Green tax revolt: Britons 'will not foot bill to save planet'

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no respect for popular media. Global warming stands on its SCIENTIFIC merit. And that is what I will point to. Those who keep pointing to endless 'opinion pieces' trying to claim that the stream of bullshit means something are the ones that depend on 'popular media' and its distortions.

will we still pay taxes even when it stops getting hotter?(like it has in the real world?) AGW has no scientific merit, being the invention of a failed quack politician .

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
I did read it, its not an argument its drivel.
Are you trying to convince me or convince yourself?
I would be convinced by logical arguments based on real world facts. You seem to be attempting to argue based on rhetoric alone, poor rhetoric at that, sorry mate you need to do better.

You are confusing your "facts" with dogma. And besides, the dogma does not match the 25 years of preditions evidence.
When will we be experiencing this predicted crisis and have you any pesonal experience with global warming? What has it done to you are anyone in the last 25 years?

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>it is rather confused thinking to get the war and global warming muddled up together. They are different issues. My post quoted a poll, which shows that people are not willing to pay extra taxes for "AGW". It also showed that you are wrong , and 2 out of 3 people think the idea that GW is caused by is is NOT TRUE .

Really? The only direct question addressing this from the UK article resulted in the answer "One in 10 said that they believed that climate change is totally natural."

Worldwide polls have revealed that the vast majority understand that human activity is at least a significant cause of global warming (78-17 in Great Britain and 71-24 in the US, 79-14 average). A whole host of questions back public awareness. Although a strong majority favor action in the US, the minority public opposition is stronger than average here. Certain industries and ideologues have managed to create some doubt on the science.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/de...

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articl...

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Although a strong majority favor action in the US, the minority public opposition is stronger than average here. Certain industries and ideologues have managed to create some doubt on the science.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/de...
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articl...

One more time:

Science is about hypothesis and experiment.

Politics is about polls and opinions.

Polling to show that people have the opinion that global warming is human caused is not the same as conducting actual scientific experiments to show global warming is human caused.

Scientists always argue the scientific data.

Activists always argue polls, opinions, and consensus.

The Respected Doofinator

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
One more time:
Science is about hypothesis and experiment.
Politics is about polls and opinions.
Polling to show that people have the opinion that global warming is human caused is not the same as conducting actual scientific experiments to show global warming is human caused.
Scientists always argue the scientific data.
Activists always argue polls, opinions, and consensus.
The Respected Doofinator

Since you posted this thread about alleged public opinion, by your definition, you're an anti-science activist. So is MrGiblets. Bravo.

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you posted this thread about alleged public opinion, by your definition, you're an anti-science activist. So is MrGiblets. Bravo.

And you are an impressionable, lemming like, naive and conformist slave to the dogma of one of the most embarrassing myths that humans have ever conceived.
Happy Birthday Global Warming: 25 years.
Any party plans?

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
And you are an impressionable, lemming like, naive and conformist slave to the dogma of one of the most embarrassing myths that humans have ever conceived.
Happy Birthday Global Warming: 25 years.
Any party plans?

How's the Flat Earth Society these days?

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
How's the Flat Earth Society these days?

How's the drought of substance table pounding?

"A favourite phrase I’ve heard from lawyers is, "If you have a good case, pound the case; if you have a bad case, pound the table." If you hear that people are pounding the table, it indicates they don’t have very good arguments."

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001dec...

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you posted this thread about alleged public opinion, by your definition, you're an anti-science activist.

Oh dear!

Does that mean I have to report myself to the university and turn in my diploma?

The Respected Doofinator

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>it is rather confused thinking to get the war and global warming muddled up together.

Exactly. Talking about POLITICS means you have to deal with PEOPLE and they are NOT SCIENCE.

My opinion as to why they are 'lashing out' at the GW issue is quite clear and while it may be true, false, or somewhere in between ( percentage-wise) it is a valid comment.

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are confusing your "facts" with dogma. And besides, the dogma does not match the 25 years of preditions evidence.
When will we be experiencing this predicted crisis and have you any pesonal experience with global warming? What has it done to you are anyone in the last 25 years?

What defines a fact and what defines a dogma?

and your statement about predictions being off for the last 25 years is incorrect.

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
How's the drought of substance table pounding?
"A favourite phrase I’ve heard from lawyers is, "If you have a good case, pound the case; if you have a bad case, pound the table." If you hear that people are pounding the table, it indicates they don’t have very good arguments."
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001dec...

A favorite phrase I've heard from a scientist, regarding denialists, is "They argue not as scientists but as lawyers. When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion ... Their purpose is to confuse, so that the public gets the idea that there is a raging scientific debate. There is no raging scientific debate."

- Dr. Pieter Tans

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
A favorite phrase I've heard from a scientist, regarding denialists, is "They argue not as scientists but as lawyers. When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion ... Their purpose is to confuse, so that the public gets the idea that there is a raging scientific debate. There is no raging scientific debate."
- Dr. Pieter Tans

Here's some background on Tans.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/a...

It appears that he is a member of the James Hansen warming quack junta, boring from within the gubbermint politicized "science" establishment.

His job, apparently, was to measure CO2, but instead, he decided on his own to make policy on climate change for the Unites States government.

The Respected Doofinator

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's some background on Tans.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/a...
It appears that he is a member of the James Hansen warming quack junta, boring from within the gubbermint politicized "science" establishment.
His job, apparently, was to measure CO2, but instead, he decided on his own to make policy on climate change for the Unites States government.
The Respected Doofinator

This is excellent example of government officials trying to prevent scientists from speaking out on the topic. Loud public commentary is no a problem for industry-sponsored cranks.

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
This is excellent example of government officials trying to prevent scientists from speaking out on the topic. Loud public commentary is no a problem for industry-sponsored cranks.

What would the climate have to do to change your mind about the theory?

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
What would the climate have to do to change your mind about the theory?

What would the climate have to do to change your mind?

Wraaack!

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
What facts? You are making claims based on your own delusions. Or are you such an accomplished 'mind reader'?
And GW is real. Most people in the U.K. seem to recognise it. The costs of the war are far in excess of the costs of green initiatives. The use of it as the 'issue' is because it is safer and less danger than speaking out against war.

your maths is bad - "Most people " seems to be only 1/3 of the people in this poll. As 2/3 of them said they DON'T believe it, that is a strange way of saying they do.

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
What defines a fact and what defines a dogma?
and your statement about predictions being off for the last 25 years is incorrect.

none of you have ever made a single prediction that has come true. No weather forecaster can predict more then 2 or 3 weeks ahead (Lorenz) and all climatologists are glorified weather forecasters.

mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>none of you have ever made a single prediction that has come true. No weather forecaster can predict more then 2 or 3 weeks ahead (Lorenz) and all climatologists are glorified weather forecasters.

Weather isn't climate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forec...

mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>your maths is bad - "Most people " seems to be only 1/3 of the people in this poll. As 2/3 of them said they DON'T believe it, that is a strange way of saying they do.

Quote it. From the poll cited here,

"One in 10 said that they believed that climate change is totally natural."

Other polls:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/de...

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articl...