originally Posted by newspresenter

A study from the University of Bristol by Wolfgang Knorr proves that the airborne fraction of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) has not increased during the past 160 years.Mr Knorr, based at the Department of Earth Sciences at his university, analysed atmospheric CO2 and emissions data gathered since 1850 and has shown that “the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4 percent per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”
In other words, the data shows that there has been no increase in atmospheric CO2 volume for the past 160 years.
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub xmlns="">2</sub> emissions increasing?#

I notice in the news today that the climate tax invaders are having to track back, hopefully voters will be put off voting labour, conservative etc.

Secure in the certain knowledge of no meaningful investigation, punishment, retaliation or even contradiction will interrupt their lying odessay, the Queen's political, civil and executive are immersed in a culture of dishonesty that would make living in Sudan seem almost an option.
LIARS LIARS AND DEMENTED FANTASISTS

I haven't read all this thread, I don't need to. The title asks a question, so here is my answer, based on a scientific and logical background.

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

For the last three decades there has been a lot of discussion on the subject of global warming, and the cause has been sat firmly in the lap of Industrialisation and the pollution of the atmosphere as a by-product of this process.

Billions have been spent by Governments, companies and even individuals during this time as their part in alleviating this perceived threat to our future, but the simple fact is the perceived evidence is all circumstantial, there is actually no direct evidence, no smoking gun, no sign saying “ I told you so”. Much of the evidence has been tailored to fit the hypothesis, or so it would seem, with funding for research under increasing competition and tighter budgets, it would be little wonder if many of the researchers have been blinded to allow the evidence to fit their theory to coincide with their way of thinking, their research project and most importantly, the financial considerations of maintaining a research grant.

This statement should not be taken as questioning the research of every scientist in their field, or that any deliberate attempt to mislead has occurred, scientists are human like the rest of us, they make mistakes, they lean toward their own way of thinking and have a nasty habit of ignoring the little bits of evidence that do not fit their theory, especially if they question otherwise supposedly established facts.

That global warming has occurred is not the issue, it has in the past, it may be occurring now, and it certainly will occur in the future, as has global cooling, however, the question that we need answered is this, “Is the activities of Man the cause of Global warming as has been claimed in the last two decades, if not, what is the cause, and what can we do about it?”

I don’t want readers to think I am in the pay of some large organisation bent on reversing the drive by the International community in the form of the Kyoto Treaty, there are very many reasons for the actions in this treaty to be taken, Global warming is, in my opinion, the least of the problems. The health benefits of not pouring millions of tonnes of noxious pollutants into the atmosphere cannot be understated, and as such the progress made so far needs to be expanded upon still further. There can never be a substitute for clean, pollutant free air.

Whilst the Kyoto Treaty is a good thing and should be continued, it must be done for the right reasons, reasons we can readily identify with. Of course many will claim that there are health effects to global warming, the most obvious being skin cancers, however if we spend Billions over the next few decades addressing a problem that is natural, then we have missed the boat, we would be far better off spending those Billions improving the environment for health reasons alone, and a few more to counteract the natural process threatening our world.

Overwhelmingly the message seems to be coming out that there has been a massive misinterpretation of the evidence and "facts" and what we are seeing is simply a natural variation in the cycle of the planet. We should not forget that the Earth is much warmer than it was from around 1450 to about 1850, a period known as the little Ice Age, however it is also much colder than the period from about 900 to 1150, known as the Medieval Warm Period, where grapes for wine were grown as far north as Tyneside. During the Roman occupation, there is evidence that grapes may have been grown as far north as modern Edinburgh, possibly further.

