Thank you Al Gore, I think I hate you!

Offy

Is it fair to blame Al Gore for the price of motoring? In his documentary he claimed that global warming is a result of the CO2 content in ozone and the more CO2 that is in the ozone means the more global warming will occur. According to Professor Richard Lindzen it’s the opposite way around. The more the globe warms up the more CO2 the oceans release. Yet the tax on my car is defined by its CO2 emissions. I pay nearly €900 per year because of this.

So who has it right and who has it wrong?

Richard Lindzen's scientific stance on climate change and anthropogenic global warming is that the earth goes through natural periods of global warming and cooling.
According to Dr. Lindzen, the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are problematic and limited because they are based on computer models which Lindzen says are "generally recognized as experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable."
Furthermore, Lindzen feels that the issue of global warming is completely political, and that policy makers and the media not only manipulate science but also force scientists to produce work that supports a particular agenda.

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

RichieC

Hmm... is it C02 in the Ozone? not sure about that.

Senna

You dont need to look that far away, the greens have added the most cost increases to motoring in the last few years.

biko

Cue global warming debate... lovely

Offy

RichieC wrote: »

Hmm... is it C02 in the Ozone? not sure about that.

Wherever it is, I dont really care where it is. I just want to know who has it right!

RichieC

biko wrote: »

Cue global warming debate... lovely

The debate is over actually, just a few stragglers who are buying the oil industries propaganda and of course those that profit directly from it.... the same people would have been defending Asbestos and lead in paint.

Captain Darling

I think Gore is super serial.

Deus Ex Machina

Al Gore will have to wait I'm afraid, I'm still stuck hating Dick Cheney.

gbee

This post is like someone waking up and asking what the 60s was like?

Alter-Ego

Offy wrote: »

Is it fair to blame Al Gore for the price of motoring? In his documentary he claimed that global warming is a result of the CO2 content in ozone and the more CO2 that is in the ozone means the more global warming will occur. According to Professor Richard Lindzen it’s the opposite way around. The more the globe warms up the more CO2 the oceans release. Yet the tax on my car is defined by its CO2 emissions. I pay nearly €900 per year because of this.

So who has it right and who has it wrong?

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

Pipe down and buy a Prius. :pac:

Sarn

No. Blame our government for the tax, duties etc. CO2 emissions being linked to car tax was just a smoke screen to get more cash out of us.

RichieC

Alter-Ego wrote: »

Pipe down and buy a Prius. :pac:

These fking things are half the problem... they give absolutely fk all savings, you average mechanic will look at you and say "que" when you arrive in and tell him it's a hybrid, so you end up spending more than if you just bought a nice MPG normal car.

I swear these fking things were released just to give green a bad name :mad:

gbee

RichieC wrote: »

just to give green a bad name :mad:

no, I contend they had a bad name long before the car arrived.

jimthemental

gbee wrote: »

no, I contend they had a bad name long before the car arrived.

Ya I remember that, wasn't "dirty hippies" what they were called?

Mike 1972

Offy wrote: »

Is it fair to blame Al Gore

Al Gore didnt invent climate change he just made a film about it

Offy wrote: »

Yet the tax on my car is defined by its CO2 emissions. I pay nearly €900 per year because of this

Smaller cars are available

RichieC

gbee wrote: »

no, I contend they had a bad name long before the car arrived.

I'm actually talking about green technology specifically.


I'm a humourless Vulcan on this subject.

Jesus Tittyfcuking Christ.

I hate it when people mix up the issues of ozone depletion and global warming.

Ozone depletion was the result of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) reacting with and destroying ozone (O3) in the upper atmosphere. As ozone absorbs UV radiation from the sun, its depletion was hazardous to life on earth. With the worldwide ban on CFCs the problem has mostly subsided.

Global warming refers to the mechanism whereby increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, by virtue of the fact that CO2 reflects infrared radiation from the earth, increase atmospheric temperature.

If people are going to argue against global warming they could at least learn the most basic facts about it.

OP may as well have said "I hate this whole wobal glarming thing".

Christ, just finished reading the OP. The theory he was trying to refer to by Prof Lindzen was that as the concentration of CO2 rises, the ocean would absorb more of it. However this would increase the acidity of the ocean, possibly to the point where calcium carbonate would dissolve, which would have catastrophic effects on the maritime food chain.

Anyhoo, the moral of the story here is that what the OP doesn't know about climate science could fill several libraries.

Turtyturd

Fianna Fail really missed out on an opportunity to tax farmers 900 euro a year per cow.

Bloody Nipples

Ha, AH is like a runaway train when these inflammatory topics come up.

ressem

Offy wrote: »

Is it fair to blame Al Gore for the price of motoring? In his documentary he claimed that global warming is a result of the CO2 content in ozone and the more CO2 that is in the ozone means the more global warming will occur. According to Professor Richard Lindzen it’s the opposite way around. The more the globe warms up the more CO2 the oceans release. Yet the tax on my car is defined by its CO2 emissions. I pay nearly €900 per year because of this.

