UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[henry]

AGW could/would tend to cause cooling in NW Europe
by permanently weakening the N Atlantic Gyre (this anyway is at its weakest for 1000 years

I’m not sure that a weakened Gulf Stream would necessarily cool Northern Europe if it were carrying warmer water. It’s slowed markedly in the last 150 years but ocean temperature has risen.

If it stops then it will get colder in Northern Europe, much colder. That’s a risk we shouldn’t really be taking.

[strad]

I agree. It baffles me. Even more, what incentive would the IPCC have to be biased towards climate change?
Politicians have nothing to gain from climate change - in fact, they have a lot to lose. It's going to be an immensely expensive exercise, whether they opt for transitioning to a sustainable economy or for repairing the damage as it comes along, and being in favor of climate regulation is not exactly a vote magnet; on the contrary. If an inter-governmental panel would be biased towards anything, it would make more sense if it was biased to denial. The current IPCC argument to me makes as much sense as stating that research linking smoking and cancer would be biased towards that connection, if it were funded by tobacco companies.

That's totally disingenuous. You know perfectly well what's in it for them.
Also....This thread may have started as a UK oriented thread but it has been turned into a Global Warming thread, which affects us all.

[Andres125sx]

I agree. It baffles me. Even more, what incentive would the IPCC have to be biased towards climate change?
Politicians have nothing to gain from climate change - in fact, they have a lot to lose. It's going to be an immensely expensive exercise, whether they opt for transitioning to a sustainable economy or for repairing the damage as it comes along, and being in favor of climate regulation is not exactly a vote magnet; on the contrary. If an inter-governmental panel would be biased towards anything, it would make more sense if it was biased to denial. The current IPCC argument to me makes as much sense as stating that research linking smoking and cancer would be biased towards that connection, if it were funded by tobacco companies.

That's totally disingenuous. You know perfectly well what's in it for them.

I´ve asked repeteadly, and you and some others CC denials have always dodged the question as you know those supposed interests are laughable compared to oil companies interests and your own country economical interest, so for your own peace of mind you´ve always ignored any question at the respect

And now you dare to accuse others of what you´ve been doing repeatedly? Wow

[Andres125sx]

it's often just arguing as sport.

I think we have quite a bit of that here.

Indeed

Since some can only argue and not discuss I think this thread should be permanently locked.

The discussion is disturbing you that much? not surprising sincerely, but this is a discussion forum, if you don´t like it you´re free to not enter

[DChemTech]

I agree. It baffles me. Even more, what incentive would the IPCC have to be biased towards climate change?
Politicians have nothing to gain from climate change - in fact, they have a lot to lose. It's going to be an immensely expensive exercise, whether they opt for transitioning to a sustainable economy or for repairing the damage as it comes along, and being in favor of climate regulation is not exactly a vote magnet; on the contrary. If an inter-governmental panel would be biased towards anything, it would make more sense if it was biased to denial. The current IPCC argument to me makes as much sense as stating that research linking smoking and cancer would be biased towards that connection, if it were funded by tobacco companies.

That's totally disingenuous. You know perfectly well what's in it for them.
Also....This thread may have started as a UK oriented thread but it has been turned into a Global Warming thread, which affects us all.

No strad, I do not know what's in it for them, so why don't you tell me instead of trying to dodge the discussion with a personal accusation.

Do you mean "they benefit because they can increase taxes"? (because i've heard that argument from others). Politicians don't like raising taxes - it costs votes, and their salary hinges on vote levels, not tax levels.

Do you mean there are now parties that do gain votes from supporting climate change? Sure, but that's a relatively new development - and the counter movement is as large. In the Netherlands, the climate denying FvD won much more than the greens last election. For all the mainstream parties, the ones actually in power and not being on either extreme on the issue, the time of denialism is over - but they are all very much on downplaying the cost. So they also have no use for IPCC alarmism.