There is evidence that parts of Queen Maud (Dronning Maud) Land in Antarctica may have actually been Ice free up to about 6000 BCE (Before Current Era), and if this is the case then the trans-Antarctic current, which stops warm water from the tropics reaching this part of Antarctica must have either stopped or been overwhelmed. Research has already proved that Western Antarctica, that includes Queen Maud Land has undergone repeated periods of de-glaciation during interglacial periods that had CO² concentrations higher than today with MGT's about 3°C higher than today

Environmentalists know very little about how the planet works, about how it interacts with the Moon, the Sun and how the gravity of Jupiter has an impact on our planet's motion about the Sun, that will also impact our climate. They do not understand that the collision of India into Asia, resulting in the Pamir-Hindu-Kush and the Tibetan uplands resulted in a massive climatic shift over millions of years that appears to have been responsible for the sudden climate shift about 2.5 million years ago that led to the modern period of Glaciation events that have come and gone about 10 times in that period.

They ignore the fact that the last period of Glaciation started some 74,000 years ago, coincidently with the eruption of the last super volcanic eruption (Toba) which would have resulted in a massive cooling of the planet.

The simple truth is there is no definitive evidence for anthropomorphic Global warming, but plenty of evidence for naturally induced fluctuations in the mean global temperature of the planet, and even periods when CO² level were higher than is the case today and even when they were not, the Earth has had many periods of higher temperatures.

Carbon Dioxide levels have fluctuated too over the course of Earth's history

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

And the almost religious belief that CO² alone causes temperature change in the atmosphere is shot down by geological evidence that many Environmentalist like to ignore.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Here is a graph giving similar information.



You can see that from the above there is more evidence for natural global climate variation than anthropogenic change.

I think that makes my feelings on this thorny subject abundantly clear.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

I haven't read all this thread, I don't need to. The title asks a question, so here is my answer, based on a scientific and logical background.

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

For the last three decades there has been a lot of discussion on the subject of global warming, and the cause has been sat firmly in the lap of Industrialisation and the pollution of the atmosphere as a by-product of this process.

Billions have been spent by Governments, companies and even individuals during this time as their part in alleviating this perceived threat to our future, but the simple fact is the perceived evidence is all circumstantial, there is actually no direct evidence, no smoking gun, no sign saying “ I told you so”. Much of the evidence has been tailored to fit the hypothesis, or so it would seem, with funding for research under increasing competition and tighter budgets, it would be little wonder if many of the researchers have been blinded to allow the evidence to fit their theory to coincide with their way of thinking, their research project and most importantly, the financial considerations of maintaining a research grant.

This statement should not be taken as questioning the research of every scientist in their field, or that any deliberate attempt to mislead has occurred, scientists are human like the rest of us, they make mistakes, they lean toward their own way of thinking and have a nasty habit of ignoring the little bits of evidence that do not fit their theory, especially if they question otherwise supposedly established facts.

That global warming has occurred is not the issue, it has in the past, it may be occurring now, and it certainly will occur in the future, as has global cooling, however, the question that we need answered is this, “Is the activities of Man the cause of Global warming as has been claimed in the last two decades, if not, what is the cause, and what can we do about it?”

I don’t want readers to think I am in the pay of some large organisation bent on reversing the drive by the International community in the form of the Kyoto Treaty, there are very many reasons for the actions in this treaty to be taken, Global warming is, in my opinion, the least of the problems. The health benefits of not pouring millions of tonnes of noxious pollutants into the atmosphere cannot be understated, and as such the progress made so far needs to be expanded upon still further. There can never be a substitute for clean, pollutant free air.

Whilst the Kyoto Treaty is a good thing and should be continued, it must be done for the right reasons, reasons we can readily identify with. Of course many will claim that there are health effects to global warming, the most obvious being skin cancers, however if we spend Billions over the next few decades addressing a problem that is natural, then we have missed the boat, we would be far better off spending those Billions improving the environment for health reasons alone, and a few more to counteract the natural process threatening our world.

Overwhelmingly the message seems to be coming out that there has been a massive misinterpretation of the evidence and "facts" and what we are seeing is simply a natural variation in the cycle of the planet. We should not forget that the Earth is much warmer than it was from around 1450 to about 1850, a period known as the little Ice Age, however it is also much colder than the period from about 900 to 1150, known as the Medieval Warm Period, where grapes for wine were grown as far north as Tyneside. During the Roman occupation, there is evidence that grapes may have been grown as far north as modern Edinburgh, possibly further.

There is evidence that parts of Queen Maud (Dronning Maud) Land in Antarctica may have actually been Ice free up to about 6000 BCE (Before Current Era), and if this is the case then the trans-Antarctic current, which stops warm water from the tropics reaching this part of Antarctica must have either stopped or been overwhelmed. Research has already proved that Western Antarctica, that includes Queen Maud Land has undergone repeated periods of de-glaciation during interglacial periods that had CO² concentrations higher than today with MGT's about 3°C higher than today

Environmentalists know very little about how the planet works, about how it interacts with the Moon, the Sun and how the gravity of Jupiter has an impact on our planet's motion about the Sun, that will also impact our climate. They do not understand that the collision of India into Asia, resulting in the Pamir-Hindu-Kush and the Tibetan uplands resulted in a massive climatic shift over millions of years that appears to have been responsible for the sudden climate shift about 2.5 million years ago that led to the modern period of Glaciation events that have come and gone about 10 times in that period.

They ignore the fact that the last period of Glaciation started some 74,000 years ago, coincidently with the eruption of the last super volcanic eruption (Toba) which would have resulted in a massive cooling of the planet.

The simple truth is there is no definitive evidence for anthropomorphic Global warming, but plenty of evidence for naturally induced fluctuations in the mean global temperature of the planet, and even periods when CO² level were higher than is the case today and even when they were not, the Earth has had many periods of higher temperatures.

Carbon Dioxide levels have fluctuated too over the course of Earth's history



And the almost religious belief that CO² alone causes temperature change in the atmosphere is shot down by geological evidence that many Environmentalist like to ignore.



Here is a graph giving similar information.



You can see that from the above there is more evidence for natural global climate variation than anthropogenic change.

I think that makes my feelings on this thorny subject abundantly clear.

Oh my! Where are all the Greeners going to get their TAXPAYERS HANDOUTS FROM NOW.

Originally Posted by coalition

Oh my! Where are all the Greeners going to get their TAXPAYERS HANDOUTS FROM NOW.

Have you ever known Government let the truth get in the way of a good jape to raise taxes?

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Have you ever known Government let the truth get in the way of a good jape to raise taxes?

Hi,

of stealing your article Jim, because I found it excellent I also stole the article from the Washington Times of the same date you can see both & LOADS more at CLICK HERE

Thanks for an excellent article stealing good quality comments always manages to make me look as if I know what I'm doing - I avoid the dross!

You will I believe find my old friend Richard's blog of intertest on this subject and much else at CLICK HERE

Enjoy and by the way Jim thanks.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

of stealing your article Jim, because I found it excellent I also stole the article from the Washington Times of the same date you can see both & LOADS more at CLICK HERE

Thanks for an excellent article stealing good quality comments always manages to make me look as if I know what I'm doing - I avoid the dross!

You will I believe find my old friend Richard's blog of intertest on this subject and much else at CLICK HERE

Enjoy and by the way Jim thanks.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Sorry Greg, I want you to remove that from your site. You should ask permission before committing plagiarism. Much of the material in that short piece is copyrighted as it is part of an upcoming book introduction and I certainly will not sanction it being used by someone else for their own gain, regardless of what that Gain is. Obviously the material at the end of links your free to use as you choose, but the actual words are mine and not up for discussion.

Hi,

thanks for the 'e'mail - I might not have seen your message here - I'm glad your agent made more reasonable comments - clearly in todays world the published word in this form is no longer sacrosanct as you have shown with articles you have lifted and published elsewhere - the nettiquette is that acknowledgement and attribution are considered apposite.

It has been shown conclusively that even the publishing of whole books on the internet enhances sales!

You note on my blogs I always attribute when source is identifiable.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Just so everyone Knows....Greg and I sorted this out...so carry on with the Global Warming scam discussion please...