PowerSwitch

In your front page (http://teqs.net/index.html) you make this assertion:

"There is the climate problem: oil, gas and coal produce the greenhouse gases that are changing our climate. This is already killing many species and 150,000 people each year, and is only getting worse, with the potential to hit unstoppable runaway conditions within a decade."

Can you provide any evidence (rather than conjecture) to support these claims?

[Bandidoz - edited title to remove ambiguity]

An Inspector Calls wrote:In your front page (http://teqs.net/index.html) you make this assertion:

"There is the climate problem: oil, gas and coal produce the greenhouse gases that are changing our climate. This is already killing many species and 150,000 people each year, and is only getting worse, with the potential to hit unstoppable runaway conditions within a decade."

Can you provide any evidence (rather than conjecture) to support these claims?

Dear Inspector,

you'll notice that the URL you quote is for a different website, the TEQ website. This is the Powerswitch website, which hosts a range of energy-related forums, including a forum to discuss TEQs.

I realise you may not understand much about the interweb, but if you have a question concerning material on the *TEQ website* and are addressing the query to the people running that site (and your question does appear to be addressed to the people running that site), would it not be more sensible to contact the people running the TEQ website themselves, via their Contact Us page? If you want an answer from them, that is.

Yes, I spotted the dichotomy, as you would no doubt put it, but since the TEQ site links on repeated occassions to this, I assumed someone here could support the claims.

Hm... The TEQ site does actually have this paragraph:

You may also be interested to take a look at our TEQs FAQs section, come to an event, or join the discussions in our TEQs forum (hosted by PowerSwitch).

"TEQs forum" links to the TEQs topic on PS. Bit cheeky, that, isn't it? Certainly misleading.

An Inspector Calls wrote:In your front page (http://teqs.net/index.html) you make this assertion:

"There is the climate problem: oil, gas and coal produce the greenhouse gases that are changing our climate. This is already killing many species and 150,000 people each year, and is only getting worse, with the potential to hit unstoppable runaway conditions within a decade."

Can you provide any evidence (rather than conjecture) to support these claims?

Welcome back, MacG.

An Inspector Calls wrote:Yes, I spotted the dichotomy, as you would no doubt put it, but since the TEQ site links on repeated occassions to this, I assumed someone here could support the claims.

It's not "the dichotomy".

If you want to talk about TEQs with a bunch of other people from wherever, on a forum (who have no responsibility for the website you refer to, or its content), post here.

If you want your question answered by someone who runs the TEQ website about content on the TEQ website (which is what you indicated you wanted in your original post), contact TEQ HQ, details clearly stated on the TEQ website Contact Us page.

Alternatively, you could always try and persuade the peeps at the OED to revise their definitions of 'you' and 'your'....

Inspector, if you really want information on Climate Science I would suggest you go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and have a look through the information available there. They are full time climate scientists and will answer your questions far better than we can here. After all it is better to get your info straight from the horses mouth.

There are plenty of threads on this site where climate science has been picked over to the bone if you want to get an idea of what the arguments are and there are also loads of references to more technical websites. If you really want to know, read first then come back with particular questions. If you just want to waste our time with specious points of no particular validity, please go away (I'm being polite).

Ok, so no one here knows what underpins one of the justifications for considering TEQs.

Neither do I.

Who's MacG when he's (she's) at home?

Did you try looking it up? Sticking "150,000 people climate", "runaway climate decade" or "killing species climate" into Google? There's lots of literature out there.

Anyway, we have the Climate Change Act which mandates 80% cuts from 1990 by 2050. TEQs is just a framework for delivering what's already on the statute.

An Inspector Calls sort of wrote:TEQs website claims climate change killing 150,000 people each year

I'm a fan of TEQs, but would be concerned about *any* website making such a claim.

Bandidoz wrote:

An Inspector Calls sort of wrote:TEQs website claims climate change killing 150,000 people each year

I'm a fan of TEQs, but would be concerned about *any* website making such a claim.

It's from the World Health Organisation. As clv101 says, it's both easily Googlable (if that's a word!) and not a necessary underpinning for TEQs. As Kenneal says, if you want to debate climate science itself, there are far better venues.

Ludwig wrote:Hm... The TEQ site does actually have this paragraph:

You may also be interested to take a look at our TEQs FAQs section, come to an event, or join the discussions in our TEQs forum (hosted by PowerSwitch).

"TEQs forum" links to the TEQs topic on PS. Bit cheeky, that, isn't it? Certainly misleading.

Not misleading at all. As agreed with PowerSwitch, it links to the dedicated TEQs forum, which is hosted on the PowerSwitch site.

Hi Shaun

I suggest you modify the wording then to indicate that it's a WHO statement rather than an assertion of your own.

Bandidoz wrote:Hi Shaun

I suggest you modify the wording then to indicate that it's a WHO statement rather than an assertion of your own.

Fair enough. Although the TEQs front page will be changing anyway v soon.

Cheers,
Shaun

TEQ is junk compared to high flat redistributed tax à la Hansen

Plus if they don't even have the balls to refer to peak oil regarding the necessity to reduce our consumption, it is yet another reason to discard this proposal. (and I'm not an AGW denier at all)

TEQs are crap, just like CCS is crap for instance (for other reasons)

Alain75 wrote:TEQ is junk compared to high flat redistributed tax à la Hansen

At the moment I'm inclined to agree, with the proviso that the tax-and-redistribution process is transparent and simple enough that people can, from one annual "statement of account" and a few articles on the News, understand exactly what's going on.