Bonkers suggestion for slowing down ice sheet melt

[kenneal - lagger]

You really do read some shite to get your information, don't you woodburner, a right wing nutter news rag from Australia, one of the most polluting countries in the world.

What is wrong with a carbon tax of £150/tonne? We already have an EU Emissions Trading Scheme which has been fiddled by the EU and big business to give business a handout. We already pay high fuel duties. Most of the other stuff proposed is quite sensible when we face the loss of all the world's ports and coastal cities. What is the cost of that?

[emordnilap]

What is wrong with a carbon tax of £150/tonne?

Nothing. Too cheap if anything. My gripe would be the approach, not what price carbon is.

We don't actually need a "carbon price", What's required is a cap on CO2+e, the cap brought down year-on-year by around 4 or 5%.

I recall suggesting this to the Irish government back in the noughties and reducing it annually by 1%, which would have been a piece of piss at the time. Too sensible, I think the idea was.

[woodburner]

You really do read some shite to get your information, don't you woodburner, a right wing nutter news rag from Australia, one of the most polluting countries in the world.

What is wrong with a carbon tax of £150/tonne? We already have an EU Emissions Trading Scheme which has been fiddled by the EU and big business to give business a handout. We already pay high fuel duties. Most of the other stuff proposed is quite sensible when we face the loss of all the world's ports and coastal cities. What is the cost of that?

You really have an objectionable tone don’t you? How does this help present your case? Have you tried politeness? Did it work in those cases? (if you ever did of course). Everything you read is the gospel truth isn’t it? You have all the right answers so you probably listen to the UN who predicted the end of the world in 1989 would be 11 years. Then in 2006 Al Gore predicted the end in 10 years. Now we have a hysterical group who worship a Swedish girl with plaits, XR, and they are predicting the end in 10 years, or is it 12?

Well to believe all that, means being gullible. Some tripe that some like to believe

Try “polite’� instead of the usual abuse. Or perhaps you can’t.

[kenneal - lagger]

I tried being polite with you, woodburner, but it didn't work because you won't listen to science only to the outpourings of multinational corporations, fossil fuel billionaires and their paid lackeys who stand to lose a lot of money from a changing system. As you spout shite I will call it shite!

When you propagate lies why do you expect people to be polite? Where have XR, or anyone else for that matter, said that the end will be in 10 or 12 years? That is typical of you deniers. Pick on a statement and turn it into something that was not said. Why should you expect politeness?

People are saying that we have so many years to start to do something. The UN and most scientists are saying that we have until 2050 to turn the trajectory of energy use around. Other parties are saying, on the basis that governments which listen to the sort of trash that you spout, woodburner, aren't doing much, that we should get measures in place sooner than 2050 to make sure that we don't leave things too late.

Only lyers like you woodburner are saying that the end will come in 10 to 12 years.

[woodburner]

There you go again KL. Regardless of your beliefs, how ever well founded you believe them to be, you have a total intolerance for any view other than yours. You would do well to look at the history of the second world war, and particularly how Goebels manipulated propaganda. The strategy then was remarkably similar to the methods used by, for example, pharmaceutical companies and climate change proponents today. You know the sort of thing, those who don’t accept the propaganda are the enemy and must be destroyed. Well, I wonder what you will think when your version of utopia fails to materialise, again.

PS. never mind what total drivel the UN is spouting now, they spouted about a 10 year future, er, in 1989. So you will believe their latest pronouncement for what reason? Not because there is any substance behind it.

Have you heard of free speech? Or is that only what you are free to speak, and everyone else must believe it, and keep quiet? If they say anything else the question seems to be “how dare they�? Wonder who invented that one?

I haven’t said, ANYWHERE, the world (or whatever) will end in 12 years. You do seem to be in need of help. Is Al Gore, whom I assume you revere as he predicted the end years ago, not a fossil billionaire? He certainly has a lot of dosh, and uses far, far more energy in a year than most people do in a decade. What about Gail Bradbrooke? Not exactly down on her uppers, is she?

You might be surprised at my approach to energy use, but you ain’t getting the satisfaction of knowing the details. I’ll just leave you doing an online impression of Don Quixote dealing with windmills.

[kenneal - lagger]

There you go again KL. Regardless of your beliefs, how ever well founded you believe them to be, you have a total intolerance for any view other than yours. You would do well to look at the history of the second world war, and particularly how Goebels manipulated propaganda. The strategy then was remarkably similar to the methods used by, for example, pharmaceutical companies and climate change proponents today. You know the sort of thing, those who don’t accept the propaganda are the enemy and must be destroyed. Well, I wonder what you will think when your version of utopia fails to materialise, again.