Do you mean direct payments to politicians? Lobbying budgets of companies that have no use for climate change are substantially higher than of those that do.

So please, let me know why governments would be interested in biasing towards climate change.

And do note that that in itself does not indicate the IPCC is actually biased. For that, you would actually have to show bias in the report itself. An incentive might be an explanation for observed bias, but is no evidence by itself. Now I've seen plenty of claims of bias (often without substantiated incentive), but never are they ever supported by any convincing evidence of it.

As for the 'change of topic', I think the first sentence of the opening post of this topic substantiates that this, to an extent, has been a GW topic all along. One of the prime objections to the UK regulation seems to be the validity of the underlying reason - which is now being discussed.

[Jolle]

I agree. It baffles me. Even more, what incentive would the IPCC have to be biased towards climate change?
Politicians have nothing to gain from climate change - in fact, they have a lot to lose. It's going to be an immensely expensive exercise, whether they opt for transitioning to a sustainable economy or for repairing the damage as it comes along, and being in favor of climate regulation is not exactly a vote magnet; on the contrary. If an inter-governmental panel would be biased towards anything, it would make more sense if it was biased to denial. The current IPCC argument to me makes as much sense as stating that research linking smoking and cancer would be biased towards that connection, if it were funded by tobacco companies.

That's totally disingenuous. You know perfectly well what's in it for them.
Also....This thread may have started as a UK oriented thread but it has been turned into a Global Warming thread, which affects us all.

No strad, I do not know what's in it for them, so why don't you tell me instead of trying to dodge the discussion with a personal accusation.

Do you mean "they benefit because they can increase taxes"? (because i've heard that argument from others). Politicians don't like raising taxes - it costs votes, and their salary hinges on vote levels, not tax levels.

Do you mean there are now parties that do gain votes from supporting climate change? Sure, but that's a relatively new development - and the counter movement is as large. In the Netherlands, the climate denying FvD won much more than the greens last election. For all the mainstream parties, the ones actually in power and not being on either extreme on the issue, the time of denialism is over - but they are all very much on downplaying the cost. So they also have no use for IPCC alarmism.

Do you mean direct payments to politicians? Lobbying budgets of companies that have no use for climate change are substantially higher than of those that do.

So please, let me know why governments would be interested in biasing towards climate change.

And do note that that in itself does not indicate the IPCC is actually biased. For that, you would actually have to show bias in the report itself. An incentive might be an explanation for observed bias, but is no evidence by itself. Now I've seen plenty of claims of bias (often without substantiated incentive), but never are they ever supported by any convincing evidence of it.

As for the 'change of topic', I think the first sentence of the opening post of this topic substantiates that this, to an extent, has been a GW topic all along. One of the prime objections to the UK regulation seems to be the validity of the underlying reason - which is now being discussed.

The Dutch FvD party is a very good example how climate change denial benefits. Next to this denial they want normal trading relations with Russia (after the invasion of the Krim and the downing of MR17), to open the market for Gazprom, destabilizing Europe (following Brexit with Nexit) and a tax cut for the rich by 27,5 %.

So, yes. It’s a straight line from climate change denial to how to benefit from that.

They gain voters by telling everybody that immigrants are scary. Rings a bell?

[DChemTech]

That's totally disingenuous. You know perfectly well what's in it for them.
Also....This thread may have started as a UK oriented thread but it has been turned into a Global Warming thread, which affects us all.

No strad, I do not know what's in it for them, so why don't you tell me instead of trying to dodge the discussion with a personal accusation.

Do you mean "they benefit because they can increase taxes"? (because i've heard that argument from others). Politicians don't like raising taxes - it costs votes, and their salary hinges on vote levels, not tax levels.

Do you mean there are now parties that do gain votes from supporting climate change? Sure, but that's a relatively new development - and the counter movement is as large. In the Netherlands, the climate denying FvD won much more than the greens last election. For all the mainstream parties, the ones actually in power and not being on either extreme on the issue, the time of denialism is over - but they are all very much on downplaying the cost. So they also have no use for IPCC alarmism.

Do you mean direct payments to politicians? Lobbying budgets of companies that have no use for climate change are substantially higher than of those that do.

So please, let me know why governments would be interested in biasing towards climate change.

And do note that that in itself does not indicate the IPCC is actually biased. For that, you would actually have to show bias in the report itself. An incentive might be an explanation for observed bias, but is no evidence by itself. Now I've seen plenty of claims of bias (often without substantiated incentive), but never are they ever supported by any convincing evidence of it.

As for the 'change of topic', I think the first sentence of the opening post of this topic substantiates that this, to an extent, has been a GW topic all along. One of the prime objections to the UK regulation seems to be the validity of the underlying reason - which is now being discussed.

The Dutch FvD party is a very good example how climate change denial benefits. Next to this denial they want normal trading relations with Russia (after the invasion of the Krim and the downing of MR17), to open the market for Gazprom, destabilizing Europe (following Brexit with Nexit) and a tax cut for the rich by 27,5 %.

So, yes. It’s a straight line from climate change denial to how to benefit from that.

They gain voters by telling everybody that immigrants are scary. Rings a bell?

I'm not sure if your response is addressed to me Jolle - to clarify:
Strad was saying there is an obvious reason for politicians to be biased in favor of climate change, which I don't agree with. It is, as you state and which I was trying to make clear in the above, more sensible for politicians to be biased against climate change. Which is why it baffles me so much that people are frequently stating that the IPCC report is biased (towards CC) and disregarding it on that assertion. There is no incentive for such a bias, quite the contrary.

[Jolle]

No strad, I do not know what's in it for them, so why don't you tell me instead of trying to dodge the discussion with a personal accusation.

Do you mean "they benefit because they can increase taxes"? (because i've heard that argument from others). Politicians don't like raising taxes - it costs votes, and their salary hinges on vote levels, not tax levels.

Do you mean there are now parties that do gain votes from supporting climate change? Sure, but that's a relatively new development - and the counter movement is as large. In the Netherlands, the climate denying FvD won much more than the greens last election. For all the mainstream parties, the ones actually in power and not being on either extreme on the issue, the time of denialism is over - but they are all very much on downplaying the cost. So they also have no use for IPCC alarmism.

Do you mean direct payments to politicians? Lobbying budgets of companies that have no use for climate change are substantially higher than of those that do.

So please, let me know why governments would be interested in biasing towards climate change.

And do note that that in itself does not indicate the IPCC is actually biased. For that, you would actually have to show bias in the report itself. An incentive might be an explanation for observed bias, but is no evidence by itself. Now I've seen plenty of claims of bias (often without substantiated incentive), but never are they ever supported by any convincing evidence of it.

As for the 'change of topic', I think the first sentence of the opening post of this topic substantiates that this, to an extent, has been a GW topic all along. One of the prime objections to the UK regulation seems to be the validity of the underlying reason - which is now being discussed.

The Dutch FvD party is a very good example how climate change denial benefits. Next to this denial they want normal trading relations with Russia (after the invasion of the Krim and the downing of MR17), to open the market for Gazprom, destabilizing Europe (following Brexit with Nexit) and a tax cut for the rich by 27,5 %.

So, yes. It’s a straight line from climate change denial to how to benefit from that.

They gain voters by telling everybody that immigrants are scary. Rings a bell?

I'm not sure if your response is addressed to me Jolle - to clarify:
Strad was saying there is an obvious reason for politicians to be biased in favor of climate change, which I don't agree with. It is, as you state and which I was trying to make clear in the above, more sensible for politicians to be biased against climate change. Which is why it baffles me so much that people are frequently stating that the IPCC report is biased (towards CC) and disregarding it on that assertion. There is no incentive for such a bias, quite the contrary.

Just adding to your post how connected climate change denial parties and their direct benefits are.

[DChemTech]

Clear, I misinterpreted

[Tommy Cookers]

ANNOUNCEMENT

it has become clear even to me that .....
what Andres posts appears to me as inflammatory nonsense and what I post appears to him as inflammatory nonsense

so I have now opted to avoid seeing his posts
hopefully this should break this unfortunate cycle and be of some benefit to everyone

[strad]

Why?
Because the solutions to climate change involve new ways of expanding the governments regulatory and taxing roles. Spurred by the supposed urgency of climate change. Quite simply they can use it to expand their power and politicians always seek more power. Surely even you will admit that.

[DChemTech]

Strad: Well, sure, but at the cost of similar roles on fossil markets - so that seems to be tit for tat to me. However, in the process you do risk losing support of corporations (the sectors harmed by climate action are much more organized and well endowed than companies benefiting from said action), as well as the voter - as noted before, they do not seem to keen on far-reaching climate action. And in the end, in a democracy the voter determines whether or not you can exercise power. So to me, the whole power reasoning seems quite, eh, contrived. It's also not really supported by the notion that all across the board, governments are exhibiting restraint or even outright denial when it comes to accepting climate change and related litigation - seeking to protect the needs of existing industry and the convenient lifestyle of their voter base. The exception are of course the green parties -but there are few places where they are in power. So the idea that behind this masquerade the same parties are actually deliberately influencing climate research towards climate change (with what budget, anyway), at the risk of losing it all to the greens... that idea simply does not land.

Tommy: So, somebody asking you to understandably support rather far-fetched claims is inflammatory nowadays? Blocking someone for challenging your statements in a discussion you yourself started, even. Now the topic might have drifted more towards the underlying reasons for regulations than regulation itself, but retracting yourself into your echo chamber and outright ignoring things that challenge your beliefs just seems childish. It also does not strengthen your position; it gives the feeling you just want to vent your frustrations about a world that's changing in a direction that you dislike, rather than have an honest discussion about how to best deal with that - in which case I might even be on your side when it comes to hydrocarbon fueled traffic for certain applications.

[Andres125sx]

Why?
Because the solutions to climate change involve new ways of expanding the governments regulatory and taxing roles. Spurred by the supposed urgency of climate change. Quite simply they can use it to expand their power and politicians always seek more power. Surely even you will admit that.

Expanding governments regulatory and taxing roles? About taxing roles, agree, but to finance the huge investments wich are needed, so I can´t see how that may benefit any government. I don´t think any new tax will expand any government power sincerely, taxes are probably one of the main arguments in campaigns to earn votes, but claiming they´ll reduce it, not the other way around. Maybe I didn´t get what you mean, because if I got it I can´t see the logic here

About regulatory, governments legislate about everything so I can´t see any difference. Banning has always been the opposite to electioneering

[Just_a_fan]

Andres, you need to remember that Strad is a resident of the USA, and residents of the USA are traditionally against "big government". That's not an attack, Strad, it's just an observation for Andres to help him understand differences in approach.

I admit now that I know nothing about US personal tax, so I have no idea how it compares to similar economies elsewhere. But as the US spends a huge amount on military funding, I'm guessing the Government takes a big chunk of a person's income.

We all need to remember that just because we are using a single language in this discussion (thank you to those using English even though it is not their first language), there are some hugely different cultural differences informing individual positions.

[DChemTech]

As far as I know, the highest US tax bracket is 37% - equal to the lowest Dutch bracket. (I'm not sure if there are state income taxes too though?) So it seems that their tax rates are manageable - the difference is probably mostly in lower expenses on social security and so on. But yeah, taxation is a hot topic in the US - one that again would more logically lead to a bias against rather than towards climate change (as is evident from the current US government). But in any case, an incentive for a bias in itself is no proof of a bias - such proof can only be supplied based on the data in the report itself.