So who has it right and who has it wrong?

Ummm... you? As penance go back and watch the film again.
It's each of CO2, water vapour, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide that are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The tax on how much water you breath out is in the supplementary April '11 budget.

RayM

Offy wrote: »

Yet the tax on my car is defined by its CO2 emissions. I pay nearly €900 per year because of this.

Oh, boo-hoo. It seems from your post that (like the vast majority of climate change deniers) you're a total ignoramus whose entire opinion on this topic revolves solely around the fact that he doesn't like having to pay higher tax for the privilege of swanning around in some fuel-guzzling twatmobile.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus Tittyfcuking Christ.

I hate it when people mix up the issues of ozone depletion and global warming.

Ozone depletion was the result of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) reacting with and destroying ozone (O3) in the upper atmosphere. As ozone absorbs UV radiation from the sun, its depletion was hazardous to life on earth. With the worldwide ban on CFCs the problem has mostly subsided.

Global warming refers to the mechanism whereby increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, by virtue of the fact that CO2 reflects infrared radiation from the earth, increase atmospheric temperature.

If people are going to argue against global warming they could at least learn the most basic facts about it.

OP may as well have said "I hate this whole wobal glarming thing".

Deleted User wrote: »

Christ, just finished reading the OP. The theory he was trying to refer to by Prof Lindzen was that as the concentration of CO2 rises, the ocean would absorb more of it. However this would increase the acidity of the ocean, possibly to the point where calcium carbonate would dissolve, which would have catastrophic effects on the maritime food chain.

Anyhoo, the moral of the story here is that what the OP doesn't know about climate science could fill several libraries.

And it took you 5 minutes?

RichieC

Nobody would listen to me if I started trying to posit theory's on Quantum electrodynamics, and you know why? I don't have a fking doctorate in that field.

Guess what... most of the "scientists" that are debunking Climate science aren't fking Climate scientists either. and how many are taking money off parties of interest that actually are?

seriously... read up on this sh*te, do your own research.

this is, to take a phrase from the internets, serious business.


I also agree though, that governments are using the research to scrounge more and more money from their citizens, but they are two totally different issues in my mind.

bleg

Senna wrote: »

You dont need to look that far away, the greens have added the most cost increases to motoring in the last few years.

Not true. The carbon tax adds a lot less than 10c to the price of petrol. The vast majority is ordinary excise duty and vat.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

And it took you 5 minutes?

I read the first sentence, which had CO2 and ozone next to each other. That needed instant correcting, and I assumed that one huge, fundamental error was enough for any one post to contain so went about explaing the difference for anyone that might like to know.

I later returned to read the rest of the OP to find another glaring factual inaccuracy, which I felt merited correction.

That and I'm a really slow reader.:)

leahyl

Captain Darling wrote: »

I think Gore is super serial.

EXCELSIOR!! I am SUPER serial!!

shadowninty

you have to tax something
better fossil fuel and fags than income, no?

RichieC

Global warming is also kind of a misnomer too, a bit like the "big bang" (was neither big nor a bang)... what it means in reality is more and more extremes from the seasons, colder winters, hotter summers, more storms and rising oceans. it baffles me that people feel they can risk our future as a species just to maintain our current and obviously untenable situation.

I understand there's a lot of folk that could give a christ how our children and their children will live, but the fact that it's actually a fking policy of the one country that uses TWICE the amount of oil per head of even a rather decadent country like our own... I find it sad and confusing..

It's also baffling that the loudest pricks in (US)America for censorship and "thinking of the children" are also statistically the least bothered about the state of our environment.

Ironing... as they say

zenno

RayM wrote: »

the fact that he doesn't like having to pay higher tax for the privilege of swanning around in some fuel-guzzling twatmobile.

it's quite obvious that this person ^^^ doesn't drive' or like driving. :eek: these so-called scientists used to call it global warming' now they call it climate change because global warming has been proved a false analogy. also the climate is always naturally changing and has been for millions of years. climate change is a scam.

zenno

zenno wrote: »

it's quite obvious that this person ^^^ doesn't drive' or like driving. :eek: these so-called scientists used to call it global warming' now they call it climate change because global warming has been proved a false analogy. also the climate is always naturally changing and has been for millions of years. climate change is a scam.

Even if you do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, surely you will agree that fossil fuels are a limited resource and as such should not be wasted. Some experts predict that peak oil could come as soon as 2020. Although it may not happen that soon it will almost certainly happen in our lifetime.

When the oil does run out, we will be very sorry that we wasted so much of this miracle fuel driving ridiculously oversize SUVs half a mile to the shop for a pint of milk.

When peak oil happens, it will happen fast, and as such we need to have alternative energy sources available and ready to fill the gap.

RichieC

zenno wrote: »

these so-called scientists used to call it global warming' now they call it climate change because global warming has been proved a false analogy.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


not that you'd be interested.

Son Of A Vidic

zenno wrote: »

also the climate is always naturally changing and has been for millions of years. climate change is a scam.

Indeed ice core sampling has shown the natural cycles of climate change going back hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 rises and CO2 falls, oh and guess what? Home Sapiens weren't even around

Corvus Maximus

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Indeed ice core sampling has shown the natural cycles of climate change going back hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 rises and CO2 falls, oh and guess what? Home Sapiens weren't even around

The velocity of change was far, far slower in previous cycles.

RichieC

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Indeed ice core sampling has shown the natural cycles of climate change going back hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 rises and CO2 falls, oh and guess what? Home Sapiens weren't even around

look at the link I just posted right above you.

no? not surprised...

digme

RichieC wrote: »

The debate is over actually, just a few stragglers who are buying the oil industries propaganda and of course those that profit directly from it.... the same people would have been defending Asbestos and lead in paint.

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming


Money money money...........................

Fallschirmjager

Offy wrote: »

Yet the tax on my car is defined by its CO2 emissions. I pay nearly €900 per year because of this.

you see the key word...TAX....its just another way to get your money. nothing more nothing less...the greens are yet another group who redistribute wealth.

i will bet you this...

lets assume everyone buys a prius (lest ignore their batteries and disposal)...do you seriously think that somehow the govt will then stop taxing you and do with less? do you think they will live with less petrol tax?


no they wont...lets guess..it will be another crisis...that needs urgent action, and only taxing you more can solve it

and as for the debate is over...NO it isnt...it is to people who have disposed of science utilising selective facts that suit their dogma-- and that applies to both sides by the way.

RichieC

digme wrote: »

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming


Money money money...........................

link me the actual study or don't bother mate....

digme

RichieC wrote: »

look at the link I just posted right above you.

no? not surprised...

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

those satellites were found to be faulty recently.

Seems a lot of people in this thread need to look up the meaning of "consensus" in the dictionary.

RichieC

digme wrote: »

those satellites were found to be faulty recently.

cite please.

digme

digme wrote: »

those satellites were found to be faulty recently.

By who? Any evidence at all to back this up? Oh and typing in bold does not make you right, it just makes you sound angry.

digme

RichieC wrote: »

link me the actual study or don't bother mate....

here you go "mate" enjoy

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html

ScumLord

The other great thing about climate change is it focuses every bodies attention away from all the actual damaging pollution that big companies do. They've managed to turn it back on everybody else by saying it's our fault for driving their cars.

All talk of human pollution has been reduced down to CO2, we're like mindless sheep jumping on whatever bandwagon the press drive by in.

Deleted User wrote: »

I read the first sentence, which had CO2 and ozone next to each other. That needed instant correcting, and I assumed that one huge, fundamental error was enough for any one post to contain so went about explaing the difference for anyone that might like to know.

I later returned to read the rest of the OP to find another glaring factual inaccuracy, which I felt merited correction.

That and I'm a really slow reader.:)

When I do that I usually go back to find the OP was only joking in the first line and I went off on one for no reason.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

When I do that I usually go back to find the OP was only joking in the first line and I went off on one for no reason.

Hmm, good point, will remember that in future, thankfully wasn't the case this time.

digme

RichieC wrote: »

cite please.

http://co2insanity.com/2010/08/19/leading-us-physicist-labels-satellitegate-scandal-a-%E2%80%98catastrophe%E2%80%99/

digme

digme wrote: »

here you go "mate" enjoy

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html

The solar cycle is around 11 years. Global warming refers to the increase in temerature since the industrial revolution. Anyway the models show that while the sun approaching solar max accounts for some of the heating, the rest is likely down to CO2.

"Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004." - from the link you posted.

RichieC

digme wrote: »

here you go "mate" enjoy

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html

I read that and honestly don't see where it at any point supports the climate change skeptic POV..

digme

digme wrote: »

http://co2insanity.com/2010/08/19/leading-us-physicist-labels-satellitegate-scandal-a-%E2%80%98catastrophe%E2%80%99/

Lol. CO2insanity.com. A nice unbiased source if ever there was one.

RichieC

digme wrote: »

http://co2insanity.com/2010/08/19/leading-us-physicist-labels-satellitegate-scandal-a-%E2%80%98catastrophe%E2%80%99/

C02insanity.com... jesus *****ng christ...

Son Of A Vidic

Deleted User wrote: »

The velocity of change was far, far slower in previous cycles.

Hey guess what? Ireland once had an Ice Age - mad isn't it? I wonder what caused this Ice Age. Did the Atlantic conveyor switch off or something? Jaysus what caused that I wonder? Because we certainly didn't.

The evidence is Hidden in plain site, Mother Earth has all the records it just depends how people wish to interpret them. Thanks to recent exposures, we all know how good some in the Climate change camp are at manipulating evidence.

RichieC wrote: »

look at the link I just posted right above you.

no? not surprised...

Ah poor oul NASA, with their space budget seriously snipped I suppose they need to hang on to some funding. Anyone remember their premature claims of Alien life back in the Nineties?