There you go again, woodburner. Regardless of your beliefs, how ever well founded you believe them to be, you have a total intolerance for any view other than yours. You would do well to look at the history of the second world war, and particularly how Goebels manipulated propaganda. The strategy then was remarkably similar to the methods used by, for example, tobacco companies and fossil fuel funded climate change deniers today. You know the sort of thing, those who don’t accept the propaganda are the enemy and must be destroyed. Well, I wonder what you will think when your version of utopia fails to materialise, again.

PS. never mind what total drivel the UN is spouting now, they spouted about a 10 year future, er, in 1989. So you will believe their latest pronouncement for what reason? Not because there is any substance behind it.

There you go again, misquoting people. No one has ever said that the end will come in ten years. You find me a fully referenced exact quotation from a scientist who has ever said that.

Have you heard of free speech? Or is that only what you are free to speak, and everyone else must believe it, and keep quiet? If they say anything else the question seems to be “how dare they�? Wonder who invented that one?

I haven’t said, ANYWHERE, the world (or whatever) will end in 12 years. You do seem to be in need of help. Is Al Gore, whom I assume you revere as he predicted the end years ago, not a fossil billionaire? He certainly has a lot of dosh, and uses far, far more energy in a year than most people do in a decade. What about Gail Bradbrooke? Not exactly down on her uppers, is she?

I have heard of free speech and I fully support the concept. What I don't support is the propagation of lies and false insinuation such as you are doing here.

If you had done even a minimum of research you could have found that Al Gore's wealth is not founded on fossil fuels. You can read here where his money comes from, much of it from Apple Inc., and none from fossil fuels.

You seen to have given up trying to break the science behind the message, woodburner, and are now trying to shoot the messengers by spreading envy over their monetary means. This is what climate science deniers do all the time. With all their wealth and power you would have thought that they could have funded a massive research campaign to turn the currently accepted science on its head but have they done that?

No! And why? Because their own scientists told them fifty years ago that burning fossil fuels to the extent that the human race has in those years would cause climate change. They know the science isn't on their side so they fund political lobbying to convince politicians and gullible people like you, woodburner, that there is doubt about the science of climate change.

Meanwhile, the science learns more and that science is increasingly showing the correct basis of previous science but it is also showing that the problem is even worse than those previous studies claimed. The science shows that the pace of change is accelerating as more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. The science is showing that the window we have for action to be taken to mitigate future adverse climate effects is getting increasingly short. It is not showing that the world will end in 10 years instead of 30 years, indeed no scientist has ever said that the world will end, only you, woodburner, have said that people have said that among the many lies that you propagate.

You might be surprised at my approach to energy use, but you ain’t getting the satisfaction of knowing the details. I’ll just leave you doing an online impression of Don Quixote dealing with windmills.

I'm not particularly bothered about what you do with your life, apart from your spreading of lies and misinformation. And it is not me who tilts at windmills, I quite like them, it is you who is always doing that. Just another of your badly researched bits of misinformation, woodburner.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

I'm not particularly bothered about what you do with your life, apart from your spreading of lies and misinformation.

Goodness, telling someone they are spreading lies and misinformation? Off with their head! Arrest those peak oilers for being ignorant immediately!

[woodburner]

Here you go KL, listen to Benny Peiser. He knows more than you.

As for lies and mis-information, this inevitably comes from MSM and governments and think tanks. Meanwhile I get the accusations thrown at me, by the likes of you, not because I spread lies and mis-information, but because I question the propaganda. Still, you must continue to believe in the 97% of beings with some ill defined qualification agree with something, so they must be right, even if most of them didn’t say anything of the sort.

[kenneal - lagger]

I was looking for something else and the search came up with this old thread. So while I'm here ...

So who is this famous climate scientist, Dr Benny Peiser? Oh! he's not a climate scientist, he's a social anthropologist. What would he know about the intricacies of climate science? How would he have the time to do his own job, a climate scientist's job and run that awful propaganda machine, the Global Warming Policy Foundation for Lord Lawson? Even the name is an obfuscatory lie!!

And I do accept that he knows more about social anthropology than me. On climate science we are probably on a par.

Benny Josef Peiser is a social anthropologist specialising in the environmental and socio-economic impact of physical activity on health. He was a senior lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University and is a visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham.